Whale wars

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Frosty, Dec 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    You have strange values. Personally, I think the lives of the people aboard those ships are worth more than the life of a whale. To believe otherwise smacks of fanaticism....

    Tell me: would you be quite so cavalier about the possibility of the Sea Shepherds wrecking the whalers and possibly killing the crews, if they were manned with Australians instead of Japanese?
     
  2. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    They eat whale, may not seem palatable to us but thats not fair.

    They have a small country and have only just recovered from Nagasaki and Hiroshima and now they cant eat?
     
  3. BPL
    Joined: Dec 2011
    Posts: 217
    Likes: 15, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 209
    Location: Home base USA

    BPL Senior Member

    Is the problem food supply or research methodology?

    http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq6.html says "Japan strongly supports the international protection of endangered whale species such as blue whales. Regarding Japan's whale research (as of 2002), it is true that it involves an annual maximum sampling of 590 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 Sei whales and 10 sperm whales ...
    The research employs both lethal and non-lethal research methods and is carefully designed by scientists to study the whale populations and ecological roles of the species. We limit the sample to the lowest possible number, which will still allow the research to derive meaningful scientific results."
     
  4. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I'm not wild about the whole whaling thing, from a personal viewpoint. But the crews of those whalers sign aboard in complete accordance with the laws of their home country, and are entitled to the same protection at sea as anyone else against pirates, terrorists, fanatics and renegades.
     
  5. whitepointer23

    whitepointer23 Previous Member

    i doubt if the whalers are in much trouble in a ramming , more the other way around like when the whalers rammed the ady gill. i am not a hippy or greenie, i just don't think people should be killing intelligent animals like whales. i am trying to make my point without resorting to a **** slinging contest this is my final post on this subject.
     
  6. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    In 1979 Watson rammed the Sierra at sea, damaging it and forcing it into port -- where it was sunk with limpet mines. In fact, Watson's own website proudly proclaimed, "we rammed (1979) and we sunk (1980) the pirate whaler Sierra in Portugal, the whalers Isba I and Isba II in Spain in 1980, the Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7 in Iceland in 1986, the Nybraena in 1992, the Senet in 1994 and the Morild in 1998, all in Norway." In 1993, a Canadian court ordered him to pay $35,000 for ramming a Cuban fishing vessel with his ship, the Cleveland Armory.

    The Sea Shepherds have also attempted to foul propellers of whalers in the Arctic with cables, which combined with bad weather could become a death sentence for the ships and their crews -- and a major environmental disaster if they run aground or hit an iceberg.

    They've attempted to blind helmsmen with lasers; they've thrown glass bottles of paint and butyric acid at the ships and their crews; they don't seem to care if they endanger people in the name of protecting animals.
    Regardless of what you think about killing intelligent animals, I don't think Sea Shepherds should be attacking ships on the high seas. It makes them terrorists in my book, and they should rot in jail for it -- no matter how noble their cause supposedly is.
     
  7. pdwiley
    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,002
    Likes: 86, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 933
    Location: Hobart

    pdwiley Senior Member

    The whalers did NOT ram the Ady Gill (however you spell it). Those ****** deliberately got in front of a much less manoeuverable vessel and got damaged. That's called ignoring the ColRegs in the first place and utter stupidity in the second place. If they'd got killed, it would have been suicide just as it is if a motorcyclist swerved in front of, say, a logging truck and then slammed on his brakes.

    A lot of us, including me, don't think that whaling should continue. Question is, should Sea Shepherd be allowed to commit acts that, if done without the excuse of disrupting whaling, would be accepted? I say an emphatic no, you obviously think yes. In my mind that shows a really bad failure of reasoning on your part.

    What you are saying is, the end does justify the means. I assure you that you wouldn't like that reasoning if it redounds on you. You are wrong.

    Whaling as the Japanese do it is also NOT illegal and there, you are also simply wrong. Yes, they exploit a loophole in the IWS rules. That doesn't mak
    e it illegal, just sharp practice.

    If you learn to deal with reality rather than a fantasy world, you might actually learn something and get further.

    PDW
     
  8. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    Sea shepards are vigilantes. A Dangerous , unaccountable , militia group who should be stopped. Countries that allow their ships to make port calls for refueling are irresponsible.

