Breaking news from the whale wars

[StevenN]

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

Second that!

 

[DCBC]

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.

It's somewhat of a mute point where the trial will be, as we haven't had the investigation done, nor has it been decided what charges will be laid (if any). I can't predict the future. I wish I could because I'd clean up on the Superbowl!

My definitions and comments were directed at specific individuals in an effort to show them that if they conducted themselves in a manner similar to there viewpoints, in there own country, they would find themselves at odds with the law. In other words their attitudes would not be supported in their own country. Either in the U.S. or Canada.

I am not a lawyer. My only experience with the law is as an expert witness in several Canadian jurisdictions in diving related deaths. I can however easily understand what the law says about "deadly force." It is also no surprise that countries like Britian, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have similar laws in-place, as the legal system is based upon British Common Law.

Not knowing what the results are finally decided by the court. All we can do is speculate. As non of us have expertise in the New Zealand justice syatem, all we can do is relate our personal opinions. If we are to relate an informed opinion, it's reasonable to suggest that either Master would act according to the law as we know it to be and that is:

1. The overtaking vessel is the one responsible to avoid a collision.

2. That deadly force cannot be used unless an immediate threat to the life of those on the Whaler exists that would be unavoidable by another means.

Now pardon me for saying this again, but the above points clearly show who is responsible, what should have been done by law and what ended up happening.

Again, I don't have all the information; perhaps the Master of the Whaler had a heart attack and slumped over the wheel. Perhaps s/he has an excellent excuse; I don't know... The only thing that's clear is he has some explaining to do.

I'm sure the AG crew will be held accountable for their actions. As they should be. This isn't however what I understand this discussion to be about.

 

[ScubaSteve]

My definitions and comments were directed at specific individuals in an effort to show them that if they conducted themselves in a manner similar to there viewpoints, in there own country, they would find themselves at odds with the law.

That clears things up because I have taken most of your posts as trying to show guilt of the AG along with the other SS supporters. I did not come away from your posts thinking that they were not (for the most part anyways) specifically about this situation. This would have changed the direction of many of my to you posts had that been obvious to me.

 

[StevenN]

Second that!

I should clarify that you're drinking Japanese beer you're on your own. I won't be buying anything from there if I can help it.
There's more than one way to protest whaling.

 

[DCBC]

That clears things up because I have taken most of your posts as trying to show guilt of the AG along with the other SS supporters. I did not come away from your posts thinking that they were not (for the most part anyways) specifically about this situation. This would have changed the direction of many of my to you posts had that been obvious to me.

When the information comes out, I would not be surprised that the AG crew is charged with various breaches of Maritime Law (including Piracy, although this is unlikely considering the New Zealand government's position on whaling).

The Whaler's actions will also be under the microscope. Especially surrounding the collision, which could be considered Piracy under the International Convention on Maritime Law. Criminal charges may also be laid, not to mention a lawsuit for the damage/injury of the crew.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I personally hope they both get charged and hopefully we all get paid for our time invetsed here . I think it is despicable how they both acted and they both look like calss A morons coming out of this.

 

[DCBC]

I personally hope they both get charged and hopefully we all get paid for our time invetsed here . I think it is despicable how they both acted and they both look like calss A morons coming out of this.

I agree. Although I'm against Whaling, I don't agree with some of the methods allegedly used by SS.

The New Zealand Navy should have sent a Frigate and put a 5" round across the Whaler's bow. That would have made excellent press and got this discussion really going!

 

[MauiScubaSteve]

Neither of you has the guts to try to answer the questions about how you can tell the difference between helm commanded movements and normal course changes driven by waves and swell.

If the Whaler Captain was so inept that he both accidently got too close and then accidently couldn't avoid collision, both due to waves and swell, with a nearly motionless small vessel he had been looking at for over 2 minutes then he should probably get the chair!

 

[Geoff_H]

If the Whaler Captain was so inept that he both accidently got too close and then accidently couldn't avoid collision, both due to waves and swell, with a nearly motionless small vessel he had been looking at for over 2 minutes then he should probably get the chair!

And if we're talking about the ineptitude of the Captain - why not mention the Ady Gil skipper who - if you are right - let a vastly slower, vastly less manoeuvrable and vastly slower accelerating boat ram him? Maybe he fell asleep and forgot he was in the Antarctic trying to hassle, disable and disrupt other ships going about their legitimate business?

 

[Mr.X]

Thanks for the analysis Mr X. As I suspected, it looks like this will be profitable - even if marginally so. I suspect if Sea Shepherd can decrease the total catch significantly it could tip the expeditions into loss. I seem to remember them making this point last year.

For the warehousing - the latest trends I saw showed a small reduction in the amount warehoused over the past three or so years - i.e. consumption marginally outstripping supply.

Here is a chart showing this - I can't link PNG files but you can click to view:

inventoryratio_0902.png (image)

You can see the number of months inventory has fallen from around 9 months to around 6 months worth since 2005.

This older graph of data does show a small uptick in consumption. However, I can't track where the meat eventually ends up. Cold storage is expensive and other consumer niches like pet food and institutional purchases (schools, old age homes) etc. may be part of the mix. Since the government/ ICR/Fisheries are conjoined - the effort to move stockpiled product may be a factor in the small upticks.

X