national

Huge waves damage Sea Shepherd boat during chase

136 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

136 Comments
Login to comment

2400km southwest of western Austraia-sure sounds like open waters to me

8 ( +7 / -1 )

Bridget Bardot Busted. Blimey!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Go High-tech, fancy and expensive and more things are prone to go wrong.

So SSCS is down another expensive vessel(BB aka former Gojira), not a good track-record and wasted money that could be used better. Hope everybody is all right and hope she won't get scuttled like the AG.

Maybe Ady Gil and Bethune did the right thing.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It does seem the high-speed, hi-tech vessels are a bit fragile. I too hope everyone is OK and that the SI is back on the tail of the whalers as soon as possible.

0 ( +14 / -13 )

I hope the ship sinks, but that the whalers with a heart rescue the crew. They can feed them whale for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

-11 ( +20 / -32 )

I hope the ship sinks

What a horrible thing to say.

6 ( +20 / -14 )

SSCS buys old, overused vessels and weld, fortify and modify them especially like BB has been. They don't have money for reliable heavy-duty hardware.

I wish I were knowledgeable about these marine things and knew more about this "rogue wave" thing. What it is, how it looks like, where it comes from when vessels chase one another, is this a neutral phenomenon or can be brought on by other vessels.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I am with Cleo.

Not a fan/supporter of SSCS but neither do I wish harm on them in any way or form.

5 ( +12 / -8 )

I did not wish the crew harm. Please read more carefully.

By the way, rogue waves are a natural event, and they really do not know much about them, except they are fairly frequent and can be huge.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Couldnt have heard better news, Terrorists vessel damaged!!! Perhaps an act of god?

-9 ( +13 / -22 )

Thumbs up okimike 67. They are a terrorist group so the wave did us a favor.

-10 ( +11 / -22 )

..a rogue whale would have made it a trifle funny

12 ( +11 / -1 )

The whole situation is both deplorable and a cynical reminder of the obstinacy and cynicism of the Japanese to use donations for the disaster relief as funding for this stupidity. Anyway, the anti whaling movement will win the battle and there is absolutely no doubt about that. The pity is they have to resort to these means.

2 ( +15 / -11 )

A destructive rogue wave? Is it? Could it be? The modern-day version of the kamikaze that dispatched the Monguls?

-1 ( +9 / -9 )

Quiet honestly, taking a monohull like that to Antarctica prooves only you have no idea about navigation. Then, renaming a ship brings bad luck.

@JT: There seems to be a mistake with the text under the picture, it says multihull there but the Brigitte Bardot is a monohull. Not sure if you can change it since it is from AFP but maybe tell them.

2 ( +3 / -3 )

Hold a sec here, didn't mono-hulls become illegal now?

Even a 6 metre wave is not that rough they get higher in the Mediterranean.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Just checked online and the BB/Gojira is referred to as a mono-hull.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan’s coast guard has deployed an unspecified number of vessels to protect the whaling ships, using some tsunami reconstruction funds

I would like to know who wrote that allegation and what kind of evidence they have to support such an inflammatory accusation. That steps way over the line of independent transparent journalism and the article may as well have been written by the Sea Shepherd organisation. The unwritten rule of respectable journalism is that you should take an independent view. What proof does this journalist have that tsunami recronstruction funds are being diverted to support the whaling fleet? If there is no proof then this article should be thrown in the garbage.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

good point tiger, but it has me wondering what nationality the writer is, I mean every vegemite kid knows that water area is known for being sinister, a 'rogue wave' in the roaring 40s is so common place that to call it rogue is mislabelling the well-known natural environment

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Calm down, Tiger. It's common knowledge.

Fisheries Agency officials admitted that roughly ¥2.28 billion would be used from a post-disaster reconstruction fund, earmarked as part of about ¥500 billion in "fisheries-related spending" green-lighted by parliament last month. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fd20111211a1.html

9 ( +14 / -6 )

YESSSSSS!!!! Great news , they got just what they deserved.

I remember the idiot Paul Watson said something to the effect that the tsunami and the earthquake was caused by god. Using the same logic, I"m sure this was an act by god.

-11 ( +13 / -23 )

Kamikaze again??! (I mean the original version, not the current meaning of the word.)

0 ( +3 / -4 )

A rogue wave is nothing new, its one which is higher than what would be expected. They can be very powerful. In the navy I experienced a few of them.

" help of a military-style drone" is misleading. I have seen a photo and are nothing like the US military use. They only have a wing span of about 3 feet.

7 ( +8 / -2 )

Can't handle the "high seas?"

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It might also happen to a J-whaler, so calls for sinking, sharks act of God may well be reversed. It's a dangerous environment for all.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Wish the disinformation would simply cease...

Additional funding for the PROTECTION of the PEOPLE / Japanese Citizens manning the boats in the the whaling fleet is coming from the Secondary (?) budget allocation ( "**most but not all" of which is earmarked for PD reconstruction )...

IT IS NOT being funneled from DONATIONS for relief...

Why do people keep spouting this drivel... agenda perhaps ? ?

1 ( +12 / -11 )

He got the "divine punishment". After all he made fun of the victims of the tsunami (earthquake) by posting a very insensitive poem on his Facebook account on March 11,2011.

2 ( +9 / -8 )

I do hope that the reported "rogue wave" is indeed a rogue wave, and not a code word for ramming. I don't like to imagine the damages, cost and lives put on the stake if it was.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The Munya Times - I wish I were knowledgeable about these marine things and knew more about this "rogue wave" thing. What it is, how it looks like, where it comes from when vessels chase one another, is this a neutral phenomenon or can be brought on by other vessels.

Rogue waves are a naturally occuring phenomenon but has only recently been proven (recorded) by modern technology. Technically, if the mean wave height of every 3rd wave is 6 meters, a "rogue wave" would have to be double that (12m) or higher to be considered "rogue".

"It was a rogue wave" is also a good excuse for captains of poorly crewed or dangerously navigated toy boats that over-stress their vessel's hull by stubbornly maintaining a particular heading (looking for whalers?) instead of changing heading to take average waves at the least stressful (dangerous) angle.

It's not that we were pushing our toy boat past it's design limits - we were struck by a rogue wave.

It will be interesting to see how this is reported to the marine insurance company. Stupidity isn't covered and the eco-terrorist SS may have to reach into their pro-violence supporters pockets again.

-1 ( +6 / -8 )

How does Sea Shepherd pick the names for their ships? What criteria do they use? Yes, Bardot and Barker are both celebrity animal rights activists, but Bardot is also well known as a French, anti-muslim racist who has been convicted of several "hate" crimes in France. Bob Barker is known to have sexually harassed many (if not all) of the display models who worked on his decades-long game show. Couldn't Sea Shepherd and its head boob, Paul Watson, have selected a celebrity animal rights activists with a cleaner past? Pamela Anderson (only half joking)?

