Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Which side do you think looks more in the wrong following Wednesday's clash between Sea Shepherd and Japanese whalers?

182 Comments

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

182 Comments
Login to comment

I have to say that I am against the AG - but do need to agree with the above post point out that the AG accelerating at the last minute doesnt mean they are trying to get in the way of the SM2. You cant turn a boat unless it is moving either backwards or forwards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is this magical "move forward and turn away at the same time" business?

Ossan, you obviously have never skippered a boat because anyone that has knows that you need to be moving forward in order to turn.

Also if you watch the video you will quite clearly see that the crew were at immense risk of being killed:

from being crushed by the boat in the massive impact from falling over and striking their heads from drowning from freezing to death in the water being hit by flying debris from going under the SM and being cut to pieces by the propeller

You seem to be stuck on the whole issue of the AG being terrorists. Maybe they are, but whatever they are is irrelevant in this issue.

The only thing that matters is whether the SM2 did everything they could in order to avoid a collision. At no point in any of your posts have you asserted that they did. This is the test of culpability.

Please make one post proving to all the readers that the SM2 did everything they could to avoid a collision. You haven't because you can't. This is why all your whinging and complaining about how much you don't like the AG and what they stand for is pointless.

Face the facts: The SM2 attempted murder in order to kill whales. The AG never have attempted murder in order to save whales.

You support, protect and try to defend people who are willing to murder other human beings in order to make money for themselves.

What does that make you???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe some Japanese people don't understand that the concept of "kamikaze" is totally abhorrent to western people and hence you virulently believe the AG desperately "wanted" to be crushed at sea on a fanatical suicide mission against the bow of an gigantic Japanese Whaling ship on tiny boat in freezing Arctic waters.

Getting a bit carried away arent we? Im pretty sure nobody believes that. As his been pointed out in subsequent posts, they were all in the aft section wearing dry suits, with the Bob Barker standing by.

To argue that they deliberately threw themselves in front of the SM is like saying they tried to get hit by a truck while on a motorcycle.

No it isnt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, the world is on their side, because, it was an evil act of >premeditated murder, Japanese whalers are being investigated by criminal >prosecutors, and as a result, Japan is now being boycotted

The above supports exactly what I have stated. In truth, this action has exposed Sea Shepherd's terrorist behavior to a wider global audience, not just increased contributions. We all know what the Shepherd leads.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd has managed to gain massive media exposure and increase their contributions because of this "ramming"

No, the world is on their side, because, it was an evil act of premeditated murder, Japanese whalers are being investigated by criminal prosecutors, and as a result, Japan is now being boycotted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The seas temperatures in the southern ocean vary from about 10 degrees >Celsius to -2 degrees Celsius. At those temperatures you are unconscious >in less than 15 minutes after falling in the water. And the crew of the >Andy Gil were standing on the deck!!!

The AG crew were all gathered in the aft section, far away from where the AG would make contact with SM2. They were all wearing drysuits ready for a dip if necessary with the Bob Barkeron close standby.Not much risk I'd say. Carried out very well in fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To answer the question of the AG propelling forward, this was clearly >done at the last minute probably when they realized the SM's intent to >ram them and they probably were trying to move forward and turn away at >the same time.

The AG Clearly accelerated at the last minute to deliberately cross the SM2's path. Their is no indication of any intent on the pat of SM2 to "ram" anything. If that was the intent they would not have employed the water cannons or siren as they approached. What is this magical "move forward and turn away at the same time" business? They moved forward, we can all see that. There is nothing on any of the videos showing the AG "turning away" from anything. It didn't even change direction while idling and watching the SM2 approach.

There is no way that such a small ship in those waters, cold and rough >as they are, would deliberately try and ram their tiny expensive boat >into a fast moving ship ten times their size and risk death from injury >or exposure to such cold waters.

The AG crew deliberately crossed the SM2's path to BE RAMMED. Not ram the SM2. There was little to no risk to any of the AG crew since they had all gathered in the aft section far away from the foresection which was exposed to risk. Plus they were all wearing dry suits in preparation for a possible dunk.

To those trying to convince the readers of this forum that the crew of >the AG deliberately wanted to die are wasting their breath.

There was little to no risk of dying from a deliberate collision. Sea Shepherd has managed to gain massive media exposure and increase their contributions because of this "ramming" just as planned.

by hunting a few whales that everyone adores on the other side of the >world and furthermore lying about their intentions.

Sorry to break it to ya but most of don't give a rats behind about the whales one way or the other, especially non-endangered ones. But most of us DO despise terrorism amd crime in all forms. What's to keep someone like you from throwing rocks at my window just because I'm doing something which is legal, but you don't agree with?

Some people on this thread just don't get this and are clearly trolls with agendas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica So because I do not agree with you I have no brains?

You said it, not me. LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think they wanted to die.

Exactly, that's my point. To deliberately ram a small ship like the AG into a big ship SM in freezing waters when you are standing on the deck is akin to attempting suicide. To argue that they deliberately threw themselves in front of the SM is like saying they tried to get hit by a truck while on a motorcycle. Get real. If you honestly believe that then I seriously think you are probably on drugs. I mean seriously. The seas temperatures in the southern ocean vary from about 10 degrees Celsius to -2 degrees Celsius. At those temperatures you are unconscious in less than 15 minutes after falling in the water. And the crew of the Andy Gil were standing on the deck!!!

The whole argument that the AG deliberately got rammed is ridiculous.

Unless the AG were suicide "kamikaze" rammers!!

Maybe some Japanese people don't understand that the concept of "kamikaze" is totally abhorrent to western people and hence you virulently believe the AG desperately "wanted" to be crushed at sea on a fanatical suicide mission against the bow of an gigantic Japanese Whaling ship on tiny boat in freezing Arctic waters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL. I love living in Japan and would love to see it popular around the world. I simply want to see whales and dolphins protected. Japan will never be popular till that happens

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To those trying to convince the readers of this forum that the crew of the AG deliberately wanted to die are wasting their breath. No reasonable or sane person is going to believe it for a second.

I dont think they wanted to die. I havent seen anyone else posting that either. I think they wanted to have an 'incident' though.

Some people on this thread just don't get this and are clearly trolls with agendas.

I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The question is not whether the AG deserved to be rammed but whether the SM deliberately attempted to ram the AG and murder the seamen on board.

To answer the question of the AG propelling forward, this was clearly done at the last minute probably when they realized the SM's intent to ram them and they probably were trying to move forward and turn away at the same time. There is no way that such a small ship in those waters, cold and rough as they are, would deliberately try and ram their tiny expensive boat into a fast moving ship ten times their size and risk death from injury or exposure to such cold waters.

To those trying to convince the readers of this forum that the crew of the AG deliberately wanted to die are wasting their breath. No reasonable or sane person is going to believe it for a second. Why you continue to blurb out such rhetoric makes as much sense as Japan deliberately foregoing a big chuck of their hard earned global goodwill by hunting a few whales that everyone adores on the other side of the world and furthermore lying about their intentions.

Some people on this thread just don't get this and are clearly trolls with agendas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese attack was a retaliatory attack on a stationary vessel 1/10 of its size that caused injury and risked life

This cant be proved. Also, you would have to really have to have blinkers on not to admit that a ship 1/10 the size of the SM, that has set speed records was unable to get out of the way. The AG wanted to get hit. As you kindly state above, this accident / attack, whatever you believe, has generated publicity, money and public support. The AG sailors will not get prosecuted by an AUS or NZ court because the public sympathy there lies heavily with them and against the whalers; this you also confirmed in a previous post saying that 40/40 callers to a radio show believed that the SM was at fault here.