    Its unfortunate that the Japanese wont abide by civilized norms and stop hunting whales for profit. My respect for the Japanese has suffered as a result.
     
  9. BPL
    Joined: Dec 2011
    Posts: 217
    Likes: 15, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 209
    Location: Home base USA

    BPL Senior Member

    An investigation into the collision by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) was inconclusive and unable to assign blame for the collision. AMSA was unable to verify claims made by Sea Shepherd, while the Japanese government declined to participate with the investigation saying any information it had might be needed for an inquiry by its own authorities. New Zealand authorities found both parties were at fault for the collision. The inquiry by Maritime New Zealand found that the Shonan Maru No. 2 should have kept clear of the Ady Gil under international collision regulations, and had ample opportunity to avoid hitting it. It also found that the Ady Gil failed to take avoiding action, and its helmsman did not see the Japanese ship bearing down until seconds before the impact.
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ady-gil-crash-inconclusive-20100508-ukx4.html
    and
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...ult-for-collision-inquiry-20101118-17y8u.html
     
  10. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    And of course, My Ady Gil's only reason for being that close to begin with was to harass the Japanese vessel.... it had been towing lines in an attempt to foul the ship's propellers, and using a spud gun to fire capsules of butyric acid. it isn't like they just crossed paths in the open ocean.
     
  11. pdwiley
    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,002
    Likes: 86, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 933
    Location: Hobart

    pdwiley Senior Member

    Unlike just about everyone here, I have spent extensive time in the Antarctic ice pack and its near environs. It's a place that can turn nasty even in midsummer.

    If you were in some other vessel trailing lines in front of my ship with the intent of disabling it, I *would* take aggressive action in the interests of the safety of my vessel and my crew. If that meant squashing the other vessel like a bug, then they should have considered that before trying to disable my vessel and put my & my crew's lives at risk.

    You want to play dangerous games, don't come whining when the other party decides to play by the rules that you established.

    Sooner or later, the Japanese are going to revisit the question as to whether the loss of face involved in giving up whaling under pressure is more painful than the loss of respect and economic damage they suffer from continuing whaling. I know that it does affect my thinking.

    PDW
     
  12. whitepointer23

    whitepointer23 Previous Member

    i said i did not want to get into a slinging match but if you insist. i don't live in a fantasy world. i think you spell rebound with a b. you are the same bloke who spoke of your hatred of aussie fisherman yet you support illegal whaling. as far as i am concerned if whales are taken for science then how can they be sold in restaurants. surely that is not legal. if you watched the documentary you would have seen the ship turn into the ady gil. paul watson might be a weirdo but at least he gets things done. if he wasn't around the whalers would have a free reign of the southern ocean.
     
  13. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Paul Watson is getting nothing done, beyond hardening the resolve of the Japanese to keep whaling. The fact that his tactics and strategy are counterproductive is one of the reasons Greenpeace threw him out. In fact he's a pretty nasty creature, all in all; maybe you should research him a little better before you start holding him up to the rest of us as a hero.

    Spin the My Ady Gil incident any way you want. You can't change the fact that it was just taking a break from attempting to disable the Japanese ship, or it would never have been close enough to be involved in a collision.

    And why do you claim pdwiley 'supports illegal whaling'? Because he doesn't like terrorist actions on the high seas? He says right in the post you quoted that "a lot of us, including me, don't think that whaling should continue." Hardly sounds like support to me.... and pointing out that the Japanese are operating within the letter of the law is hardly supporting them, either. I've seen lots of people operating close to the wind, legally speaking; the fact that they're ignoring the spirit of the law while following the letter of it doesn't mean they can be arrested.

    Tell me: does the law say, "and if thou takest a whale for research, thou shalt throw it all away when thou'rt done with the research, instead of eating what's left"? No? I didn't think so.....
     
  14. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    The Research aspect of Japanese whaling in International waters is a scam.

    Japanese consumers are unethical.
     

  15. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I agree that the research aspect of Japanese whaling is probably a scam.

    But are the consumers really unethical? I don't think so. Where they draw their lines may not match yours or mine, but they're acting ethically by their own standards. They've eaten whale meat for centuries, and what they're buying now is for sale according to the laws of their country.

    To call them unethical is like a vegan calling me unethical because I eat meat.:)
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.