0 ( +5 / -6 )

MaboDofuSpicy: "I hope the ship sinks, but that the whalers with a heart rescue the crew."

The whalers 'with a heart', huh? Where was their heart when a member of their crew went overboard a couple of years back but they rejected the help of the SS crew in searching for his body?

TigersTokyoDome: Articles about money being diverted from the mouths of people living in shelters to go towards extending Japan's coast to a recognized whale sanctuary have been in the media for some time now. The 'garbage' are the people who made the decision that wasting $30 US to send the coast guard from money earmarked for earthquake relief.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Hi-tech is not meant for that type of operation. They should go low-tech. Least then they won't lose so much.

Also can I point out to some people that it was ISHIHARA who said the tsunami and earthquake were divine retribution. Maybe the pyscho SS guy repeated it or something else just as bad but it was ISHIHARA who said it to national media. Also it was widely reported that disaster relief earmarked funds were going to be used for security right here on JT.

Some people have such short or/and selective memories.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It would definitely be better for future whales if all of Watson's armada were put out of action.

Thanks for the link Cleo:

"Fueled by interviews with Sea Shepherd's combative leader, Paul Watson, the story was misreported around the world to imply that foreign donations, not Japanese taxes, were being siphoned off to protect the cull. In an interview with Sky TV Australia, Watson called it "really disgraceful" that the money had come from "people all over the world" who'd never dreamed how it would be used."

In fact, the money has come from a fund for "fisheries-related spending". None of the money used was specifically earmarked for reconstruction of the devastated area and there will certainly be no shortage of funds for that aim. And remember, if it weren't for the Paul Watson TV show on Animal Planet, no extra funding would have been necessary and groups like Greenpeace could concentrate on bringing about the gradual cessation of whaling in a way that would be acceptable to the Japanese people.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Serves them right

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

I wish them a speedy rescue !!!! as for some of the lame, sad and childish comments from some on here, have a good look at yourself in the mirror, because what you see is what you get.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

How does Sea Shepherd pick the names for their ships? ... Bardot and Barker are both celebrity animal rights activists, but Bardot is also well known as a French, anti-muslim racist who has been convicted of several "hate" crimes in France. Bob Barker is known to have sexually harassed many (if not all) of the display models who worked on his decades-long game show.

What makes you think their primary directive involves humans? As far as I can tell, they are preoccupied with non-human animal species primarily. It would not surprise me if what you mention were more or less irrelevant to them, that is, subverted to their higher calling of militant non-human animal advocacy. That is to say, they have a different set of values which would allow them to under-value those concerns.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

m5c32.

Also wondering how they decide on names.

The ship was 1st called the "Gojira" and they got hit with a legal "Cease & Desist" order, than they named it after Brigitte Bardot(did she give consent or was it due to a brief meeting between watson and her?).

Ditto for the "Steve Irwin", etc did they get permission from the estate?

This is the 21st century and you can't simply use a name at random, even if you use a name it don't mean support.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

(1) did she give consent or was it due to a brief meeting between watson and her?).

(2) Ditto for the "Steve Irwin", etc did they get permission from the estate?

Googling the answers is faster than writing the questions.

(1) Yes she did, she and Watson have known each other since 1977 and they have worked together in the past.

(2) Steve's widow Terri is quoted as saying, “Whales have always been in Steve’s heart and in 2006 he was investigating the possibility of joining the Sea Shepherd on part of its journey to defend these beautiful animals,”

5 ( +10 / -5 )

It's odd that in these threads and the article SS are referred to as activists and environmental terrorists, yet in international newspapers they are referred to as whale crusaders.

It"S ME - Ditto for the "Steve Irwin", etc did they get permission from the estate?

Are you serious? Or, is this just a rhetorical question?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Serious questions as they never asked to use the "Gojira" name legally. Hence the C&D which is a major legal offence.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

It's odd that in these threads and the article SS are referred to as activists and environmental terrorists, yet in international newspapers they are referred to as whale crusaders.

Not really surprising. Good PR spin around the world gets em seen as heros. An objective view however shows they're simply just another group of eco-terrorists, no different from any other group using violence to accomplish their goals.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

SSCS conformed due to the fact if it went to court they would lose and get shutdown. Copyright infringement is taken serious now.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Molenir - no different from any other group using violence to accomplish their goals.

I guess that would include the Japanese Coast Guard and the BS research vessels, wouldn't it?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

I'm just upset that the boat didn't sink.. i am so tired of the vile garbage by SS spewed toward Japan and the Japanese people concerning God and the Tsunami that took so many innocent lives..... So i guess this is an act of God also... whatever eco-terrorists SS!

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Without the loss of life I hope the ship sinks. One less thing they can use to annoy the whalers.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

cleoDec. 29, 2011 - 11:58AM JST I hope the ship sinks What a horrible thing to say.

Why cleo? You made it clear that SSCI's DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY was not a crime and no big deal.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

darkbobDec. 29, 2011 - 12:21PM JST The whole situation is both deplorable and a cynical reminder of the obstinacy and cynicism of the Japanese to use >donations for the disaster relief as funding for this stupidity.

If you check out various news sources you will see that donations have nothing to do with this. Funding is comming ot of Japanse taxpayers pockets, although the anti-whaling action has worked hard to spread this fallacy.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

CrickyDec. 29, 2011 - 01:53PM JST It might also happen to a J-whaler, so calls for sinking, sharks act of God may well be reversed. It's a dangerous >environment for all.

Yes it "may". But the Japanese research whaling fleet are comprised of steel ships suited for the purpose and sea conditions. Whereas, while ships like the Steve Irwin are seaworthy, stupid flashy attention grabbing high speed idiotically named "racing boats" that have no business being used in such waters and conditions are not. Watson is putting master and crew at unecessary risk by using such vessels just for attention and the TV camera.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

It"S MEDec. 29, 2011 - 12:45PM JST Hold a sec here, didn't mono-hulls become illegal now?

I think you are confuising Single-hull for large vessels with the term "mono hull".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I am ashamed and again disappointed of some who commented this article. How can you be against SSC? You guys hope the Bridgitte sink, well I hope the Nisshin Maru does the same. Japan is destructive in everything regarding marine animals, whales, dolphins, tuna,... how can you support this? What is wrong with some people in the world.

Keep on the hard work Sea Shepherd, I will be (financially) supporting you guys, even in these turbulent days!

Greetz from

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

arrestpaulDec. 29, 2011 - 03:13PM JST "It will be interesting to see how this is reported to the marine insurance company. Stupidity isn't covered and the >eco-terrorist SS may have to reach into their pro-violence supporters pockets again.

This actually begs two questions-

1) What insurance company is providing Hull&Machinery and Protection&Indemnity Insurance to a fleet of ships whose openly declared intent is to ram other ships? If they are actually insured an enormnous amount of their collected donations must be going to insurance coverage.