Also, your point about the fact they have sunk ships but never injured anyone... ok, so if I run a car off the road its ok as long as the driver and passengers dont get injured? come on. The SS is dangerous and should stop what its doing. Personally I believe the whalers should stop too, unfortunately what they are doing is NOT illegal and I have no right to tell them to stop, or to interfere with what they are doing. If I felt really strongly about it, I could lobby my MP, Senator, Diet member, whatever. If I was an attention whore that wanted to be on a tv show and avoid work, I would be an SS crew member.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never saw where they said they would give their lives for the cause.Yes agree that they had been throwing butter at the whaling ship etc.This butter is designed to spoil the whale meat by the way.Pointed laser lights and interferred with ropes yes. Sunk ships in the past yes (but never injured anyone once).The Japanese attack was a retaliatory attack on a stationary vessel 1/10 of its size that caused injury and risked life. It has generated widespread criticism, publicity, a healthy flow of donations and also hardened the resolve of members of Sea Shepherd. They will not give up until the whale hunting stops and then they will move on to dolphin hunting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you see the video it was stationary, inding its own business

are you serious? The AG was minding its own business????!!! It had been throwing crap and pointing lasers at the SM for days! It was there with the express intent of disrupting the whalers! The captain of the ship said he and his sailors would give their lives for the cause! You can by t-shirts from the SS shop that boast how many ships they have rammed and sunk! THE AG WAS NOT MINDING ITS OWN BUSINESS!! even greenpeace and numerous other environmental groups distance themselves from these dangerous idiots. I cant believe the spinless little creeps are now trying to sue the SM.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica So because I do not agree with you I have no brains? Love your way of winning hearts and minds to your opinions mate. I tell you 40/40 callers on talkback radio in New Zealand last Sunday were unanimous that the ShinMaru2 meant the Ady Gil no good. @DeepSpace Its a q not a g.The whole point is that they could not imagine till the last minute that the ShinMaru2 would go as far as to veer towards them and ram them.That is how bad it was!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

michaelgtodd

Pete Bethune the owner and skipper of the Ady Gill is anything but a "young,idealistic kid.

I reviewed the video , He may not be a young idealistic kid, but he is No Ships captain. I did not see any weather issues that would have prevented him from seeing that slow moving vessel bearing down on him. Perhaps he was in a fog? He should be brought up on charges for recklessly endangering the other people on the Ady Gill. He may catch a break in Australia and NZealand, but he is not gonna gain much sympathy in a international court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Ady Gill did not cut anywhere.If you see the video it was >stationary, inding its own business till the very last second and when >it saw it was about to be rammed tried to escape but was unable to do >so.

Tried to escape by cutting accross the SM2's bow? Brilliant. Not start her engines and move away instead of watching and laughing as the SM2 approached?I hardly think your view is hardly the view of all of Australia and NZealand as there are a great many folks who have some brains. I think you totally underestimate the intelligence of NZealanders and Australians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@DeepSpace Pete Bethune the owner and skipper of the Ady Gill is anything but a "young,idealistic kid".The Ady Gill did not cut anywhere.If you see the video it was stationary, inding its own business till the very last second and when it saw it was about to be rammed tried to escape but was unable to do so. This is pretty much the opinion of the whole of New Zealand and Australia. The success or otherwise of the attempted murder complaint will depend on whether the NZ Police have jurisdiction. I think many of you completely underestimate how strongly NZers and Australians feel about this issue. We rightly believe the Ady Gill was rammed and until Japan apologises, admits fault and pays compensation the bad feeling will not go away. So,Japan. What`s it to be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have watched some episodes of "Whale Wars" and that captain of the Sea Shepard is older, experienced and manipulates young ,green idealistic kids. He puts them in these situations knowing full well what may happen, but he is sly enough to know where to draw the line. Law of the sea, it is the fault of the more maneuverable vessel. Never cut across someones bow !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah you already said that 5 days ago ShonanMaru2.Hee is some breaking news from NZ.Protestors file attempted murder complaint against Japanese http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10619809

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://shop.seashepherd.org/store/product.aspx?c=ss_t-shirts(base)&p=138228

Is any more evidence needed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AG was there to get smashed on purpose it was all part of Paul Watsons plans. Paul Watson is nororious for sinking ships. Just check the Greenpeace website. Thats the reason why the kicked him out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DenDon at 12:29 PM JST - 11th January

Obviously they should have been there in the first place harrasing a bigger cumbersome ship

so you support them eh?

Sorry Should have read... "Obviously they should have NOT been there in the first place harrasing a bigger cumbersome ship"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chrisbiggins, look at this video and see the whitewash from the AG's props as they accelerate at the last minute accross the bow of the SM2. THey got what they planned. If unplanned, they got less than what they deserved. The video is on a level you and your chums can surely appreciate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMINeY1vMMs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica, Look at the videos on YouTube love, it clearly shows the whalers engaging in a terrorist attack which could have killed the activists.

I think the Japanese looked like beastly arrogant bullies and sxo do all my chums!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It means to drive them away from the whaling operations. Cleo you're pretending to be denser than you are just for arguments sake. SS and the AG have been there harassing the walers with terrorist activity such as aiming lasers at the whalers and trying to ensnare the whalers props. That's why the AG was there. You know this, I know this. The SM2's job was to ward off any SS vessels using non lethal weaponry, water cannons, annoying sounds whatever. AG took advahtage of this by deliberately puutingthemselve in front of the SM2 so they could cry that they were rammed. Not much more to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

THe SM2 was approaching to ward off the AG

The SM2 was approaching in order to keep the AG at a distance? What does that mean? If they wanted to keep them at a distance why didn't they just, I dunno, maybe keep their own distance? And not approach in the first place?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So if the SM2 hadn't approached the AG in the first place, there would >have been no collision. Thank you for finally seeing that. (How do >you 'ward off' someone when you're the one doing the approaching?)

THe SM2 was approaching to ward off the AG which had been engaing in eco-terrorist activity just prior, including but not limited to firing a laser device at the whalers in an attempt to blind them and dragging ropes to ensnare their props. To ensnare a ships prop and disable a ship in antarctic waters is a threat to the safety of that ship's crew. The AG and the other SS vessels were in the civinity to carry out their declared mission of intereference, which incidentally had they occurred in US waters or against any US flagged fisheries vessel would have brought charges against SS for violation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992. I can't put it any simpler for you- the AD should not have been there to start with. Plus they deliberately accelerated in front of the SM2 to cause the collision to further their attention seeking adversary villifying agenda. The AG did not make any effort to run away from the SM2 yet they were able to accelerate forward at the last moment to achieve this aim.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space money - I find your credibilty lacking. Those of us who have actual experience on the seas or dealings with maritime affairs disagree with your "father". Best to be done with this issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kwatt - why don't you? instead of posting rubbish and telling other people what to do.

