Breaking news from the whale wars

[webjr]

What do we know as absolute fact?
The AG hit the gas right before impact.
The SM appears to swerve right, then left right before impact.
Were either of these deliberate aggression? The only ones that know are the crew. The whaler had no business being there. They have a permit... aquired under false pretense. The AG had no business being there.. they were engaged in piracy, putting the lives of the crew on BOTH vessels at risk. How many ships have been lost in high seas because they lost power? Attempting to fowl a prop is an attack with deadly force and should be responded to with deadly force. If the whaler hitting the AG was not deliberate, it should have been. That said, I wouldn't have been heart broken to see the whaler go down also.

 

[JKPAO]

You are wrong. I don't claim to be an expert, but have been in-control of a 500 ton Destroyer. This is approx. the same size as the Trawler in-question. Even I, as an inexperienced Naval Watch / Navigation Officer could have easily avoided the AG (unless the vessels positions and sea state have been misrepresented on the video).

As an Naval Navigation Officer would you be concidered a master? (not really sure of how the Navy break down responsibility) When it was sitting still or under way not making way. The AG could have been avoided. There is no rule that says you can only come this close to a vessel. It does say noone has right of way threw another vessel. I think in Rule #2 Responsibility

As a paid Captain I know to stay away from Naval ships! In fact they will give you warning before you even know they are there! They will ask you to alter course long before you see them! Other ships not so much. (I am not an expert but I am a rated Captain)

I'm aware of the forces involved. The Trawler Skipper didn't even sound a collision warning (required by the Maritime Law Convention), but of course, you knew that.

Danger or Doubt Five blasts of whistle. This is for both vessels to relate not just one or the other!

I do not think the whaler was intending to hit the AG.( Just my opinion)
Coming close enough to spray them down maybe?


Perhaps you know something that we fail to see. Perhaps you can explain it in greater detail.

As a master of the vessel you should take positive action and made in ample time. I do not have my rules in front of me but I am sure it is in rule 8 ACTION TO AVOID COLLISION This goes for both vessels not just the whaler and not just the AG.


There are little or scant views and angles of this collision to make any conclusive ruling by anyone. This is all for conversation!

We all know the SS Org. would never misrepresent any info they put out. SARCASIM
I still have my suspision that it was a planned event. I don't get to vote when it comes time.

See you topside! John

 

[ScubaSteve]

When will we all realize that we are not going to "sway the other side"? Maybe we all realize it already and are just continuing because it is fun. I hope that is the case because I am confident that the two camps will never meet here.

 

[JKPAO]

Sorry about the mash up I'm still trying to figure out this quote button!
See you topside! John

 

[OldNSalty]

Note: Still doing the analysis. Early trends indicate degrees of profit when you aggregate catch totals from all whaling activities - includes the Antarctic and local waters. More to uncover as the long-term warehousing of whale meat indicates steady decrease in consumption.

If you can't move product back home it nullifies the point of harvest. That being said the government subsidies of the whaling industry indicate a long-term desire to keep people employed, or something else. Much like Ag subsidies in the US. With Japan at a 5% + unemployment rate (which dang high for Japan) the need to keep people moving ahead is big.

X

This is one reason I am opposed to how the SS is going about changing things. I think it was Gandhi once said that his form of civil disobedience would have only worked on the British, implying that a different group, with a different culture and different motivations would not have responded to him. I think the lesson there is important for anyone trying to stop whaling.

Why are they whaling if the meat is sitting in a warehouse? Are the Japanese the type to be bullied, shamed or reasoned with when negotiating?

I suspect that if it is a political hand out or national pride or what have you that the SS activities only harden the Japanese to their current course of action. If Paul Watson truly wanted change he would consider his ways but it wouldn’t make for great TV (great being an overstatement) and he wouldn’t get to grand-stand or have fame but I suppose a few whales is a small price to pay for fame.

 

[Cave Diver]

This is one reason I am opposed to how the SS is going about changing things. I think it was Gandhi once said that his form of civil disobedience would have only worked on the British, implying that a different group, with a different culture and different motivations would not have responded to him. I think the lesson there is important for anyone trying to stop whaling.

Why are they whaling if the meat is sitting in a warehouse? Are the Japanese the type to be bullied, shamed or reasoned with when negotiating?

I suspect that if it is a political hand out or national pride or what have you that the SS activities only harden the Japanese to their current course of action. If Paul Watson truly wanted change he would consider his ways but it wouldn’t make for great TV (great being an overstatement) and he wouldn’t get to grand-stand or have fame but I suppose a few whales is a small price to pay for fame.

Excellent post!

 

[OldNSalty]

When will we all realize that we are not going to "sway the other side"? Maybe we all realize it already and are just continuing because it is fun. I hope that is the case because I am confident that the two camps will never meet here.

Well, I would dive with any of you and even buy the first round of beers. I love a debate.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Well, I would dive with any of you and even buy the first round of beers. I love a debate.

That being the case, the second and third round are on me

 

[DCBC]

Texan or not, moral issues aside, dispute his points. I hate to say it but there has been nothing compelling to sway what he has said IMO. From everybody I have heard lots of one sided legal comments that are not pertinant to this incident because of jurisdiction issues as well as some one sided moral issues.

That's just not true Steve. As I have previously mentioned the AG is registered in New Zealand. The waters in-question are claimed by New Zealand and many countries (although not all) recognize this. According to the International Convention on Maritime Law, the jurisdiction would fall to New Zealand who has similar "Deadly Force" laws as Canada (as previously posted).

 

[ScubaSteve]

OK then if that is the case, we should be quoting NZ law and not Canadian. That is my point. Similar is not what they would be tried against. Quoting anything other than the applicable law when speaking of a specific event means nothing. Unless it is the NZ law, it does not apply.

If we want to carry on the conversation about a general event and not this particular one, then we could say whatever we want. Then many of the argumanets put forward here could be used. But until we are speaking in general and not of this event, I see them meaning nothing unless they are NZ law.