2) If they are not insured, or self-insured how are they able to pass the Port State Control inspections when they are in Australian ports?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Sure and "mono" don't mean "single" either.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

smithinjapanDec. 29, 2011 - 04:05PM JST "MaboDofuSpicy: "I hope the ship sinks, but that the whalers with a heart rescue the crew." The whalers 'with a heart', huh? Where was their heart when a member of their crew went overboard a couple of >years back but they rejected the help of the SS crew in searching for his body?

Great example smith, It makes no sense whatsoever. Offering assistance and Rejecting Assistance are completely different, Furthermolre offering assistance at sea is a requirement under Marirtime laws and regulatuions, with no relation to "heart" anyway.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

DisillusionedDec. 29, 2011 - 08:32PM JST "Molenir - no different from any other group using violence to accomplish their goals." I guess that would include the Japanese Coast Guard and the BS research vessels, wouldn't it?

No it wouldn't.. The research whaling vessels are acting under and in compliance with IWC regulation Article VIII in international waters. The JCG are an internatiomally recognized maritime law enforcement agency with the authority and jurisdiction to enforce Japanese law onboard any Japanese flagged vessel. SSCI on the other hand are an known eco-terrorist organization conducting acts of viloence on the high seas with no lawenforcement powers, authority or jurisdiction from any nation or internationally recognized organization. Hope this helps.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It"S MEDec. 29, 2011 - 10:32PM JST Sure and "mono" don't mean "single" either.

What are you trying to say? Mono Hull craft (as opposed to catamarans, multi hulls) are not "illegal" anywhere. Single hulls (for large vessels) are prohibited in many places and double hulls (2 layers) are a requirement.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

OssanAmerica.

Yup, Double-hull(2 layers) are the new requirement for Antarctic waters, plus a few other requirements.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What I find ridiculous, is the fact that there are a large number of people who are still homeless and/or jobless, and money that could be used to help them or people who fish more locally is being spent on whale hunting.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How can you be against SSC?How can you be against SSC?

How can some people be so blind as to how detrimental SSC is to their cause?

I will be (financially) supporting you guys, even in these turbulent days!

You do realize that Paul Watson is a millionaire?!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Kamala Brown-SparksDec. 29, 2011 - 11:10PM JST What I find ridiculous, is the fact that there are a large number of people who are still homeless and/or jobless, and >money that could be used to help them or people who fish more locally is being spent on whale hunting.

What I find ridiculous, is the fact that there are a large number of people who are still homeless and/or jobless, and money that could be used to help them or people who fish more locally is being spent on contributions by people to a criminal eco-terrorist organization run by an attention hungry millionaire liar whom even Greenpeace won't go near. SSCS supporters are more sheep than anti-whaling.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I read the ship sent out a distress call. Why didn't the whaling fleet offer to help, required under international law. Would the Whaling fleet let them die if the boat sank? So far the little ship did nothing to them but follow the fleet. Stupid to bring such a fragile ship down to the Antarctic.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

YuriOtani - I read the ship sent out a distress call. Why didn't the whaling fleet offer to help, required under international law. Would the Whaling fleet let them die if the boat sank? So far the little ship did nothing to them but follow the fleet. Stupid to bring such a fragile ship down to the Antarctic.

Inspite of their new drone and high speed toy boat, the eco-terrorist SS had lost track of the whalers. Another eco-terrorist boat was the closest vessel.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The better question is, why didn't Bob Barker help instead of chasing the research fleet?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

OssanAmerica - 1) What insurance company is providing Hull&Machinery and Protection&Indemnity Insurance to a fleet of ships whose openly declared intent is to ram other ships? If they are actually insured an enormnous amount of their collected donations must be going to insurance coverage.

2) If they are not insured, or self-insured how are they able to pass the Port State Control inspections when they are in Australian ports?

The eco-terrorist SS would be reguired to carry insurance or post a bond to cover damages by their nation of registry. I seem to remember reading that one of the eco-terrorist SS scows was listed as a "recreational vessel" and another was listed as some type of "cruise" ship. I'm sure that none of the eco-terrorist scows are listed as "glass bottles of acid launching vessels" or "research ramming" vessels.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

YuriOtaniDec. 30, 2011 - 01:19AM JST I read the ship sent out a distress call. Why didn't the whaling fleet offer to help, required under international law.

It is customary for the nearest vessel to priovide assistance for obvious reasons

Would the Whaling fleet let them die if the boat sank?

Why ask such a pointlessly hypothetical question? The rule of navigation apply to all ships, period.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Commercial whaling is banned under an international treaty but Japan has since 1987 used a loophole to carry out “lethal research” in the name of science—a practice condemned by environmentalists and anti-whaling nations.

As long as the plentiful minke is the primary catch, then I have no problem with it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@nigel:

The better question is, why didn't Bob Barker help instead of chasing the research fleet?

Doing the sensible thing wouldn't make for good TV.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Bebert61 - How does Sea Shepherd pick the names for their ships? What criteria do they use? Yes, Bardot and Barker are both celebrity animal rights activists, but Bardot is also well known as a French, anti-muslim racist who has been convicted of several "hate" crimes in France. Bob Barker is known to have sexually harassed many (if not all) of the display models who worked on his decades-long game show. Couldn't Sea Shepherd and its head boob, Paul Watson, have selected a celebrity animal rights activists with a cleaner past? Pamela Anderson (only half joking)?

Money.

If you have the money and are willing to use it to support eco-terrorist violence (I'm not saying or implying that you are), the eco-terrorist Waston will gladly name his next eco-terrorist scow the "Berbert61". Of course, you will be soley responsible for the loss of your ship like Bethune and Ady Gil were or you may hear that your namesake was seized by Canada for ramming their Coast Guard and disrupting a legal hunt as Farley Mowat had the displeasure of finding out.

I expect we'll be seeing headlines that states - "Bob Barker collides with iceberg - all hands lost" or "Steve Irwin responsible for dozens of deaths".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerica, the online article said the Japanese did not respond to the distress call. Second the article is misleading if the SS boat was not close to the whaling fleet. I would like to know the positions of the different ships. Then it would make more sense to me. Oh about the SS ship not turning back. Just because someone does something wrong does not give you license to do the same.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Oh about the SS ship not turning back. Just because someone does something wrong does not give you license to do the same.

You might want to address that to me YuriOtani.

First of all, I believe it's Steve Irwin who went back to assist the damage ship. Secondly, if another SS vessel, Bob Barker, didn't think it was "serious" to a point where the ship continued to chase the research fleet, then why do you condemn the fleet for thinking the same way?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

YuriOtani - the online article said the Japanese did not respond to the distress call. Second the article is misleading if the SS boat was not close to the whaling fleet. I would like to know the positions of the different ships. Then it would make more sense to me. Oh about the SS ship not turning back. Just because someone does something wrong does not give you license to do the same.