My old man was a patrol boat captain and in this capacity was a certified judge who could hold court at sea and prosecute people in international waters, as well as a policeman with the right to arrest and detain. I just showed him the videos and explained nothing about who they were in the slightest. He said after viewing the videos its black and white that SM2 was in the wrong. That was his professional opinion. Take it or leave it. I don't care anymore. I am done on this issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space monkey - If so why don't you ask other marine lawyers about the incident? Or you worry about something else? People usually should ask other lawyers, not only your family members, not idiot posters. Fathers very likely say "My son, you are always right on what you always do".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space monkey - I mean you should ask professional marine lawyers, not soldiers, not politicians,,,,. I hope you understand it.

My dad was licensed as a certified judge in his capacity as captain of an Australian patrol boat. He could hold court at sea with himself as judge. He also carried a police badge and had all the powers of a police officer. He had to sit legal exams to do so. He was not a soldier, not a politician, not a marine lawyer. He was a military captain, judge, and policeman combined. That's the whole point of patrol boats. He patrolled the seas where this event took place for 5 years.

You should take your own advice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space monkey - I mean you should ask professional marine lawyers, not soldiers, not politicians,,,,. I hope you understand it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kwatt at 01:25 PM JST - 11th January

You didnt shoot, you kamakaze"em. You dont have an army because you are prone to these bully type actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space monkey - Australian navy surely will shoot me like hell in the first place if I do it to your Navy as the same as SS harassments/terrorists actions/pirates actions. Finally I would die there and sink there. That is Navy/soldiers thinking it a little different way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The SM2 is seen approaching the AG with it's siren on and water canon at the ready to ward off the AG.

So if the SM2 hadn't approached the AG in the first place, there would have been no collision. Thank you for finally seeing that. (How do you 'ward off' someone when you're the one doing the approaching?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obviously they should have been there in the first place harrasing a bigger cumbersome ship

so you support them eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am no maritime expert but my father was in the Australian navy for 25 years and captained patrol boats and was second in command of the biggest ship in the Australian Navy. I just showed him the two video's of the collision. He immediately said that the SM2 was completely in the wrong as they deliberately steered their ship at the AG, it is black and white. And that any single court of law will condemn the SM2. He said the basic rule of the sea is that a captain must do anything they can to avoid a collision and that the SM2 clearly did not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have seen that video.

The crew were being hit by water cannons and sound cannons. There were most likely disorientated.

Just because the AG were moving doesn't change the fact that the SM2 deliberated altered their course at high speed to deliberately collide with the AG.

Don't get me wrong I agree the SS are ridiculous in principle...but attempting to kill 6 people and then blame them is just plain wrong.

Nothing can justify it. Nothing.

I have been sailing for 20 years. What they did is just wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The AG was launching acid at the crew on board Nisshin Maru, and The AG accellerated into the Nisshin Maru. Obviously they should have been there in the first place harrasing a bigger cumbersome ship.

At the time of the ramming? No. the Nisshin Maru was not involved in the ramming at all. The AG was not harassing anyone when they were rammed.

If the collision had taken place while SS were actively trying to hinder whaling activities, I would have shrugged and said it was down to poor handling of their vessel on the part of the AG. Bad luck. But that is not the case at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The AG was launching acid at the crew on board Nisshin Maru, and The AG accellerated into the Nisshin Maru. Obviously they should have been there in the first place harrasing a bigger cumbersome ship.

Anyway, I will take no sides because of the following reasons;

A) I dont support the slaughter of whales for Scientific research. What Scientific purpose can you possible get from killing thousands of whales.

B) I dont support violence and distruptive behavour from the S.S. They have no consideration to their own safety and others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space monkey - Have you seen the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMINeY1vMMs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ef2k - Norway, Iceland, US, Russia, China, S Korea,,,,did not say whalers are eco-terrorist but they and FBI (is not whalers) said SS are eco-terrorists. I think you only think in your brain whalers are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The AG crew were standing on the boat. They were being attacked with high powered sound weapons and hoses. The AG crew were probably blinded or disorientated. Unless the AG were deliberately trying to commit suicide I doubt it was their intent to ram a the Japanese whaling ship as they were largely standing still. The SM2 deliberately turned to run over the AG. Then SM2 attacked the AG more with hoses after they had already run over their ship.

This is clearly attempted murder.

Irrespective of whether the SS is right or wrong it is clear now to everyone in the world that the Japanese whalers are prepared to kill anyone who gets in their way in order to hunt whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica Please answer me something and then we will let this go. >Have you watched the other 2 videos? Shot from the Ady Gil and from the >Bob Barker?

Yes I have. I watched those first before I saw the one shot from the SM2. The Bob Barker video because of it's distance/angle gives the impression that the SM2 rammed the AG. The SM2 is seen approaching the AG with it's siren on and water canon at the ready to ward off the AG.However once you see the close up footage of the momernt of impact taken from SM2 you can verty clearly see that the AG deliberately accelerated into the path of the SM2 at the last moment as evideced by the sudden appearance of the AG's prop whitewash. Basically SS orchestrated this collision so that they could cry "we were rammed". Which really makes no sense since they too have rammed the whalers. Trust this answers your question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

um..ignore my comment, badly written. (never post after a night out!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hmm.. last post errors! Whalers are eco-terrorists for killing animals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

eco terrorism? This appears to be a misnomer that requires correction.

Note that: The ecology of natural whales are being harvested. Also: The anti whalers are only trying to STOP the killing. Problem: the definition says that the whalers are eco-terrorists. However: This is an inaccurate comment, for the SS is surely not against nature?

I don't believe it's anyone's fault for this incorrect characterization. I'm always amazed at the capacity of the media to misuse words or just be plain wrong, and never to correct themselves. Words are meant to reflect an accurate portrayal not provide opposite definition.

Japan comes off looking like a bully, they did sink a boat after all, and thankfully no one died.

The only solution to this will end up being whenever The Long Emergency hits and the use of fuel to send ships around the world becomes increasingly limited, sometime this decade. (re: Peak Oil)

At that point the whalers won't travel so unnecessarily far, along with everyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The sea shapard group are truly innovative entreprenuers; creating an entirely new venue and new style for pro-wrestling. Sometimes those pro-wrestlers get their heads banged and die too; all for the cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@OssanAmerica Please answer me something and then we will let this go. Have you watched the other 2 videos? Shot from the Ady Gil and from the Bob Barker?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Best, albeit silliest video on the collision. You can see that the AG moved forward deliberately into the path of the SM2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMINeY1vMMs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eco Terroists, that is funny

Feel free to tell the FBI you think it's funny.

Here: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov

"Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eco Terroists, that is funny. The Whaling vessels were at fault. Sea Shepards tactics isn't anything new. The Captain of the Whaler should have de-escalated but he brought on an international incident. It will be interesting to see Aussies actions after this. There is great sentiment against Japan for this kind of underhanded whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Worth every penny as its costing Japan so much more in terms of image >and prestige.

Disagree. The whole AG show had brought more attention on SS's eco-terrorist tactics rather than the usual whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Last Moments of the Ady Gil before being rammed by the Shonan Maru says it all really - the crew were taken completely by surprise by a whaling ship intent on running them over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfgPgnyX0ak&feature=player_embedded

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No it's not, guest. So what if it costs Japan in image and prestige? Did SS actually save any whales? I don't think so. Did SS come out smelling like a rose? Nope, they cost themselves in image as well. So, both sides look like idiots. No whales got saved. And worse, SS isn't truly doing anything to change the status quo...they just run around trying to look cool in a flashy dingy being totally unproductive with regard to making any kind of real change. The rules have to change and have to be enforced. Until SS sees that, they don't live up to whatever moral high ground they think they are on. So yeah, both sides look like idiots and both look bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Their high tech, high priced boat ended up sinking (going down in one hit).