What online article are you referring to? There is nothing in the JT article about the whalers not responding to a distress call.

Australia's Maritime Safety Authority said it had been monitoring the situation but there was no active rescue afoot because the eco-terrorists were managing the situation. They were aware of it, but it was really a monitoring brief for them because it was a eco-terrorist vessel to which another eco-terrorist vessel was going to the aid.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

arrestpaul, it was in the thewest.com.au. "He said the ship had sent out a distress signal at 6pm but had only heard back from the Steve Irwin. None of the vessels in the Japanese whaling fleet had responded to the calls for help." As I wrote, do not know the positions of the ships. Which ship was closer and does it really matter? What if the Steve Irwin would of not made it in time and the ship sank? The whaling fleet is suppose to have Coast Guard people on board. What about their duty to respond to those in distress? They are bound by international law to at least respond to the distress call and ask if they can be of assistance.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

YuriOtani - it was in the thewest.com.au. "He said the ship had sent out a distress signal at 6pm but had only heard back from the Steve Irwin. None of the vessels in the Japanese whaling fleet had responded to the calls for help." As I wrote, do not know the positions of the ships. Which ship was closer and does it really matter?

From the same article you posted - "Capt. Renecle said he had spoken to the Australian Maritime Safety Rescue Coordination Centre and had been advised that the Steve Irwin was the nearest vessel."

So you know that the eco-terrorist SI was the nearest vessel.

There are many reasons that one vessel doesn't receive a radio signal from another vessel, especially in 6 meter waves. One vessel is up, the other vessel is down. One vessel has rolled to the right, the other vessel has rolled to the left. Land based antennas hundreds of meters above the mean water level would still be able to receive a radio signal 100 nm away that a vessel rolling in the same waves 20 nm distance could not. (The numbers are not exact and only used as an example.)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I just can't see what all these folks are Blubbering about!-Brigette Bardo,Indeed,,, nonsense!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

not especially for or against whaling, however i don't agree with the sscs 's methods.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

arrestpaul, not sure what they are using for communication. How far is the fishing fleet from Ile Amsterdam? The French have an EEO from there. I need the latitude and longitude of the different ships. As for ships the Japanese have better ships. The Steve Irwin is small compared to the scientific study ship. They seem to have no trouble losing these pests. About the radio what type of radio do they use? Know next to nothing about maritime only aviation, VHF? UHF? HF? 100 NM, hmm that is not very far. Australia is over 1000 NM from the scene. There is a French Research station on LLE Amsterdam. Wonder if they have a repeater there?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yuriotani, there is no issue here. The BB has been secured and is under tow to Fremantle. Assistance was provided by the nearest vessel, the Steve Irwin. Thebsituatuion was under control anmd een the AMSA did not have to respond. No one, not even SSCS is making any claims about the Japanese research whalers not responding. Except you., Best give it a rest.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

not even SSCS is making any claims about the Japanese research whalers not responding.

That's not what the West Australian is reporting.

None of the vessels in the Japanese whaling fleet had responded to the calls for help.

Capt. Watson said he did not trust the Japanese fleet to help and feared if they came to the aid of the Brigitte Bardot they would “run it down”.

It's good the SI was the nearest and able to respond, but other ships in the area don't know that unless they at least answer the distress call to find out what the situation is. Judging from the attitudes of some posters here (sharks? in the Antarctic?), Watson has a point.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Cleo that's to be expected from the highly biased Australian "news" source. Notice that it is not mentioned on anyu other news sources. And you confirmed what I said, that even SSCI isn't making any claims that the Japanese research whalers didn't respond. Watson himself DIDN'T WANT THEM TO, per your own quote. How do you kinow what other ships in the area do or don't know? Are you somehow privy to their comminucation logs and bulletins received from AMSA? A ship does not need to answer a call to find out if abnother vessel is closer and on it;s way.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

According to Yuri, the ONLY ship to respond was the Steve Irwin. Therefore we can assume that the SS's own ship, the Bob Barker also didn't respond. I wonder if there's a reason for this, perhaps the distress call they made out was only to the Steve Irwin which was near? Or because it was on a different frequency or something.

But it certainly opens questions why a boat that was between the whaling fleet and the incident didn't respond to the alleged cry for help. Yet the board feels that the whalers were at fault.

And let's just remember that adds years ago the SS made claims that the whalers had sailed off and left the Ady Gil to sink. Despite their own photos which proved the opposite.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

None of this matters, a distress call was received. I am sure they received it and the Japanese fleet ignored it. All they had to do is respond, "do you request our assistance?"

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

cleo - It's good the SI was the nearest and able to respond, but other ships in the area don't know that unless they at least answer the distress call to find out what the situation is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we are talking about a "radio" transmission aren't we? Party A transmits, party B responds, parties C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L can monitor the conversation - IF - they can receive it. If party B can not handle the emergency then any other receiving station can offer assistance. over.

You haven't established which vessels were able to receive the BB's signal. over.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

None of that matters...

There's no evidence to suggest that the Japanese fleet received a distress call. But you are sure that they ignored it.

Well you can't argue with that logic...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

YuriOtani - not sure what they are using for communication.

VHF radio 156.8 MHz for short range maritime use. 2182 kHz for medium range. Long-distance distress calls: 4,125 kHz, 6,215 kHz, 8,291 kHz, 12.290 MHz, 16.420 MHz.

Maritime frequencies used for Digital Selective Calling: 2,187.5 kHz, 4,207.5 kHz, 6,312 kHz, 8,414.5 kHz, 12,577 kHz, 16,804.5 kHz, 156.525 MHz.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtani - None of this matters, a distress call was received. I am sure they received it and the Japanese fleet ignored it. All they had to do is respond, "do you request our assistance?"

Hahahaha, that's funny. What are you basing your assumption on?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well the Japanese ship is much bigger and this the antenna would be much higher as well. Then there is all of the smaller ships and spread out. They have a bigger budget and can afford to buy the best equipment. arrestpaul, aviation is much easier. At this point I am more interested in how and why things happened than placing blame. Since no one died there was no foul. Thought I had made up my mind after watching "Whale Wars" but have been looking at the ICR's point of view. I have decided am not sure. www.icrwhale.org

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yep. Those chumps should be sued for using Steve Irwin. Steve's family is too nice to make an issue out of it like from what I heard about Bob Marley's family who took the Japapanese whalers to court for using "Bob Marley & the Whalers" on one of their ships. After the court ruled in favor of the whalers and not the Wailers, the ship's captain decided to change the name to just "The Whalers." However, I heard that former fan club members of the both the New England & Hartford Whalers are attempting challenge the usage of the name. Attorney's for the Japanese whalers advised them to not use trade mark names and take a wiser approach like their anti-whaling counter-parts who use the names of real people. So now the captain of the whaler has decided to change the name of his ship to the "Gordie Howe."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtaniDec. 30, 2011 - 10:40AM JST None of this matters, a distress call was received. I am sure they received it and the Japanese fleet ignored it. All >they had to do is respond, "do you request our assistance?"