Worth every penny as its costing Japan so much more in terms of image and prestige.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Idiots, that's all I can say. What good comes of continually pushing someone over and over, calling them names and harassing them, and being an overall jerk for hours on end? Usually a punch to the face, which the AG obviously got. Their high tech, high priced boat ended up sinking (going down in one hit). If some other courses of action had taken place, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

I'm not justifying over-whaling but I'm not justifying being stupid jerks either. As many have said, its both their fault and they're both stupid, baka baka ばか!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither. Both sides are criminals under international treaties, not that >it matters.

The whaler's aren't doing anything illegal. Why do you think it's called a "loophole"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does this question even need to be asked?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neither. Both sides are criminals under international treaties, not that it matters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

japan has a right to catch a certain number of whales every year and that's what they are doing. SS is trying to prevent their legal activity. It's the Sear shepherd's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SM2 had been harassed by AG for hours.

SM2 repeatedly requested AG to stand off.

SM2 was not on a collision course with AG until a few seconds before it happened.

SM2 made a very wrong move by veering toward AG.

AG spent hours circling and harassing SM2.

AG repeatedly maneuvered their vessel dangerously close to SM2.

AG had their vessel idle until seconds before collision, when they fired up their engines and moved forward rather than reverse as they claim.

AG made a very wrong move by moving more directly into the path of SM2.

Sea Shepherd is doing a crap job of protecting one of the most sentinent beings on Earth and a crap job of protecting the people who are willing to take up their cause.

The fault lies with both parties. No one gets to play martyr here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SM2 had failed to slow down even after they realized that they were in collusion course with AG. SM2 did not respond to distress call from AG!! SM2 is using military grade weapons, LARD! Seasheperd is trying to protect one of the most sentinent beings in earth.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do still feel that the SM bears some of the blame but the AG bears more of the blame. Its antics are dangerous and do little for their cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In response to the original question: TBH it's looks pretty much all square in the blame stakes after taking all factors into account. They are both in the wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both are at fault

Both are guilty of infractions against International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS)

The Ady Gil should never have parked a boat so close to the direction of another vessel. Any boat can easily be pushed by the sea a few degrees to cause a collision.

The Japanese vessel wether pushed by the sea or deliberately, also did not try to avoid collision.

This makes them both responsible for the collision. I wonder who has the best Lawyers though!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

obvious to everyone. Except the experts that is. But what do they know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I saw a stationary Ady Gil, that only started moving forward when a collision was sure to happen. Probably a reaction made in a desperate attempt to avoid the whaling ship.

sarcasm...you are correct, they possibly panicked and moved forward instead of throwing it into reverse as they claimed to the media. However, they were the ones that put themselves that dangerously close to a much larger vessel who had been, for hours, telling them to ship off. Again...the SM should never have veered toward the smaller vessel like that, even as a scare tactic. But the AG should not have moved into the path of oncoming vessel...and if it was an error due to panic on their part, they need to a) keep their distance and b) have someone more level-headed in control if they plan to take life-threatening risks like that.

Guest, you are correct that a boat cannot turn if it isn't moving, however, they moved themselves forward but claimed to all the world that they had put 'er in reverse. And no, a sea vessel does not need to be moving forward in order to go backward....

The AG shares the blame with the SM on this one, no doubt about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not everyone has piloted a boat, but when you realize that its imposable to turn a boat from a dead stop, its obvious that the Japanese are at fault. World opinion is not with Japan. Score one for the good guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese whalers are to blame and the provocative Japanese govt who simply don't understand about picking the right battles (never have, never will).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarcasm123 - They will go hunt sooner or later in near future, not thinking about it anymore. Because a lot of free food are down there. No charge like go fishing!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, sarcasm. Didn't you also say the move forward of the AG was a stupid move? Wait.....before you start saying that you meant it was a stupid decision to avoid the SM2 that way......we all know you didn't mean THAT!! Or....did you really mean that?

Besides, a desperate attempt and moving forward purposely are NOT the same thing to me. That's why I wondered why you started to change YOUR opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hi roomtemperature,

So a desperate attempt and purposely moving forward are the same thing to you? Interesting.

Getting desperate???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First sarcasm says that there is no doubt in his mind that the Ady Gil PURPOSELY shot forward toward the SM. Less then 2 hours later he/she believes that AG's maneuver was a desperate attempt to avoid the whaling ship.

What's your next opinion, sarcasm?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anti-whaling is one thing.I am against the killing of other animals too. Does not make sense, when human lives are put at risk to save whales. But the SS, if it is a legal entity, the country which has given it this status should ban it from war-mongering and beligerent activities. Present the case to the country heads and require them to resolve issues like this. The volunteers and their families should sue the Head of SS for endangering the lives of these volunteers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it's worth posting once, it's worth posting again:

ON the TV new in New Zealand they had a couple of Maritime Investigators review all the video footage. They concluded that while the Japanese vessel could have done more to avoid the collision it is clear that the Sea Shepherd accelerates in the last few seconds directly into the path of the Japanese ship.

Something that all of the naval/boat people on this board have already stated. Yet none of the anti-whalers believe it could possibly have been anything but the Shonan Maru's fault. And as I mentioned elsewhere I read a report from someone claiming to be a former pilot for Greenpeace who said the AG was completely responsible.

But what do maritime experts, naval professionals and former environmental sailors know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SM is a big and heavy vessel, not easy to veer, because of no brakes.

Yet when I see the footage from the third ship I see it turn to the right to ram the Ady Gil. Amazing that this ship which is "not easy to veer" could, well, veer into the direction of the Ady Gil.

Also, what guest wrote is correct. I saw a stationary Ady Gil, that only started moving forward when a collision was sure to happen. Probably a reaction made in a desperate attempt to avoid the whaling ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its imposable to turn a boat without moving forward.

I had no idea it was impossible to reverse and turn at the same time. Thanks for clearing this up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no doubt in my mind that the SM did veer a little toward the Ady Gil but there is also no doubt in my mind that the Ady Gil PURPOSELY shot forward toward the SM as well.

Its imposable to turn a boat without moving forward. The propulsion systems are located at the back of the boat. So that argument has been blown out of the water, and whats left of your statement is that the Japanese ship intentionally maneuvered at the stopped boat.

World opinion is overwhelmingly against the Japanese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clearly all involved are wrong, Jpn won the phyiscal bit but SS will win the PR war which was likely their intent all along.

If I cud snap my fingers & make ALL those boats & people just disappear i wud be snappying pretty quickly, idiots all round down there!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SM is a big and heavy vessel, not easy to veer, because of no brakes. In that case, AG should have moved quickly from the dangerous situation. SS did stupid chicken game finally. And lost $2 million. That is so stupid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

innocent workers and volunteers are SS guys. Watson jeopardizes all his guys.

The SS guys are volunteers, but even I would hesitate to call them 'innocent'. They know the score. The innocent ones are the whales.