Yuriotani, Unless you are onsight and onboard the vessels in question, you being "sure they received it" is utter and complete nonsense bordering on the psychotic. Can you tell us why you are attenmping to make an issue out of something that nobody, not even SSCI, are making an issue out of?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

One comment implies that Sea Shepherd should be sued by the family of Steve Irwin over the name of its flagship.

However, the real Steve Irwin was, in fact, impressed with Sea Shepherd and planned to campaign with them. He even envisioned the SSCS boats using a giant 'can opener' to disable the Japanese whaling ships.

The Irwin family has been very publicly supportive of Sea Shepherd and other environmental groups.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OssanAmerica, compare the specs of the 2 ships. Nisshin Maru vs Steve Irwin. Length 425' vs 195', beam 63' vs 36 feet, draft 38' vs 14' and 8030 tons vs 885. I know they received it since they did not announced they did not. It shows an attitude of hostility. That little death trap (Brigitte Bardot) was able to send and receive for great distances, so again what is the Japanese excuse? Better yet if they alone received the mayday call, would they relay it? I forget ships do not carry voice recorders like planes. They missed out a great PR opportunity to offer help for someone that was hostile to them in their time of need.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtaniDec. 31, 2011 - 02:31AM JST I know they received it since they did not announced they did not. It shows an attitude of hostility.

Yuriotani, I know you have been robbing conveience stores throughout the country because you have not announced that you haven't. Do you understand the irrationality of your logic? Or lack thereof?

That little death >trap (Brigitte Bardot) was able to send and receive for great distances, so again what is the >Japanese excuse?

There is no need for any excuse, there is no confirmation that they received any call, and there is no confirmation that they weren't advised by AMSA that a vessel closest to the location was on it's way. The fact is that the Steve Irwin happened to be the closest vessel anyway.

Better yet if they alone received the mayday call, would they relay it?

A pointless question since we have no way of knowing if they received it and nobody apart from you seems to care. Hence what they would do with it is also a pointless question.

I forget ships do not carry voice recorders like planes. They missed out a great PR opportunity to offer help for >someone that was hostile to them in their time of need.

It;s great that you are very interested in aircraft, but this has little to do with that subject. Since we have no way of knowing whether they received any distress call it;s silly to say they missed out on anything.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Under a UN agreement any ship hearing a distress call from any other vessel is required to respond and if possible offer any assistance that it can, including resending the distress call to other ships or land based stations.

Its unlikely, the Japanese fleet didn't hear the distress call which would have been repeated. We don't know if the fleet responded or not and whether the SH boat accepted any offers of assistance.

Unless it was critical I would expect the SH boat to decline offers of help which would have meant the crew being taken aboard a Japanese ship.

I don't know why this boat is named the Brigitte Bardot. Maybe she bought it or made a large contribution. The Bob Baker is called that because Bob Barker donated the ship. The Steve Irwin was named following his death and with the full permission of his family.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

YuriOtani - aviation is much easier. At this point I am more interested in how and why things happened than placing blame.

No, you are interested in blaming the whalers for not responding to a message that you admittedly have no way of knowing that they received or not.

Well the Japanese ship is much bigger and this the antenna would be much higher as well.

Ships yaw. That changes the direction of the antenna which would have changed the direction of the transmission signal. A land based station would have still been able to receive the eco-terrorist BB's signal. You and the eco-terrorist Watson have no idea where the whalers were because the eco-terrorist SS has lost track of them.

"Radio" transmission is a "send" OR "receive" action. You can't do both, at the same time, over the same frequency. You would need 2 channels to send/receive simultaneously.

The Australian Maritime Safety Rescue Coordination Centre would have required that all other stations stay off the emergency channel while they or the first responding vessel used the channel to resolve the situation. That's SOP.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

OssanAmerica so why are you defending the whalers? Even though you dislike a group or they are criminals, you should help them in a life threatening event. I can see the bridge of the ship, should we answer? Oh lets call the institute and ask, at the institute they decide to call the fishery ministry. At the fishing ministry they call defense who call the foreign ministry. Before a decision could be made the other sea Sheppard ship had arrived. No one wanted to take responsibility for the action. If you do not believe me look again at the tsunami, the earthquake and nuclear meltdown.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

YuriOtaniDec. 31, 2011 - 04:21AM JST OssanAmerica so why are you defending the whalers?

In this specific instance I would even defend SSCS if they were the target of baseless accusations such as the ones you have presented.

Even though you dislike a group or they are criminals, you should help them in a life threatening event.

Nothing has transpired to suggest that would not happen.

I can see the bridge of the ship, should we answer? Oh lets call the institute and ask, at the institute they decide to >call the fishery ministry. At the fishing ministry they call defense who call the foreign ministry. Before a decision >could be made the other sea Sheppard ship had arrived. No one wanted to take responsibility for the action. If you >do not believe me look again at the tsunami, the earthquake and nuclear meltdown.

Thank you for your speculative fantasy. But that is all that it is; your personal fantasy as to the course of events. Additionally, on board a ship that is not how it works. The Master (or captain) is responsible for everything that goes on with the ship and providing assistance to any ship in distress under the internatiomnal maritime regulations is included. Ships do not request instructions with regard to matters of navigation or maritime protocol. The tsunami, earthquake and nuclear reactor disaster have nothing to do with how a ship at sea functions. Please give it up, this is gettinng seriously silly. Are you so bent on demonizing the research Whalers that you have to concoct a fanatsy scenario in order to lay blame?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

OssanAmerica, no the whalers could of done better. As for the other their is a joke in the SDF. It goes something like the fighters can not stay in the air long enough for a decision to be made to use them. My criticism has to do with indecision and doing nothing. Both of these are problems in today's Japan.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

YuriOtaniDec. 31, 2011 - 07:45AM JST OssanAmerica, no the whalers could of done better.

No one, including you, has the necessary information to form an opinion as to whether the Research Whalers could have done better or worse. Considering that the BB was assisted and safely towed, this whole thing is history and your efforts to vifily the resarch whalers is not only unsubstantiated and unfounded, but utterly pointless.

As for the other their is a joke in the SDF. It goes something like the fighters can not stay in the air long enough for >a decision to be made to use them. My criticism has to do with indecision and doing nothing. Both of these are >problems in today's Japan.

You have every right to criticize indecision and "doing nothing". However it would behoove you limit such criticism to siuations where it applies. Not to situations where you have to create a fanatasy scenario to apply it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Zichi.