Watson was 500 miles away when this incident occurred.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ON the TV new in New Zealand they had a couple of Maritime Investigators review all the video footage. They concluded that while the Japanese vessel could have done more to avoid the collision it is clear that the Sea Shepherd accelerates in the last few seconds directly into the path of the Japanese ship.

Something that all of the naval/boat people on this board have already stated. Yet none of the anti-whalers believe it could possibly have been anything but the Shonan Maru's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - I think innocent workers and volunteers are SS guys. Watson jeopardizes all his guys.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both parties in this accident were wrong. Very wrong. The SM did veer toward the AG...very easy to see in footage from both sides. And also blatantly easy to see was that the AG lurched itself forward, under its own power toward the SM. Both parties made stupid moves at the same time and it fortunately resulted in only a minor accident. I would put a little more of the blame on the AG though. They have been doing this for years and years and they knew exactly what they were doing with regard to P.R. but not so sharp on the way they handle their safety and the safety of others at sea.

The Japanese ship was not the victim here but neither was the SS boat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FBI thinks SS terrorists because they are already breaking international law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"All this seems irrelevant to me. Japan is clearly 100% in the wrong."... I guess any act taken by the activits are justifiable if you put it that way. They should take a further step and actually start killing whalers to get there pt across. Since japan is clearly 100% wrong and actions taken against them are irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't Sea Shepherd violate some international law?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stop Japanese whaling the legal way. Sea shephard jeopardizes safety of innocent workers and volunteers. It's the power profit hungry that pays, motivates or tricks people to work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the first place, if SS did not get too close to SM, nothing would NOT have happened there. It seems that SS is always looking for troubles on the very dangerous high seas. It is very very understandable that FBI thinks SS eco-terrorism organization because they do pirates actions/war actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they can* get away with it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nonsense, they are NOT conducting research.

Nonsense. Of course they are. How could they use the "loophole" if they didn't follow up and do the research? http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/JARPAdata.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no doubt in my mind that the SM did veer a little toward the Ady Gil but there is also no doubt in my mind that the Ady Gil PURPOSELY shot forward toward the SM as well. Both sides made some stupid moves there. With regard to this specific incident, neither side has the right to whine about being the victim. The SM was much bigger and should not have made that turn toward such a small vessel and the AG was so much smaller, knew the rules of the seas, yet the skipper chose to move forward even further into harm's way just for the sake of making it all look more provocative. If SS were looking to win any extra support with their stunts, they failed miserably on getting mine.

If anything, I think they are breeding a kind of disrespect from most of the general population toward their organization. Worse, by doing these things that most are beginning to think are assanine, they are desensitizing many people to their cause.

Seriously, what does throwing acid at a whaling ship, casting nets and ropes in the water to get caught in the whaler's screws, illegally boarding another vessel, and ramming a huge steel hull with their cardboard boat do for awareness about whaling???? NOTHING! There is not one bit of information or education I gleaned from any of their activities over the past few years other than: 1. Their crew have good throwing arms. and 2. Big ships can crack open the front end of little dingys disguised as the Batmobile.

Give me something real about the plight of whales and then I might actually sit up, listen, and give a S***.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can say what you want about whaling but the Japanese are not breaking international law. The Sea Shepherd people are breaking both the law and violating COLREGS. The video does a good job of showing who was in the wrong. Sea Shephers's captains should have their licenses revoked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ON the TV new in New Zealand they had a couple of Maritime Investigators review all the video footage. They concluded that while the Japanese vessel could have done more to avoid the collision it is clear that the Sea Shepherd accelerates in the last few seconds directly into the path of the Japanese ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To be honest I think they are both behaving like school bullies - but I guess that is the usual way when doing business with Japan, just ask the 6 Nations talks etc...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nonsense. They are conducting their research hunting legally within IWC rules.

Nonsense, they are NOT conducting research.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are in foreign waters using a lame excuse to hunt whales. They are >blatantly lying with the international agreement to hunt whales

Nonsense. They are conducting their research hunting legally within IWC rules. If it were illegal thehn it could stopped legally. It's those rules which should be changed but no one has the balls to do it, instead resorting to lame excuses about bribes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for the whaling that was happening.

1) It was in AUSTRALIAN waters. The rest of the world acknowledges this while Japan refuses to listen. 2) If you are whaling for science stop selling the meat for consumption. Prove that you are doing this for science instead of eating the rest of the Worlds whales.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah ..... check again. I've watched both videos as they are on youtube. From the Japanese video you can just see them colliding. But when you watch the one from the third ship there you can see the Japanese ship taking a 40 degree turn!! They wanted to hit the sea shepherd ship. Damn by the looks of it they intended to kill them all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the illegal whalers are so innocent the why do 98% of the world >condemn their whaling?

The whalers are conducting their killing legally. That's why it can't be stopped by legal means. 98% of the world couldn't care less about whales one way or the other. 98% of the world are law abiding people with respect for law and order and condemn violence and criminal activity.

Sea Shepherds clearly have the high moral ground here and I support them >fully, despite Ossan's stupid blank judgement of SS supporters.

Sea Shepherd is considered an Eco-Terrorist organization by the FBI. They have no moral ground at all in their criminal activity and even Greenpeace condemns them. Thanks for proving my blanket judgement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its the Sea Shepherds fault, I saw the video of them crashing and it was totally the sea shepherds...the Whalers were going straight and the small sea shepherds boat which can turn quickly run and hit the Whalers boat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the terrorists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Radical Conservationists with out a doubt!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The more maneuverable boat always has to give right of way to a less maneuverable ship. Common Sense 101. It is the more maneuverable boat's responsibility to USE that maneuverability to avoid a situation that could result in damage to a vessel or injury/death of a member of either vessel. The Sea Shepherd vessel fails on both these counts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese whalers

They are in foreign waters using a lame excuse to hunt whales. They are blatantly lying with the international agreement to hunt whales.

What kind of research requires over a thousand dead whales every year? Why do they not disclose what their research is about? Why is there no attempt for international aid in this research? Reason? Because you don't get whale meat (and other products) from research.

Go back to Japan and kill off your local Tuna. Leave the foreign waters alone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese whalers are just lucky they didn't kill someone on the SS ship. Then all Hell WOULD break loose. If the illegal whalers are so innocent the why do 98% of the world condemn their whaling? Sea Shepherds clearly have the high moral ground here and I support them fully, despite Ossan's stupid blank judgement of SS supporters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shephard are eco-terrorists and criminals. People who support them are idiots. Positions on whaling or anti-whaling are irrelavant to the issue. Greenpeace are conservationists, anti-whaling, and they condemn Sea Shepherd. All law abiding people with brains condemn Sea Shepherd and their use of violence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We can and do speculate that Japan’s whaling is illegal because their claim that it is for research is highly unlikely. But that speculation would need to be proved in a court before anybody could say that the whaling is illegal and that has not happened. So the whaling ship is operating legally whatever anybody might think about whaling. The people from sea shepherd are however not operating legally. They are harassing another ship in extremely dangerous ways because of what they believe, not because they have a legal right to do so.

Yesterday they (SS) claimed that the sea shepherd boat was stationary at the time of the collision and that they tried to go in reverse but video taken from the Whaling ship show a bow wake coming from behind the SS boat, not something that would happen from a stationary boat or a boat going in reverse. That bow wake shows that the SS boat was moving towards the whaling ship. That is not to say the whaler didn’t “help” matters along a little with a slight right turn so as to bring about a side swipe, but that was only possible because the SS boat was moving forward.

So, sea shepherd had no legal right to harass anybody and they put themselves in a dangerous position. They alone are responsible.

Your opinion, my opinion or anybodies opinion on whaling doesn’t come into it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is always wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the pirates (Sea Shepherd and company) are wrong. They deliberately interfere with and threaten (cable to entangle the propellers of a ship, etc.) sailing on the high seas. If they are not listed as a terrorist organization, they should be. That is their technique. I think the whaling ships should shoot holes in their boats to repel them. There are legal ways to protest things you think are wrong. The whale population is recovering well from what I have heard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Batman wannabes in the poncy black boat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now the Western media is reporting that the Japanese whaling ship is responsible for the 'ramming' of the stupid looking vessel which split into two. Don't be surprised if the rescued activist complains that they were served whale sashimi whilst on board the whaling ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd.Don’t troubles the troubles until the troubles trouble u…

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I want to know what Britain think about it all, and also who exactly controls that Japanese ship, particularly the ones in that area? Why? Because it is hard to know who is pulling the strings and both could be coerced by royal ties. Is it the governments, or the empirial pokers?

Otherwise there is some funny ideas about democracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patrick Smash...that is a great idea. Re-open commercial whaling for Japan...in its own waters only. Would save a lot of whale's lives. And would allow for policing of the waters to stop idiots in little boats from playing cat and mouse with much, much bigger ships.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey said it, two wrongs don't make a right. But when the AG was recklessly provoking the SM, gambling the SM would change course perhaps or hoping it would just be a slight brush off, they calculated wrong when the SM deliberately rammed into the SS vessel. The Sun Maru being the larger, more powerful vessel under command of what we would consider a responsible, certified seaman, taking irresponsible action on her side and consequently ignoring a distress signal puts the blame squarely on the Sun Maru. The captain should be relieved of his command immediately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo. i really doubt the people on that boat were the same as SS. I was trying to say in general "activists." Anyways. does it matter which of the activists did it? aren't those activist doing for the same cause?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo-A couple of protesters boarded a whaler to present a letter of protest to the captain a year ago, after which they were handed over to the Australian authorities who returned them to their own ship, with no charges. i just love the way you put. I guess the whaler stop the boat and invited the protesters on the boat so they can be presented a letter of protest. It was nice of Japan to hand over the Australian authorities and press no charges. So you are saying because the whalers invited the protesters, thats why they didn't weren't charged? I don't get your pt.

btw. I also mention twice on harrassing, getting too close to the boat, and throwing things. I wasn't concentrating on just boarding.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they stepped foot on the whaler, doesn't that mean they boarded of their own free will??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzXXmcMUwjI&NR=1

Then, once aboard, Sea Shepherd starts claiming that the Japanese are detaining their crew members illegally. But didn't they just board the Japanese ship illegally?? I am so confused. It does look like they got a little roughed up at first. I am not a supporter of whaling but if you are working on a ship that has been constantly tailed by another ship whose crew constantly threw projectiles, stink bombs, laid nets to get tangled in your propellers, etc., and your ship is suddenly boarded by these guys, wouldn't you worry about your safety until you knew they weren't there to actually hurt you??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxk56ZEQSoE&NR=1

And once you realized it was all good, you would probably relax a little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0-y-Jvy5Uk (Only worth watching from 1:15 to 3:10 then from 4:36 to end)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think the activists are claiming it is illegal

When in doubt, find out. The SS homepage clearly refers to 'Japan's illegal whaling in Antarctica'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think the activists are claiming it is illegal. They are just against it entirely. There is a legal loophole that allows Japan to whale for the sake of "research". While I am sure they are doing some research, I am sure we would all agree there is an ulterior motive.

I remember the protest a couple of years ago. It was not the Ady Gil but the protesters were Sea Shepherd folk. And they weren't beaten or harmed (wasn't that the incident where they tried to claim being tied to a pole on deck or something??); they were treated quite well, fed and given warm clothes or blankets or some such. I might be thinking of another incident to what Cleo mentioned, but it was something that there was footage of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@peachy871,

I may have jumped the gun since the incident was from a couple of years ago. I apologize, the anti-whalers were not rammed, but boarded the whaling ship intending to deliver a letter stating that the whalers were breaking international laws.

The two messengers were dragged aboard as soon as they stepped foot on the whaler. The crew tried to first throw them overboard... they were assaulted, tied and detained them for 2 days without responding to radio contacts.

The two detainees were called "hostages" as the Japanese gov't had to instruct the release, but the captained refused until his ship was guaranteed safety. The Japanese deny any mistreatment.

Here is a link: http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/japan-ship-refuses-to-release-activists/2008/01/16/1200419835177.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

didn't in the past a boat like Sea shepard board an Japanese boat to protest?

A couple of protesters boarded a whaler to present a letter of protest to the captain a year ago, after which they were handed over to the Australian authorities who returned them to their own ship, with no charges. There is no suggestion that either boarder was in the crew of the Ady Gil.

And my pt wasn't about that.

Then why bring it up? Twice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really don't get this whole situation. If activists think that Japan is doing something illegal then wouldn't the logical course of action be to gather evidence and then report it to the IWC. All this ship crashing is crazy; ridiculous, foolish, irresponsible, impractical, idiotic and cockamamie!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are proper international laws pertaining to whaling. Unfortunately, the Japanese gov't allows whaling for "scientific" purposes, which means higher quotas than for commercial whaling. Why do the Japanese need more "scientific research" on these animal? This is all smoke & mirrors. No other country is killing that many whales. Are the Japanese studying how to make islands floats like whales to make more island airports? Or maybe a new type of sea vessel the size of the Yamoto. I think we all know that they are being slaughtered for food.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The last time a major clash happened between anti-whalers and Japanese whalers, the anti-whalers' ship was rammed, the crew picked up out of the water by the Japanese whalers and beaten on board the whaling ship.

When was that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I get both points of view. Japan hunts for scientific study (a thinly veiled justification) and the Sea Shepherd folks are against the killing of whales. I get where both are coming from. It is easy to see why both parties were out there.

Both vessels were at fault. The Shonan Maru did clearly turn toward the Ady Gil, although it looks like they were possibly trying to scare them into backing off. The Ady Gil seemed to sit there for a bit then when they realized the Shonan was getting bossy, they clearly shot forward. If you really watch the footage, it's obvious. It is also obvious that when they shot forward to get in front of the much larger ship, the Shonan then tried to veer away again but it was all too late.

(Yeah, yeah, I know the Sea Shepherd claimed they threw it in reverse, but if that's the case, whoever was manning the controls obviously can't differentiate between forward and back...)

I know the Ady Gil looks like a present from Batman, but that doesn't mean the crew are a bunch of superheros. The Japanese veered toward the Ady Gil, the Ady Gil propelled itself forward to try and make the Japanese look like big, mean boat ramming monsters. Both sides made crappy judgment calls that ended a lot less badly than it could have.

The Sea Shepherd vessels in the past have done a lot more to the Japanese vessels such as throwing stink bombs, boarding the Japanese ship, ramming the Japanese ships with their own, which in the past were matched in size. Not sure why they thought they could accomplish the same with their new, tiny boat. They are playing a reckless, reckless game very willingly. The sad thing is, someone is going to get killed and the Sea Shepherd folks will never see it as something they could have prevented; it will always be the big, bad Other Guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The last time a major clash happened between anti-whalers and Japanese whalers, the anti-whalers' ship was rammed, the crew picked up out of the water by the Japanese whalers and beaten on board the whaling ship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Looks' more in the wrong?