The Brigitte Bardot is actually the ol' Gojira.

SSCS got hit with a legal order to stop using the name without permission, the Gojira was than renamed the BB as Watson once had a meal with here and liked her. So far Ms Bardot has not made any comments about the naming.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So far Ms Bardot has not made any comments about the naming.

She's on record as saying, I’m moved, overwhelmed and infinitely grateful that this wonderful “ savior of the seas” will wear my name to fight against those who allow themselves to butcher what is most precious in the oceans. Thank to you Paul for this magical idea that fulfills me with pride. http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/2011/05/25/the-beast-transforms-into-a-beauty-as-godzilla-becomes-the-brigitte-bardot-13

1 ( +3 / -2 )

YuriOtani - I can see the bridge of the ship, should we answer? Oh lets call the institute and ask, at the institute they decide to call the fishery ministry. At the fishing ministry they call defense who call the foreign ministry. Before a decision could be made the other sea Sheppard ship had arrived. No one wanted to take responsibility for the action.

Now you're just making things up. Which proves just how low the pro-violence supporters of the eco-terrorists are willing to go to make themselves feel better about attacking whalers and research vessels.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Inrteresting that news has come out that the Bob Barker actually responded to the BB's distress call first, arrived on site and the crews transferred the BB's stores and equipment to the Bob Barker, which then left in pursuit of the research whaling fleet. The BB was left alone immobilized and waiting for the Steve Irwin to arrive.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

First we have people asking why didn't Bob Barker help instead of chasing the research fleet now we have Ossan hinting there was something 'interesting' about the Bob Barker's response. Make your minds up, people.

So the Bob Barker got there first, checked that things were OK, took on board some stuff presumably to lift the Bardot higher in the water, and when it was sure the ship would be OK until the SI arrived, got on with its job. Not comparable with certain other vessels that did not bother answering the distress call or offering assistance in any form. Though as it's been said, SS would have to be in truly dire straits to accept help from the whalers.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Someone in Japan still believes that (some) whales will one day in the future become a major food source, possibly under 'managed' farming. Based upon this belief, they are probably trying to keep open the only 'legal' window they have, knowing that if they stop any aspect of this activity it will be lost for good. They know they have to be just as tough and bloody-minded as the other lot since there can only be one winner.

Poor old Brigitte Bardot has cracks in her hull.

If the whalers heard her cries for help, they would surely have little reason to believe them. There was once a boy who cried 'wolf' too often...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleo - First we have people asking why didn't Bob Barker help instead of chasing the research fleet now we have Ossan hinting there was something 'interesting' about the Bob Barker's response. Make your minds up, people.

Make up your minds about what? Information is slowly coming in. Questions are being asked. Incorrect statements are being made.

Not comparable with certain other vessels that did not bother answering the distress call or offering assistance in any form. Though as it's been said, SS would have to be in truly dire straits to accept help from the whalers.

I suspect that several members of the eco-terrorist BB crew didn't want to be rescued by the whalers and then arrested by security personel for previous acts of violence against the whalers.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

cleoDec. 31, 2011 - 10:18AM JST First we have people asking why didn't Bob Barker help instead of chasing the research fleet now we have Ossan >hinting there was something 'interesting' about the Bob Barker's response. Make your minds up, people.

Why do people need to makle up their minds when information is slowly coming out?

So the Bob Barker got there first, checked that things were OK, took on board some stuff presumably to lift the >Bardot higher in the water, and when it was sure the ship would be OK until the SI arrived, got on with its job.

Speculation goes both ways. The necessity to transfer tools of violence, butryc acid bottles, lazers, entanglement ropes. etc off the BB that was goiing to be towed into port for repairs took priority. What is " interesting" is that the possibility that the Bob Barker arrived first but did not render assistance and tow the BB back.

Not comparable with certain other vessels that did not bother answering the distress call or offering assistance in >any form. Though as it's been said, SS would have to be in truly dire straits to accept help from the whalers.

And what "certain vessels" are thse cleo? There has bewen no mention in any news sources. ibcluding this article of any vessels receiving a distress call and not responding.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There is no mention anywhere that the eco-terrorist scow Bridget "B(oo)B" Bardot (not to be confused with the eco-terrorist scow Bob "BB" Barker) issued a "Mayday" or "Pan Pan" distress call. Is it possible that the eco-terrorist B(oo)B only signalled the eco-terrorist Watson for assistance and contacted the Australian marine authorities to notify them of the situation? Is it possible that there was NO "general call" for assistance issued?

It's obvious that the eco-terrorists didn't want to be rescued/arrested by Japanese security forces. Why would they even try to contact them?

What's "interesting" is that the eco-terrorist BB "ABANDONED" the disabled eco-terrorist B(oo)B to the actions of the sea. "Give us your glass bottles of acid and red phosphorus flares because those can be of future use to us but you chumps are on your own. Ta ta."

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Japan is stubborn. All this anti-whaling hysteria and condemnation from the West just makes the government even more obstinate and determined to whale. Change will only come from within. It's important for anti-whaling Japanese to make their voices heard. Look at how the housewives are coming together to refute the government's lies and obfuscation regarding what's been radiated and what hasn't. I don't normally agree with Yuri Otani on anything, but we need more people like her who are anti-whaling and outspoken with it.

The whaling will only stop if Japan is not forced to 'lose face' in the process.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That's nothing. I see a rogue wave every time Watson raises his hand to reporters.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Nessie - That's nothing. I see a rogue wave every time Watson raises his hand to reporters.

Hahaha. That's definately a candidate for "Post of the Day".

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

oginomeJan. 02, 2012 - 05:55AM JST I don't normally agree with Yuri Otani on anything, but we need more people like her who are anti-whaling and >outspoken with it.

There's nothing wrongwith being anti-whaling. But there is somethjing seriously wrong with using that sentiment to justify conducting and supporting criminal viloent activities. Pleaswe rad what Greenpeace has to say about Sea Shepherd. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and/

ndersentheerikJan. 02, 2012 - 11:35PM JST Anti whale is racist culture imperialist.

Anti-Whaling per se is not. However Sea Shepherd has managed to find the perfect mix of cultural imperialism and racism as well as territorial nationalism to provide support for it;s criminal acts of violence.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Something there is that doesn't love an eco-terrorist.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerica, it would of been better if the research fleet responded and recorded the radio traffic. Am sure they would of refused help. It is how we treat those who are against us that defines our character. Think they are more eco pests than terrorists.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

YuriOtani - it would of been better if the research fleet responded and recorded the radio traffic. Am sure they would of refused help.

Better for whom? I'm sure the eco-terrorists didn't want to be rescued and then arrested. Why would they contact the whalers when the eco-terrorist BB was able to respond so quickly?

And, on commercial vessels, the radio operator or the captain would have logged any Mayday or Pan Pan radio distress signals.

It is how we treat those who are against us that defines our character.

How do the eco-terrorists treat the whalers. How does the act of throwing bottles of acid and red phosphorus flares define the character of the eco-terrorists? How do rammings and sinkings and bragging about the violence define the character of the eco-terrorists?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

How do rammings and sinkings and bragging about the violence define the character of the eco-terrorists?

How does the act of firing exploding harpoons followed up by rifle shots define the character of the whalers? How does the killing of baby whales and pregnant/lactating females define the character of the whalers? How does the stringing up of injured whales by the tail so that they drown in their own blood define the character of the whalers? How does the diversion of emergency reconstruction funds from Tohoku to the Antarctic define the character of the pro-whalers? How do mealy-mouthed ramblings about food culture, wiggling through loopholes and false accusations of racism define the character of the pro-whalers?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Awwwww..... it couldn't have happened to a nicer vessel.... LOL

Hope she sinks.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

arrestpaul, does not matter what the Sea Sheppard people do or do not do. We need to do the right thing and not the vindicate thing.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Its all well and good name calling and whining. Sea Shepherd have already succeeded. Forcing the Japanese whalers to suck up more money to justify their hunt will make it much harder to get funding. The Brigitte Bardot will be back next season, if not then an equally good replacement. Scow or not if it can get in the way it can do its job.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

cleo - How do mealy-mouthed ramblings about food culture, wiggling through loopholes and false accusations of racism define the character of the pro-whalers?

The "food culture" exists whether you approve of it or not.

"Loopholes"? What loopholes? The many nations that still harvest whales seem to be abiding by the rules. If you object to the rules AS THEY EXIST, then you should make your objections known to the rule makers.

Many nations continue to harvest whales but many pro-violence, eco-terrorist SS supporters chose to make Japan the object of their hatred. Sounds like racism to me.

You forgot to address my previous question - How do rammings and sinkings and bragging about the violence define the character of the eco-terrorists?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

YuriOtani - does not matter what the Sea Sheppard people do or do not do. We need to do the right thing and not the vindicate thing.

If matters very much what the eco-terrorist SS do. Even Greenpeace refuses to have anything to do with the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS. Why? Because of their continuous use of violence to force their views on others.

What do you consider to be "the right thing"? Making up stories about how the whalers didn't respond to a communication between the eco-terrorist B(oo)B and the eco-terrorist BB and SI? The eco-terrorist B(oo)B didn't issue a Mayday distress call.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

YuriOtaniJan. 03, 2012 - 08:25AM JST OssanAmerica, it would of been better if the research fleet responded and recorded the radio traffic. Am sure they >would of refused help.

Please stop repeating this totally unsubstaniated speculation. How can you be "sure"? Are you onboard one of the ships?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

cleoJan. 03, 2012 - 12:10PM JST How does the act of firing exploding harpoons followed up by rifle shots define the character of the whalers? How >does the killing of baby whales and pregnant/lactating females define the character of the whalers? How does the >stringing up of injured whales by the tail so that they drown in their own blood define the character of the whalers? >How does the diversion of emergency reconstruction funds from Tohoku to the Antarctic define the character of the >pro-whalers? How do mealy-mouthed ramblings about food culture, wiggling through loopholes and false >accusations of racism define the character of the pro-whalers?

Not one of the above emo tidbits justify violence against other people. Nor does it justify supporting the criminals who carry out such acts of violence. At least not if one is a civilized sane law abiding individual who respects the rights of other people and law and order. As even Paul watson says...philosphical lunacy.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@cleo

That is amazing. I don't think anybody could have said it any better.

@OssanAmerica

How does throwing bamboo spears into a small inflatable boat, where the crew have no way of protecting themselves, define the character of the whalers? How does throwing large brass bolts and golf balls into a small inflatable boat, where the crew have no way of protecting themselves, define the character of the whalers? How does aiming an LRAD at a helicopter pilot who is flying over the freezing, Antarctic waters, where he would die in minutes if he crashed, define the character of the whalers? How does throwing flash grenades at people within a close range define the character of the whalers? How does shooting at and trying to kill the Sea Shepherd crew define the character of the whalers? How does running over a 13 ton, fibreglass boat and almost killing six people with a 700 ton steel boat define the character of the whalers?

Nor does it justify supporting the criminals who carry out such acts of violence.

Refer to the above part of this comment for only some of the violent things that the whalers have done. Sea Shepherd isn't the one down in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary illegally. The Nissin Maru is down there illegally because they burn heavy fuels and the burning of heavy fuels below 60 degrees was banned this past summer. They are also down in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary illegally killing whales. They use the loophole of "scientific research" to kill whales. Many experts and the IWC have said that the lethal research is unnecessary and can be preformed without murdering the endangered whales. How does it make sense to murder whales in order to find out their population numbers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SSCSforver, Your band of eco-terrorists have an openly declared mission and intent to harass the research whalers. They are the ones going out of their way to approach them and to interfere with their opertations. The resreacgh whalers in contrast, have an openly declared mission and intent to hunt whales, nothing more., Every action nthat the reserch whalers have taken regading the SSCI eco[terrtprists has been defensive to protect themselves and their activity. SSCSI and Watson have a long history of seeking media flash with absurd and blatant lies. No body with half a mind actually believes that anyone ever shot anybody. Or that any bullet would miraculously stop either. WAtso is just short of claiming that he can walk on water. How anyone feels about whaling, about research whaling, or even their personal racist beliefs is irrelevant to the issue at hand, namely that one can not conduct criminal acts of violence to achieve their aims. Greenpeace, who are obviously anti-whaling won't have anything to do with the SSCS eco-terrorists. Read http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and/

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"Every action nthat the reserch whalers have taken regading the SSCI eco[terrtprists has been defensive to protect themselves and their activity"

Thats BS and you know it. Sea Shepherd has attacked no Japanese whaler. They try to block the operations by making it as tough as possible for the whalers to work. In response the whalers have employed military hardware and homemade weapons.

If SS were the terrorists you continue to bleat about then surely they would have been arrested on charges of terrorism. Sadly for your argument Interpol wont issue an arrest order, Watson remains free and the organisation maintains charity status in its home territory.

SS tactics against Japans whalers have had the desired effect, their stated aim is to make the whaling operation too expensive to maintain. This year the authorities have resorted to controversial extra budgets to afford the military presence. That cant go on forever. Its a huge disappointment that more animals must die in this most cruel manner, but Sea Shepherds operation continues to raise the whalers profile and their costs.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Swisstoni, I'm afraid it;s not "BS" at all. SSCS's actvities are widely available on many sites as well as on youtube. You're playing semantic games with the word "attack" as if throwing any objects at people, or attempting to immobilize a ship in antarctic waters doesnb't constitute an "attack". The fact is that it does and it is of a violent and criminal nature. You are attempting to claim thatg an organizaton that proud;ly bosts of sinking and ramming ships doesn't "attack" anybody. Let's get real. Obviously you are unaware of, or choose to ignore. SSCS'sd past history and clashes with the law in Canada, Norway and Iceland.You are also totally misguided in that SSCI's crimanal actions have not had the "desired effect", unless your desired effect os to harden the Research Whaler's position and put monrey Paul Watson and Discovery Channel's coffers. Read what Greenpeace has to say about SSCS. They wre anti-whaling before they kicked Watson out for his propensity for excessive violence.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

SwissToni - Thats BS and you know it. Sea Shepherd has attacked no Japanese whaler. They try to block the operations by making it as tough as possible for the whalers to work. In response the whalers have employed military hardware and homemade weapons.

If SS were the terrorists you continue to bleat about then surely they would have been arrested on charges of terrorism.

Wrong. The eco-terrorist SS proudly wear shirts that proclaim that they have rammed 4 Japnaese whalers. The eco-terrorist SS routinely and continously use their homemade weapons (glass bottle launchers, fouling lines, etc) to disable and harm the whalers. The eco-terrorist Watson and members of the eco-terrorist SS have been arrested in several countries.

Everyone is entitled to DEFEND themselves and the whalers are DEFENDING themselves from eco-terrorist attacks.

Taking a toy boat into international antarctic waters was just plain stupid. It was never intended to handle the winds, waves, temps, and currents found in that area. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Arrestpaul, it is you that is wrong. Arrest and being told to leave is not a terrorist conviction. Even Pete Berhune wasn't convicted of any terrorist offence. Your name calling is a cheap attempt to get a rise and continue the spiral of insult and failure to engage.

As for the Brigitte Bardot being to fragile. She was built to circumnavigate the world at record speed. Which she did very successfully. A freak wave can catch and damage any vessel, especially one engaged in upsetting a whale hunt.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Swiss Toni, you are the one who is wrong and in denial of SSCS' true nature and identity. Greenpeace, WWF, they are "Conservation" societies. Sea Shepherd are not, they are eco-terrorists.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/347-sea-shepherd-conservation-society

"Though self-named a “Conservation Society,” Sea Shepherd is a violent organization. Its purpose is to ram and sink ships. Earth Warrior author David Morris details one such voyage in search of driftnetters. Even in this gushing account, Morris notes, “The gunfire that accompanied our attack on the Japanese ships was not defensive.” So it’s no surprise that Sea Shepherd’s expeditions have served as a fitting training ground for other animal-rights militants. Rodney Coronado has long been involved with criminal groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which the FBI has identified as the country’s most dangerous domestic terrorist threat, and the special-interest ALF subset known as SHAC. He was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University research laboratory. He admitted to at least six other arsons in a November 30, 2002 speech. In January 2003, he demonstrated to a group gathered at American University the “correct” way to build a firebomb out of household materials. And Paul Watson gave him his start. Coronado joined SSCS immediately after graduating from high school in 1984. Two years later, he proposed a plan to covertly attack Iceland’s whaling industry. He and David Howitt, a British bicycle mechanic, destroyed a whale-processing facility there, and sank two of the Icelandic whaling fleet’s four ships. Watson supported the plan and SSCS took responsibility for the destruction. In the mid-’90s, Coronado again wanted to join a SSCS expedition. But he was wanted for questioning by the FBI and Watson said no. Watson was regretful, however, calling him “an excellent crew member and the best damn activist I ever had.” These words give the lie to Watson’s claim that “we have absolutely no links with the so-called Animal Liberation Front.”

The FBI rhas eferred to Sea Shepherd as an eco-terrorist organization:

"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/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

2 ( +5 / -3 )

'I remember the idiot Paul Watson said something to the effect that the tsunami and the earthquake was caused by god.'

I do not remember who said it, but I too, remember reading the comments that the tsunami was payback to the Japanese for the whale and dolphin kills. Pretty damned cold and egocentric if you ask me, that they think the earth is on their side and will kill for them. They sound like a cult at times.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SwissToni - As for the Brigitte Bardot being to fragile. She was built to circumnavigate the world at record speed.

It was not built to be traipsing around in the dangerous waters of the Antarctic or to be used as an attack vessel. The captain should have known better than to risk the crews lives if not his own. But that is what the eco-terrorists are claiming to do isn't it, risk lives.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ossanamerica, the FBI has its own agenda. If SS were a terrorist organisation they should have proven their claim and had SSs charity status revoked and the organisation shut down. Its not happened.

Your selective quote didnt manage to exclude the note that Watson refused Coronado's application to rejoin SS's expedition once he was wanted for arrest. You missed a bit of editing there I think.

Sea Shepherd certainly are risking their lives. Putting yourself in harms way and threatening peoples livelihoods carries risk . It is a measure of their dedication.

arrestpaul, round the world boat racing takes place mostly in the southern oceans.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

SwissToni - the FBI has its own agenda. If SS were a terrorist organisation they should have proven their claim......

And what "agenda" do you think the FBI has? Arresting criminals, perhaps?

If the eco-terrorist SS commit acts of violence and eco-terrorism within the FBI's jurisdiction, they will be arrested and prosecuted. The FBI has no jurisdiction in international waters. The eco-terrorist Watson doesn't pull these stunts in U.S. waters because the Coast Guards first series of shots would be across the bow and their second series would be thru the wheelhouse.

round the world boat racing takes place mostly in the southern oceans.

And the "racing boat" broke in only 6 meter waves. It's a good thing it didn't get REALLY rough out there.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I think the FBIs ahead is the same as the whalers. Maintain the budget and justify their own existence.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think the FBIs agenda is the same as the whalers. Maintain the budget and justify their own existence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SwissToni - I think the FBIs agenda is the same as the whalers. Maintain the budget and justify their own existence.

Sounds like you're describing the eco-terrorist Watson's prime objective. Creating any headline that will keep the suckers donating to his well being and lifestyle (aka buget and existence).

The eco-terrorist's broke another of their toy boats and their pro-violence supporters are now expected to pay for the damages. Doesn't cost the eco-terrorist Watson anything out of his own pocket.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So you dont deny the FBIs agenda then?

Watsons the head of an organisation of lobbyists, their sole aim is to raise funding and increase the the public profile of the whaling issue. Sea Shepherd is very successful too.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SwissToni - So you dont deny the FBIs agenda then?

Watsons the head of an organisation of lobbyists, their sole aim is to raise funding and increase the the public profile of the whaling issue. Sea Shepherd is very successful too.

The FBI is a government-created law enforcement agency. Their "agenda" is catching criminals.

The eco-terrorist SS has no such government sanction or jurisdiction. Their "agenda" is to use violence to force others to do their bidding.

I would say that I don't agree with your assessment of the FBI.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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