From the BB clip the J ship looks in the wrong, but we can't see the AG's wake to make an objective judgment. The J ship was swaying and plunging in a heavy sea, possibly waves thrown up by the BB. SS spokesmen initially said that the AG was at a standstill, and then reversed. I believed this report at first.

From the J ship, however, the AG looks in the wrong. We can see that the AG had forward momentum, and then speeded this up to what looks like full throttle ahead in the last moments before contact. This is what my eyes see. No evidence of reverse thrusters until after the collision had already occurred. Perhaps with less swell, the AG might have gotten away, but possibly the same trough brought them in contact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem isn't who is at fault here.

The captain or the person who was commanding the Shonan Maru should be arrested and tried... but not for ramming the boat.

Ignoring a distress signal from any boat, ship or watercraft is a serious crime in all navigation and marine laws, including international waters. When the Shonan Maru took off after the collision, leaving the Sea Shepherd to rescue the AG's crew (whose lives were in immediate danger) they committed a crime worse than the collision.

A korean piloting a tanker faced 10 years for accidentally ramming a smaller fishing craft and ignoring the Mayday signals in 2007. However, he was granted bail and fled Australia where it happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disillusioned. Not defaming Australians, but if Australians were truly passionate about the issue wouldn't they pressure the Rudd Government into action? Australians, Americans, Japanese, Canadian, Swiss, whoever, if it is an issue that Government action can resolve then press for government action or accept the fact that the practice will continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sparky says they are in Australian waters. Dammit says they are not. Who is right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eco Terrorism... Illegal Acts committed By the Ady Gil and Sea Shepherd Scientific Whaling- Legal Act and approved by the International Whaling Commission. I mean It's pretty easy to see who is at fault?

Instead of everyone pointing the finger and playing the blame game they could be out there making a difference by amending laws and doing things properly. I think it's embarrassing that they're all out at sea acting like little kids poking each others eyes out. Bet all that comes out of this is more whinging and another boring commercial making money for the Greenpeace fat cats (we all know someone is making money from this, and it's not the whales!)Then they will just continue to ram into ships... but what does that even do? Nothing! "oh noez. I got a dent in my boat"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DeliciousWhale - But while the anti-whaling Australians may support Sea Shepherds activities, most won't get out of their armchairs and actually do anything constructive like protest to their government and make a change. Apathy, its a national pastime.

Awesome! We have yet another pro-whaler trying to defame Australians to justify Japanese whale hunting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dreamdrifter - They state they hunt whales for research to gather scientific information to justify a resumption of commercial whaling.

Um, I think you should check your sources before making such a presumptuous claim. There is no mention of resuming commercial whaling in any of the documents released by the JCI nor in their agreement with the IWC. If their intention was to gather information about the sustainability of resuming commercial whaling the IWC would have told them to go jump in the lake. They stated they are collecting data on whale populations, that is all. Just lies to abuse their privilege.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They're not in Australian waters.

What a ludicrous concept, that Australia would let whaling happen in waters to which they actually have a legal claim.

Perhaps you're talking about regions to which Australia makes an illegal claim that's not recognised by any other country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mansen. That's exactly right. But while the anti-whaling Australians may support Sea Shepherds activities, most won't get out of their armchairs and actually do anything constructive like protest to their government and make a change. Apathy, its a national pastime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Shepard

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DelicousWhale-If that is the case, shouldn't these activists protest against there own government, since there own government have the sole power to make changes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mansen. If they're in Australian waters Australia won't do anything because Japan is Australia's largest trade partner and Australia are not going to risk upsetting that relationship for the sake of a few whale sandwiches.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regardless of whether whaling is right or wrong, deliberatley ramming another boat is without a doubt wrong. Refusing to answer an SOS is also wrong. The captain of at least one ship should lose his Master's licence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sparky- If the Japanese whalers are in Australian waters, why don't they just notify the coast guard and toll the boats back? If they are in Australian waters, whalers have to follow Australian laws and suffer the consequences.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe (and you're welcome to believe otherwise) that Sea Shepherd went to the Southern Ocean in their flimsy pleasure craft with the sole intention of causing an accident to beat up a media frenzy and anti-whaling sentiment.

Sea Shepherd won't be happy until someone dies as it will take that kind of tragedy to halt this years hunt. But next year the hunt will continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo- didn't in the past a boat like Sea shepard board an Japanese boat to protest? And my pt wasn't about that. It was just one of all the dangerous tactics they have done before to get attention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it interesting that you used the words "....Japanese whalers..." in your question not ..."Japanese scientists..." It's not a question of who looks wrong but who is wrong. The fact is the Japanese are disguising whaling as scientific research, pure and simple. The whole planet needs to manage and make sustainable the resources of the oceans, otherwise many species will become extinct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why ram get some C4 an lets party, after all as long as governments rule nothing changed, scientific my ass.

If you want to change things then you have to do it like Gov. do it, look at Nukes and Predator s. Don't waste time and money been civil or nice. Follow how governments go after other Governments, can't do it that way, they your just wasting time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The so called sea sheperds are at fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How far from Australia? Where are the boats kept? How about some people downunder taking away rights-or at least speaking up- when they are falsely being represented? Thats probably why Japan is there, there is no freedom of speech. Kick those on the SeaShepherd and related out!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Disillusioned

They state they hunt whales for research, yet their justification for hunting the whales is to support Japan's whale eating culture. Is it just me can everyone else see an error in this rhetoric?

They state they hunt whales for research to gather scientific information to justify a resumption of commercial whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think it is a matter of right or wrong. Realistically, neither vessel should have been there at all. I don't condone the actions of SS, but they are doing a job that no government is prepared to take on.

Japan is blatantly abusing a loop hole in their agreement with the IWC and rubbing it in the face of the world. They state they hunt whales for research, yet their justification for hunting the whales is to support Japan's whale eating culture. Is it just me can everyone else see an error in this rhetoric?
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Um, I think you will find that the Japanese whalers are in Australian waters. Whether you believe that it is right or wrong to kill whales, the fact is the Japanese are hunting in another country's territory. The Shonan Maru shouldn't even be there in the first place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a no win situation for the Japanese gov.

Yup.

mansen - No one is boarding anyone else's boat, dangerously or otherwise. Or jumping on it. Unless your argument is that a truck driver who had a run-in with another driver a year ago is justified in driving his truck over the other driver's friend's sports car when he comes across it idling in the street? (Hint - don't try that argument in a court of law.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Cantor. While most people have already taken sides, this event makes it one step closer to Japan having to pull out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The video from the SS clearly shows the SM turning hard to ram the AG.

I would expect to see an escalation in the level of violence, as the SS group will now feel justified in taking whatever means necesary to interfere with the whalers.

Ultimately this is bad for the whalers, as there is little positive PR spin which they can put on it. The SS do not represent the NZ or Aust gov. yet the whalers are representative of the Japanese gov. This is a no win situation for the Japanese gov. and people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 The whalers are willfully killing protected marine life

This is false. The whales in question are only semi-protected, with rights given to the Japanese to hunt them.

Doing what you believe in is fine sometimes, but as pawatan points out it is not sufficient - the Somalians probably have some justification for what they do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Hawkeye :

Instead of the Sea Shepards running around in fancy boats costing millions of dollars, why not spend that money on Japanese language advertising in Japan explaining why it is unecessary to hunt whales and eat them too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd. If you harass someone you shouldn't be surprised when they fight back. Sea Shepherd is not much different than Somali pirates - both have their 'justifications' for doing what they do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both look stupid but the Sea Shepherds are wrong for being there in the first place. Their activities against the whalers are dangerous and childish. They are endangering human lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Both. Both are using aggressive tactics at sea. But basically Japan won as the Ady is wasted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's put whaling aside. And make an example of two cars on the road. One truck is minding his business trying to work. And another mini car tailgates it, throw things at it, comes really close looking for an accident, and maybe have someone jump on to the truck. And then an accident happens.... if you put aside the personal problems both drivers might have against another.... I don't see how the instigator shouldn't take most of the blame. I apologize with some of you don't agree at all with this example.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When a small, fast boat comes close to a large, slow one, it is obvious who bears the greater responsibility. Also, consider that;

1/ the larger boat is engaged in a legal activity.

2/ the smaller boat was the one that started the whole situation by approaching dangerously close to the large one. The large one wasnt looking for a confrontation.

3/ it isnt necessary to approach within 30 feet of a whaling vessel to conduct a legal protest.

There is no comparison between this incident and the one with the destroyer and the fishing boat. The fishing boat wasnt trying to upset the destroyer, or approach it close enough to touch it.

The captain and crew of the AG got what they deserved. They wanted to play with the big boys, and this is the result. Bottom line is that if the AG had stayed a safe distance away, there would have been no collision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepard. They were looking for trouble. Harrassing, throughing things at the Japanese boat,getting very close to it, and sometimes even boarding it dangerously. Don't they have a sea law that prohibits those kind of acts. Maybe they are both at faults. But clearly Ady Gil bares a lot of responsibilities.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Part of the problem is our definition of 'wrong' and 'right'.

You could argue that whatever the whalers do is 'wrong' as they are already in the wrong just by being there, whereas Sea Shepherd is always in the 'right' because they are protesting something that needs to be stopped immediately.

Or you could distance yourself entirely from the general wrongs and rights of the two sides, and look specifically, disinterestedly and dispassionately at a maritime collision.

Which are we doing here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Two wrongs don't make a right". As others have stated, they both were at fault here. The Ady Gil was playing a very risky game of chicken, and the Shonan Maru clearly turned into the Andy Gil. The important thing is that outside of Japan, this is being reported in a very negative light for Japan. So, from a PR standpoint, the Ady Gil gained more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't understand why people bother to post on a topic they claim to have no interest in.

It appears endlessly in the recent comments. Sooner or later you have to say something.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, I so don't care about this. I can't understand how so many posts are created by this conversation...

I can't understand why people bother to post on a topic they claim to have no interest in.

Both videos show the SM deliberately turning into the AG. The AG is scarcely moving, while the SM is moving at a fair pace. The SM makes no attempt to slow down, change direction away from the AG, or offer any assistance after the collision. They even try to keep their water cannon trained on the rammed vessel, at a time when for all they know there could be injured people in the water.

When the Aegis destroyer destroyed a two-man fishing boat (was it last year?) the verdict was that the destroyer was at fault for not keeping a proper watch on the sea ahead. In this case the SM knew exactly what was ahead, and carried on anyway. If the Aegis was at fault through negligence, the whaling bozos are at fault through clear intent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, I so don't care about this. I can't understand how so many posts are created by this conversation...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You've got the wrong second video, Hawkeye. That video never showed the collision, and was confusing as it was labelled as footage of the collision by many news soursces, when it was in fact nothing of the sort. There is a third video.

The two important videos are the first one you mentioned and a second one, taken from the Shonan Maru's starboard side, showing the Ady Gil drifting forwards, converging in the same direction, with a light wake. Gradually the two vessels come closer and at 16,17,18 secs into the clip it is clear that the AG has pushed the engines to full ahead. A second or two later they collide. If the AG had reversed at any point, it would have shown clearly in the wake. I am not taking sides as I already expressed what I saw clearly on another thread.

The Sea Shepherd and Ady Gil got them into this cat and mouse game, which is why it was there in the first place, each tempting the other to overstep the mark, so I am glad it has ended as lightly as this. The earlier photos of the laughing faces of the Ady Gil crew do suggest overconfidence to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Two wrongs never make a right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Japanese boat clearly changed its course to ram the Ady Gil, but the Ady Gil was also moving forward.

You can tell in the CNN video that the Ady Gil waited until after the collision to hit full reverse. They were sill going forward for the 10 seconds before impact. You would assume that a boat as agile as the Ady Gil could have hit reverse earlier and avoided the attack. These guys are gambling with their own lives here. They didn't prove much of a point, but it cost them $2 million.

There may be some navy guys here with knowledge of maritime laws, so please chime in with your comments.

As other people said in this board, their $2 mill may have been much better spent by putting posters all over Japan, and handling a PR campaign to turn public opinion around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are two good videos on Youtube. One taken from another Sea Shepard vessel shows the Shonan Maru turning into the Ady Gil and running her over. The other video is from aboard the Shonan Maru showing the Ady Gil coming from the port side to the starboard side of the Shonan Maru across her bow dropping what looked like fishing nets and ropes into the sea to try to foul the screws of the Shonan Maru. In both videos it is obvious that the Shonan Maru turned it's course to rammed the Ady Gil and hit her mark. Instead of the Sea Shepards running around in fancy boats costing millions of dollars, why not spend that money on Japanese language advertising in Japan explaining why it is unecessary to hunt whales and eat them too. This cat and mouse game is going to get real nasty pretty soon when someone besides whales get killed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with zybster, people have taken their sides regardless of the facts will see what they want to see in who is at fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

New Zealand-though I dont think we should get discriminative at any country here, I think it is in New Zealands interest if New Zealanders also SAY something

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Ady Gil is 18 tonnes and the Shonan Maru 2 that hit her is 1000 tonnes. Surely the Ady Gil would be more manoeuvrable than the bigger ship. I'd say the Ady Gil got a bit too close for comfort once too often and it certainly wasn't stationary as they claimed. So, based on the video footage I'd have to say the Ady Gil was in the wrong (and I'm neither a whale meat eater nor a fan of whaling).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People have already taken their sides, regardless of the facts, so this questions is just stirring another pointless and endless discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd.

Never mind whether or not the larger vehicle is always at fault in Japanese collisions, this was boats at sea. Nothing to do with road traffic accidents.

Sea Shepherd was looking for trouble. Maybe they got more than they bargained for, maybe less. After all, they didn't sink, although I'm unclear as to whether it might have sunk by now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The shepherd, because they are obstructing a business. Now, where is my kujira-steak?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It takes the both to tango.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whaling opinions aside, the large vehicle is always at fault in japan in any collision besides a rear ending. Seems the Japanese have once again failed to honor one of their time honored customs when foreigners are involved. That being said, if the whales were as smart as the SS boys say they are, why dont they just run away when warned of the impending danger? There were better ways for Bob Barker n Andy Gil to make the world a better place.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites