Japanese ship sinks whale protest boat Ady Gill

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil has been cut in half by a Japanese security vessel in the Antarctic today, the group's leader Paul Watson said.

The $1.5 million high-tech vessel's remains were sinking, but its six-man crew had been rescued and was uninjured, Captain Watson told The Age online.

Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in waters near Commonwealth Bay when it was suddenly approached and rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru, which has been detailed to provide security to the fleet.

<snip>

"This seriously escalates the whole situation," Captain Watson said of the collision.


The new Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's boat the Ady Gil in November. Photo: Peter Mathew


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/japanese-ship-sinks-whale-protest-boat--ady-gill-20100106-ltp4.html

---

Hat-tip to:

Anti-whaling group's boat sinking after clash with Japanese ship in Antarctica, activists say-AP
http://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/7430675161

:toast:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you don't support whaling, I wasn't addressing the hearty fuck you to you...

Y'know, the Australian govt, Greenpeace and a whole multitude of others aren't media whores. And even if they were, I'm less offended by a media whore than by those who brutally slaughter whales (and if you've ever seen what is done to dolphins by the Japanese it'll make you want to throw up)...

I've seen the dolphin and whale killing videos, it's gross and wrong but "Whale Wars" is isn't going to change anything.

Watson has no creditability and he puts people's lives in danger.

This isn't about an individual's credibility. It's about the slaughter of whales.

They're attacking ships, throwing stink-bombs and prop-foulers. Those ships are going to defend themselves or attack the SS ships.

Sooner or later, a person (be it a SS member or Japanese crew member) and Watson is going to jail or be sued out of existence.

For someone who claims not to support the whalers, yr sure going out of yr way to defend them.

You apparently aren't.

Are you saying that the SS should attack these boats and not expect to attacked back?

defending the aggressors in a very violent act.

I'm just saying that the SS attacks these ships. What do they expect to happen?

I don't agree with whaling or the SS's methods to stop it. Read PP's post about the correct way to stop whaling.

You've tried to make out that the whalers are the poor innocent victims in this, and that anyone who doesn't agree with you supports violence. And the poster you are lauding finally takes a short break from defending the whalers and makes one vague statement saying they support the Greenpeace approach to stopping whaling. Well, that's all very nice, but do either you or that poster actually know what Greenpeace does, or what countries like Australia are doing to try to bring an end to it? If you do, maybe you could explain it in a bit more detail for other DUers who are unaware of what Japan is doing in this part of the world...

I don't support the whalers or the SS.

I hope the Aussies and other bring an to whaling and if people are doing it illegally then arrest them and seize their vessels.

But what Watson is doing isn't going to stop jack-shit and he's going to get someone killed.

I'm just amazed people thought the whalers were going to let themselves be attacked.

It's the whales that are being forgotten in all this, and that annoys the hell out of me....

Despite the feeble claims from a poster who I've got no doubt supports the Japanese whalers that it wasn't Australian territorial waters, the fact is that the dispute is from Japan, and for obvious reasons, and basically who gives a fuck what they think? Last time I checked, Japan wasn't the be all and end of when it comes to recognition of sovereignty...

I've been reading up on this stuff a lot today at work, and I think the Australian government does need to send a Navy vessel down there to monitor things and be there in case a rescue is needed. Because that's what makes what happened there yesterday made me feel sick when I saw the video with the water cannon being fired straight at crew of that crippled smaller boat - if someone gets hurt or needs rescuing how long do people think it'll take for help to get there? It's an incredibly remote area and even if help is sent from Australia or New Zealand, which are the closest to there, it'd take ages and ages for help to get there.

The whalers shouldn't be there and the sooner countries like Australia stop with all the wimpy crap and start getting tough on Japan, the sooner this barbaric practice can fade into history where it belongs...

Who will then be sold as dog food and "traditional" meals for schoolchildren, primarily because the folks in charge of the operation are nationalist fuckwits who are upset that someone told them they can't whale in a fucking whale refuge.

"These boats" have no legal right to be where they are in the first goddamned place, and are conducting what, in any other situation, would be known as "poaching." If this were Africa and we were talking about elephants instead of whales, these poachers would be shot dead by the park authorities.

"If this were Africa and we were talking about elephants instead of whales, these poachers would be shot dead by the park authorities."

Am I missing some info? are the Sea Shepards authorities of some sort? From what nation? From the UN?

No big deal, I guess, wiping out the whales. That'll stop them, won't it, when all the whales are gone.


You cannot be serious, can you? You are really willing to watch the world be destroyed?


In case you haven't figured it out, the UN isn't doing jack, no one is, not even your precious Greenpeace.

The Japanese ICR is operating within the letter of the law of the IWC. If that veneer of a fig leaf is removed, then they would be operating illegally. I would love to see that happen, but it hasn't yet.

The sanctuary is internationally recognised, and as has been pointed out to you before in this thread, Japan is not operating honestly or within the law. It seems you aren't aware of the attempts by Australia and other nations opposed to the brutal slaughter of whales to have this stopped...

on edit: This incident happened in Australian territorial waters. I thought I'd mention that to correct an earlier claim I saw from you claiming that it was international waters...

Do you realise that what you claimed there in support of the whalers is the exact opposite of the stance Greenpeace takes on whaling?

Also, you've claimed several times in this thread that the whalers weren't breaking any laws. They most definately were as they were in Australian territorial waters and a federael court ruled that hunting whales in those waters is illegal...

Australia rules Japanese whaling illegal

Japanese whaling within Australian waters in Antarctica is illegal and should be stopped, a court ruled on Tuesday.

It is now up to the Australian government to decide whether to enforce the injunction. And even then it is unclear whether the ruling could be enforced as unless the whaling vessels enter Australia, "there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this court can be enforced" conceded Federal Court judge Jim Allsop.

The Australian Whale Sanctuary, which protects all whales and dolphins in Australian waters, was proclaimed in 2000.

These waters include a 200-mile wide stretch adjacent to Australia's Antarctic territory, in which more than 1300 whales were killed by Japanese company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha between 2000 and 2006, estimates Humane Society International.

HSI launched the court action against the company, which killed the whales as part of Japan's annual "scientific" whaling programme, in November 2004.

Australia's new Labor government, which has voiced support for HSI's action, has not yet said whether it will enforce the ban. Robert McClelland, the attorney general, says that a request for whaling to be halted in the sanctuary must now be made to the Japanese government by HSI, and that the Australian government will assist HSI in doing so.

Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha has a permit to kill 935 minke and 50 fin whales in Antarctica this season, and HSI estimates that 90% of these would be killed within the Australian Whale Sanctuary.

"We are now calling upon the government to enforce the injunction immediately," says HSI spokeswoman Nicola Beynon in Sydney.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13185-australia-rules-japanese-whaling-illegal.html

See, here's the thing. I can understand people who don't agree with the methods used by Sea Shepherd, but when that criticism crosses over into saying things in support of the whaling industry, then that's when it becomes clear that those doing it aren't supporters of Greenpeace at all...

few nations recognize the AUS territorial claim and the declared whale sanctuary. Its about the only scrap of legal fig leaf Watson has. Our participants from AUS go nuts when you point that out, but I am not the only poster here saying that. Watch out for the spittle.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

fuck the whalers...

Who was moving, who had right of way, etc is not yet documented. SSCS claims they have video, I assume that the ICR has some too. Calling it a ramming at this point is yellow journalism at best. The data will come out over time. Based on history, I'd bet that the Ady Gill was in the wrong, but that may well not be the case.

Its clear in the Whale Wars shows that Watson routinely ignores the Laws of the Sea with his tactics. He claims its for a greater good etc, but from the maritime perspective he and his group are clearly the aggressors and would lose in a maritime court. Hopefully this will be the start of him being beached. I would hate to see it take the loss of life to get him out of the wheelhouse.

I strongly support Greenpeace's approach to stopping whaling, and that includes financially. Japan is using a cultural defense, but I don't buy that from them any more that I accept the FGM supporters when they try the same tactic. That said vigilantism on the high seas is also unacceptable.

I think Greenpeace's way is best as well.

Do you know what Greenpeace's way involves? I would have thought you and the other poster would be opposed to Greenpeace inflatables putting themselves between the whaling ships and the whales....

Since I posted that, some video footage has been released and more data will be emerging. Advocates for both sides will insist it supports their view. The YT comments are a good example of this. There are some good ones there discussing what was happening at what time hacks but with totally different interpretations. Be prepared to separate the wheat from the chaff, the candy from the meat.

If it's US global military vigilantism. And the actions of their latin american buddies.
That takes loss of live on a daily basis.

Or am I confusing you with someone? Since there are a lot of those folks around here, one can be mistaken. In that case I apologize.

How much ya got?

http://player.video.news.com.au/heraldsun/#4uh_li38G5iTqk5wTJ_wqv53ot0VE99c

The Ady Gil basically did a stop and squat in front of the whaler. Its not legal with a car and even less so with ships.
The Ady Gil is much more maneuverable than the whaler, that matters in maritime law. Large ships have considerable control lag. Don't forget the burden if often on the more maneuverable vessel and that it has a very low profile. Look at the prior activities and that the Ady Gil was attempting to prop foul the whaler. Remember that all of the footage is relative motion. In a maritime court its a slam dunk.

Since more video is now available there may be enough for a model to be developed. It won't be perfect due to the lack of discernible discrete points (its the open ocean), but it should address most of the relative motion errors. It should also help identify any forged or modified video. Be interesting to see who gets the first one out and posted on YouTube.

Given the game of maritime chicken that was underway, I could easily see the master of the Ady Gil losing his license, presuming that it turns out there is a nation with clear jurisdiction. AUS claims that area as its territorial waters and that it is a whale sanctuary. Its not recognized by most seafaring nations and AUS has never attempted enforcement. All that may change now.

At this point I tend to believe that the whaler was not aiming for the Ady Gil. The two ships had been dancing for some time, and if crushing the Ady Gil was the intent, it would have happened sooner. Given the low visibility, laser employment, and that they may not have been LOS between the Japanese bridge and Ady Gil, I think it was unintended. I don't think the crew of the Ady Gil, realized a collision was imminent until the last moment. Their throttle up that took them closer to the whaler at the last minute was not intentional and was more likely an attempt to get out of the way. From a maritime perspective, primary fault for this clearly lies with the Ady Gil.

Can't post this without remind everyone that the Ady Gil was about the worst ship to use in those latitudes and with those tactics. Based on other video clips posted at the ICR site, it looks like it was being used somewhat like a RIB. However, any contact with steel hull or serious ice was going to seriously damage the Ady Gil. SSCS had to know this.

My overall expectation is multiple inquiries with some of the parties willing to cooperate with some of the boards and not others. We will get nothing totally inclusive or definitive and both side will get enough to claim vindication. Watson will pontificate and get more $$$ flowing in. The cynic in me thinks that is what it is all about.

If she was being overtaken, then the over taking vessel has the obligation to stay clear.

If the two vessels were crossing paths, then the vessel approching from the port has the obligation to give way Wile the Ady Gil is the stand on vessel.

In open ocean noether vessel is constrained by draft. esencially both are classed as power boats. One exception would be if the Japanese had fishing gear or a wale in tow, as this would make them a vessel engaged in fishing opperations.

It looked from the video as if the Japanese vessel used a water cannon to obscure the visibility of their vessel and then turned to starbord intentionally colliding with the Ady Gil.

To make a bad situation worst after the collision the Ady Gil was still hit with a water cannon from the aft deck of the Japanese. Listen to the video, the Japanese are using their sonic cannon which has been reported to have a disorenting effect on it's target. This was an illegal attack by the Japanese. It's luck that no one was killed.

The Sea Shepards should employ Sail boats. they would have right of way no matter what direction of travel, however in this case the Ady Gil was the Stand on vessel.

That all makes sense to me.

That will rule the day at any maritime board of inquiry. If you get hit playing chicken and using stop and squat tactics you will get nailed at the inquiry. They get to consider more than the 10 seconds before impact. The Ady Gil owns the collision. Some blame could be assigned to the whaler if there was LOS between the bridge and the it would have been possible to avert the collision or if it is shown that the whaler intentionally turned into the Ady Gil.

None of the videos account for relative motion. The SSCS one clearly has some of that in there as does the ICR one (and a lot of induced motion from hand filming). The only way there can be an honest determination is the creation of an analytical model based on multiple angles of footage, data from the vessels, audio recordings etc.

The downside is that there most likely there will not be such inquiry. There is not dominant authority to convene one. AUS has no standing, the Japan and NZ do since they each had a flagged vessel involved. Getting the SSCS to turnover data that might go to the Japanese is just not going to happen. Even their video appears to have been edited. I can't see the ICR turning its data over to New Zealand.

Armchair experts who pretend to be authorities on just about any topic they post on sometimes get carried away and forget that the 'rules' they throw at others need to be followed by themselvess...

The Austrralian government has ordered an investigation into what happened yesterday. Armchair experts can carry on all they like claiming that Australia has no authority to do so, but they have and they're doing it. I suggest very strongly that you keep an eye out for the results of the AMSA investigation as it'll be a hell of a lot more credible than the knee-jerkism of the Japanese whalers and their fans in the US...

Gillard orders probe into whaling clash

The Federal Government has ordered an investigation into the clash between a Japanese whaling security ship and a Sea Shepherd vessel in the Southern Ocean yesterday.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard has asked the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to conduct its own investigation and says the results will be made public once it is completed.

She says the Government reserves the right to take international legal action if diplomacy with Japanese officials fails, and has warned that evidence has already been collected to launch such action.

But she says the Government will not be sending a boat to monitor the situation in Antarctic waters at this stage.

Ms Gillard says she has watched video of the crash, where the 52-metre Shonan Maru 2 shears the bow off the Sea Shepherd's futuristic Ady Gil speedboat.

"It is clear emotions are running high and lives are at risk," she said.

"Having watched the video it deeply concerns me. It seems miraculous that lives were not lost."

Ms Gillard says if the situation is not resolved diplomatically legal action may need to be considered.

"I am calling for calm heads, calm judgement and a greater understanding of the facts," she said.

"We are strenuously opposed to whaling and strenuously opposed to violence at sea."

Ms Gillard says the collision took place within Australia's search and rescue zone, but outside its economic zone.

She says she has been advised New Zealand authorities will hold an investigation into the incident, with AMSA's assistance.

An anti-whaling protester's ribs were broken when the Shonan Maru 2 slammed into the hull of the Ady Gill.

Ms Gillard said the vessel's crew was made up of one Dutch national and five New Zealand nationals, one of whom has dual Australian-New Zealand citizenship.

Japanese whalers say their ship was trying to take evasive action when the incident happened, and say whaling ships had been under "continuous attack" from the Ady Gil and another Sea Shepherd vessel in the hours leading up to the collision.

But Sea Shepherd deputy chief executive Chuck Swift says the crash was a deliberate attack.

"As far as I'm concerned this was at least criminal assault, if not attempted murder," he said.

But Ernest van Buuren, a maritime law expert and the deputy federal master of the Company of Master Mariners Australia, says criminal charges are unlikely.

He says there is a crimes at sea act that could apply, but it is more likely it will be a matter for investigation that will ultimately only involve insurance companies.

He says initially it seems that the Shonan Maru 2 is at fault.

"The Shonan Maru 2 should be giving way to the Ady Gill because it's on the starboard side and what seems to be the allegation of the Shonan Maru 2 is that the Ady Gill failed to keep its course and speed, it was varying its speed," he said.

"There is responsibility on the Shonan Maru to give way, but also responsibility from the Ady Gill to maintain its course and speed."

He says the Federal Government is right to call for calm in the Southern Ocean and an investigation is vital to determine if safety issues need to be addressed.

"I would have thought this is clearly a matter of international concern and something that would be of interest to everyone."

Meanwhile, Greens Leader Bob Brown wants the Federal Government to replace the Ady Gill and send the bill to Tokyo.

"This is a crass act of violence by the Japanese whaling fleet backed up by the Japanese Government in the absence of the Rudd Government which is asleep at the wheel," he said.

"It's time now to take some proper and appropriate return action."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/07/2787453.htm

I'm sure the majority of others in this thread can join me in hoping that a stop will be put to whaling in the next year or so...

When an overtaking situation is deemed to exist the Burdened Vessel (Ady Gil you are suggesting) would be required to maintain Course and Speed until such time as the Give Way (Whaler you suggest) is past and Well Clear. Now depending upon the vessels the distance for this could vary from several miles to merely yards. However in the video's which all appear to be coming from the Whalers the Ady Gil is already in the Blind Spot where she cannot be seen by the Helmsperson standing on the bridge. We are left to speculate why the vessels became at such an extreme collision risk distance.

AFAIK Nobody has seaized the Radar Contact Logs from each vessel nor conducted Drug and Alcahol screening as would be required had the collision occured within the jurisdiction of the USCG.

It looked more like a crossing to me from the videos. I don't really think it makes that much difference though, as both ships were clearly engaged in a dangerous game. both probably violated a lot of rules -- that's what I'd normally expect in a Direct Action encounter.

and maybe we can tell. The video's don't start until the vessels are already in a close quarters situation that by the rules never should of happened in the open ocean. Nor for vessels of those relative sizes in a harbor either.

You can't take an isolated period of time and apply the rules to just that period. A vessel could be in the act of overtaking from 1/2nm astern till 1/2nm or more passed the overtaken vessel. The videwo's I have seen start with the two vessels already within 100 yards of each other. Generally by that time the Rule states to do whatever is necessary to avoid a collision.

AMSA will care of course, but in the court that really matters in this case -- the court of public opinion -- both sides got what they wanted out of the encounter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHCT2A4BPjA

Here is what you will see:

1. Japanese vessel cruising in open sea.
2. Ady Gill comes from MANY miles back at very high rate of speed. Ady Gil to port side.
3. Ady Gil gets barely in front of Japanese ship and cuts across Japanese ship's path. She goes about an eighth of a mile past the Japanese ship, turns around in the water and faces Japanese vessel.
4. When the Japanese ship's bow wake reaches Ady Gil, Ady Gil goes to full throttle and begins to move forward.
5. Ady Gil and Japanese ship make contact.

I don't think the maritime board of inquiry is going to take kindly to a boat flying a pirate flag running down a larger vessel, cutting her off then turning around and assuming an aggressive stance.

The Addy Gil was an entirely diffrent ship with an entierly diffrent Capitan. The Addy Gil did not ram any one and saying that just because Capitan Watson ramed one of your boats that makes it ok for you to ram other boats is ludicrist.

Never said two wrongs make a right.

But Watson has escalated the situation.

Once again, what did they expect to happen?

if they give the child to the Wrights in a private adoption. I know a case where that happened and it was a truly unique and beautiful event. Names changed to protect the innocent.

We now return you to the ongoing SSCS based flame fest

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think we can all be grateful for that.

Let them do what they're going to do.

They were fucking ruthlessly attacked here by the Japanese whalers, so anyone who ever doubted what Sea Shepherd was dealing with can now kindly shut the fuck up.

An egocentric show boating media hound with inadequate nautical equipment but all the cameras he can carry doesn't seem like the solution to many of us.

"Watson and his band of ship-ramming assholes aren't changing anything"

Awareness is being raised. A person may something something isn't changing, but that doesn't necessarily make it to be the case.

if the poachers want to sink ships, let's sink some fucking ships.

and what the repercussions will be.

And all the more reason to buy just made in the U.S.

If they start arming their ships and shooting, it will rapidly escalate to where the japanese fleet will get involved and no fleet in the pacific except the US can take them on and win.

For a while they also used some kind of flash bang, not sure if they still are. They have thrown things at the SSCS boats, mostly improvised stuff like large nuts and bolts. SSCS has been using their stink bombs and slick powder. The bread and butter tactic is prop fouling. Neither side is playing nice.

I believe that the Japanese are being careful about following maritime law, the SSCS revels in ignoring it. When the tables were turned on the Steve Irwin last season, Watson was melting down. How dare they do to his ship what he was trying to do to theirs. It was totally unacceptable to him. It was quite humorous. I think any maritime board of inquiry or Admiralty Court would hold SSCS responsible. Its a different set of rules on the high seas, and unless someone has been there, they will not understand or appreciate its subtleties.

SSCS is using the claims of AUS sovereignty to buttress their position (AUS territorial waters, whale sanctuary. However its not widely recognized, and certainly not by Japan. Lack of clear jurisdiction is one of the major issues in this long term fracas. When SSCS personnel boarded a whaler to "serve papers" last season, and their people were rightly seized as illegal boarders/pirates. The master of the whaler was well within his rights to take them back to Japan for trial. Not sure what happened behind the scenes on that one, but they released them later.

I don't have a Janes handy, but I would not totally discount the AUS navy. They could make a go against the Japanese Navy. Both have modern US made standoff weapons. However, armed conflict is just not in the cards. I have a hard time seeing any naval professional willing to start a shooting war for SSCS given their behaviors. It is key to note that no AUS government has done anything to defend their territorial and sanctuary claim other than diplomatic efforts. Its kind of a clue in international circles.

The real solution to whaling lies with international pressure via the IWC and other venues. Media hungry vigilantes are not the way.

they should be throwing molotov cocktails instead of stink bombs.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So patently and demonstrably false that I am shocked to see that you are claiming that.

is when the Japanese deliberately rammed the Ady Gil, then used their water cannons to try and knock them off their boat and into the water.

His hull integrity was compromised. He put his own crew and the crew of the Japanese vessel he rammed at risk.

Furthermore, he has done so many times in the past with other vessels.

Be for Watson all you like, but don't try to claim "non-violence". It undermines your otherwise good record of speaking the truth.

I could post many, many documented incidents of Sea Shepherd violence. You know it too.

I'd liken it to the police using the PIT technique to end criminal activity.

However: They are not the police and have no right to put human lives at risk.

I have no problem with your support of them. But I think it is disingenuous to claim "non-violence". That's all.

I believe this is where you and I have disagreed in the past. SSCS is acting under the United Nations World Charter for Nature. In addition, where the whaling fleet has added 50 humpbacks to the kill list this year, I'd say that gives their conservation efforts even more merit.

The Japanese whalers are going out of business because it costs them more to fight Sea Shepherd than what they can steal from the sea.

I hope the captain of the Andy Gil sues the Japanese. He's a New Zealander.

International water, flagged in different countries. Finding a venue with standing is going to be more than a little hard. IIRC normally this kind of thing would go to an Admiralty Court sited in the UK, but both parties would have to acknowledge jurisdiction.

Bottom line is that the Japanese have been particular about following the Law of the Sea in all respects and Watson et al is not, claiming a greater good. If this somehow gets into a maritime court, bet on the Japanese winning.

Another issue is that any insurance policy was probably voided on the process.

So any claim that Japan has been particular about following international law is either based on complete ignorance of what they're doing, or dishonesty.

If yr interested in learning about the situation, there is plenty of information available.

Also, do you support the Japanese whalers or not? It's just that by the tone of yr posts, you don't appear to be opposed to it, so I think it'd be helpful of where you stand on this issue...

Last I saw only a handfull of Nations (UK, NZ, Fr, Nor) accepted the Australian Territorial Claim in Antarctica. For any other flagged vessel it's international waters. So whaling is under the jurisdiction of the IWC (which Japan has bought).

Japan's not going to let any case get settled in a court that will concider other than the International Law and interpretations of such. t's why those ships will not enter Aus, NZ waters to provision, fuel or repair although they are closest.

Pointing that out will enrage some of our AUS DU members. No AUS government has done anything but give lip service to the claim, doing nothing to defend or substantiate it.

That means there is no clear authority to settle things, get all the data in one place to be reconciled etc. This will be as messy as the Goldstone report is SSCS gets their way.

"The ICR said the Ady Gil came "within collision distance" directly in front of the Nisshin Maru bow and repeatedly deployed a rope from its stern "to entangle the Japanese vessel's rudder and propeller"."

That sounds like standard tactics.

I'm surprised these guys aren't sunk more often.

If I had a ship and you tried to foul my propellers, possibly leaving me stranded in the middle of the ocean and without propulsion (a potentially deadly situation if a storm comes), I'd seriously consider flat-out blowing your ship out of the water in self-defense.

Did it cross yr mind for just one second that they're full of bullshit? They've lied in the past and they'll lie again. Also the ICR are responsible for chartering planes in Australia to go spy on ships like the Steve Irwin, so if yr not already aware of the fact that they're actually the Japanese whalers, now you are...

If you had a ship, hopefully you wouldn't be slaughtering whales and you'd have enough sense to comprehend that you can't go around blowing boats out of the water.

The ICR doesn't need to lie. Ever watch Whale Wars?

If you had a ship, I'd hope you'd have enough sense to know you can't go around fouling props without consequences.

Watson and the SSCS had to be aware of the results if there was hull to hull contact with any of the Japanese vessels. Steel beats carbon fiber every time and the Ady Gill was also not designed for those latitudes.

The ICR video pretty well shows what the Ady Gill was doing repeatedly prior to the collision. The details of the collision itself have not been made public nor any analysis of who had right of way, angles, field of regard etc. No video from either side that I am aware of at this time either. Calling it a ramming or attempted murder is journalistic sensationalism at this time, but I expect nothing better from the media, regardless of the country and some will try to make this a nationalistic issue.

The new SSCS boat has an ice rated hull, the Steve Irwin does not, the Ady Gill would have cracked like an egg. Buying the new boat is one of the few sensible things I have seen Watson do.

Maybe you aren't aware that the ICR is the Japanese whalers themselves? Why would you be using them as a credible source when you claim yr opposed to what they do?

The ICR is just as credible as Watson and his followers; if not more so since Watson is known to lie and manipulate movie clips

They're not credible at all. Do you realise that they've lied and will continue to lie in order to keep their trade going? The Australian govt has ordered an investigation into yesterday's incident so I suggest those who think that either involved parties are credible should wait till the investigation results are released before jumping to judgement...

i just disagree that the whalers are by default not credible

The Ady Gil was being overtaken. in this situation under the rules the overtaking vessel has an obligation to stay clear. If you make the argument that the two vessels ere crossing then the Ady Gil is the stand on vessel and the japaneese is the give way vessel.

The Japaneese clearly used their sound wepon to disorent the crew of the Ady Gil, used a water canon to obscure their direction, turned to starbord wile in the fog of the water canon spray and ramed the Ady Gil. Then they atempted to murder the crew of the Ady Gil by knocking them overboard with the aft water canon. (Any one who has ever sailed knows that falling over board can easily mean death.)

The Ady Gill is the wrong kind of boat for those latitudes and for the rough and tumble games that Watson plays. That said, I will wait for more complete information on the details from credible sources that understand maritime regulation. This may be the incident that will finally beach Watson. The only good news is that there is no loss of life.

The sinking of the Andy Gill will only make us more determined to donate more to Sea Shepherd.

The Japanese are losing the PR war. You can't win hearts and minds by harpooning and shooting innocent whales, which people love.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's only a little scratch.

Now I will have to start donating again.

Conservation Society operates. I've followed and supported them for years, and this event is exactly the kind of think Steve Watson enjoys. This boat was obviously always intended as an attention getter. The real new weapon in the SSCS fleet in the new ice breaker vessel.

If my wife's response when I told her the news five minutes ago is any indication, Watson will be receiving a mass outpouring of assistance from SSCS supporters.

I expect that season three of Whale Wars is going to be not only the most watched season to date, but probably a major fund raising success.

It was a pretty vessel, but anyone with a cursory knowledge of structures knew it would not survive hull contact with any of the Japanese fleet. Yet they employed the usual game of chicken tactics. Watson knew what would happen, he put the crew in danger, all for ratings points. You are quite right that he enjoys it, and he should be beached for doing it. The master of the Ady Gill will most likely lose his license for this if its taken to a board.

when the Japanese ship rammed it. Better video may make things more clear, but there was hardly any wake at all from the Ady Gil.

It's not for rating points. Everything Sea Shepherd does is designed for publicity for their cause and against the cause of the whalers. Rating points equals viewers; viewers equals supporters and contributors; contributors equal money for more anti-whaling activities.

Press and ratings are just another tool. More power to them.

I'm very pleased to see the number of high-profile supporters of SSCS growing, and the size of their contributions growing.

I do not think there is enough context on the ICR video to clearly determine vectors. If other footage is released from other angles, SSCS or ICR, it will be much easier to determine vectors. Lack of background objects in the open ocean really makes it a pain and the best solution is multiple angles/views. Without them, relative motion can make valid analysis almost impossible. There are lots of interesting comments both ways on YT and I don't think there is enough to solidly prove things one way or the other. There is also a lot of crap there too. MM also pointed out there should be data available from the Japanese vessel, though tampering would have to be considered. I don't know what kind of integrity controls there are. Maybe he could shed more light on that.

Lack of visible wake is not a particularly good tool to judge boat speed. Different designs have different characteristics based on several factors including pump design and hull design. I have driven jet boats that had almost 10kts difference in "no wake" speed. Video of the Ady Gil in development and sea trials will help there. Not saying it wasn't at station keeping, just that we can't be sure off of the one video we have. Also remember its hull and pump were designed for high efficiency, reduced cavitation, etc and wake is waste. If MM is right about the ATSB having jurisdiction, there should be some quality analysis work done since it will get a great deal of scrutiny from all us arm chair experts.

We will have to disagree about Watson. His cause is as much him as it is whales. Been watching him since the 70s. I supported the Greenpeace approach then and now.

Then hits your and fucks off? Still your fault?

And, in this case, had every intention of getting hit, IMO.

As we used to say, "Don't go to the sit-in unless you're willing to be arrested." Don't worry, I'd lay dollars to donuts everyone was in survival suits long before the collision and Watson had this planned from the get-go. If he's good at anything, it's manipulating the emotions and wallets of his supporters.

Edited to add: just watched the video, I'd say I rather called it. Everyone's topside and ready to go in the drink, then the pilot guns it into the path of the whaler, either intentionally or s/he can't pilot a boat for shit.

The guy who built the boat and beat the record for circumnavigating the world. And I'm sorry Robb, but you're another guy chalking up Bethune as someone who "can't pilot a boat for shit".

If you think that, you're a dingbat. ;)

you are correct that the vectors of the two ships are difficult to assess. I was just operating from the impression I got from the overall seen and the highly visible wake viewed from the Japanese vessel that appeared to me to indicate a substantial turn in progress.

I'm not questioning Watson's ego. He definitely has a big one.

I used to support Greenpeace, but it seemed that all I was getting for my support was a steady stream of "witnessing." I prefer the in-the-face, outside-the-system, challenge-the-status-quo approach to things. I think we should be doing the same thing to get the attention of our elected officials.

What could get the attention of TPTB better than massive divestment from major banks and stocks, general strikes, mass hunger strikes that not only create press but leave food sitting on supermarket shelves, targeted boycotts of specific companies, and demonstrations designed to shut down routine functions of civil society (government buildings, traffic).

We are past the point where working within the system(s) can achieve a meaningful result. I support, directly or financially, any ethical methods.

"Ethical," of course, is going to be a function of one's values. Someone who considers cetaceans just another animal and food source to humans is going to disagree with people like me on what level of action is appropriate.

I recognize the strengths and limitations of the SSCS approach, and I understand the legal implications of what they do (they intervene because the international treaty that applies to whaling does not restrict the right to intervene solely to nation states. I agree with SSCS that the research being done by the Japanese is an abuse of the research provisions in the treaty governing whaling. The lack of meaningful scientific publications that comes from Japan's ICR clearly shows no meaningful research is taking place.

Good discussion. Thank you.

The Ady Gil was actually under way and illegally attempting to move in front of the larger ship. From the video, it appears that had the AG remained at idle, there would have been no collision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc

That had to be terrifying. I'm glad they weren't killed. That video looked like that Japanese ship intentionally hit them.

If I was a crew member I'd be royally pissed at the captain for putting my life in danger.

I think the fact that he takes these idealistic kids out, with zero or very little experience, into the Antartic seas is irresponsible. The shows I have seen make me seriously question his judgment in regards to the well being of the crew.

I just don't want to see one of those kids lose their life.

Yes PR was a big bonus of employing the Andy Gil. I think the main purpose of the Andy Gil was to use its speed and fuel efficient engines to spot the Japanese whaling ships. The Steve Irwin is slower than the whaling vessals.

Someone gave SSCS $1m to scuttle their own ship.

It makes for entertaining video, so people will keep sending SSCS money until someone gets killed.

An international law expert says Australia has no legal power to stop Japanese whalers chartering Australian planes to monitor anti-whaling activities in the Southern Ocean.

The anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd says one of its boats has sunk in the Southern Ocean after being hit by a Japanese vessel.

And it has been reported a company linked to Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research chartered planes in Australia to track another Sea Shepherd ship, the Steve Irwin.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the Government is seeking urgent legal advice about what it can do about the issue.

But Professor Don Rothwell from the Australian National University says Australia's environment laws do not deal with aerial-related activities in a way which could stop the flights.

"Likewise, there doesn't seem to be anything under the Air Navigation Act which could contravene Australian law through these charter-operated flights," he said.

Meanwhile the Federal Government says it is trying to confirm whether or not Australian airports are being used by crews tracking anti-whaling vessels.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett says the Government will continue to negotiate with Japan to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean.

"The Government is absolutely, unequivocally clear on this issue and we will seek additional legal and practical advice as to whether there is any other steps that can be taken," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786839.htm?section=australia

Liked him much better as a singer. :(

You know this is just a japanese "terrorist attack"..first on the whales and now they are sinking our boats...
They are not playing fair.
dang...another war to pay for.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Who are far too big to have stopped in time or steered out of the way to avoid a collision.

Not an open ocean with ships on it.

.

Someone is going to end up dead from this.

Watson is a well-intentioned fool. I support his mission, but he's an idiot.

One of those kids is going to die under his "watch." I hope the PR helps the whales.

among some posters.

It's also interesting to note the positions re: gun proliferation and harsh and retributive sentencing among the same.

Things that make ya go hmmm.

So now we have to support Watson to be a "real " liberal in your eyes?

and in some cases- it's quite telling.

As far as the set of attitudes, beliefs and values- which make one a "liberal" or "progressive" -or some other deal- perhaps a Blue Dog or Republicrat type- or a so called "conservative" -or whack libertarian- that's for astute readers and observers to pick up on for themselves.

"True colors" however has a distinct echo in "litmus test."

I think the whole point is being lost on some people in this thread and to them the whales are some invisible and unimportant sidestory to be ignored. See, I only stopped being a member of Greenpeace back when I was struggling financially and had to made a choice between them and Amnesty International, and I can see what Greenpeace say about Paul Watson's methods. But Greenpeace also make the very important point that supporters of whaling use the differences between Greenpeace and Watson to try to gain advantage for themselves, and I'm seeing a bit of that at work in some other parts of this thread. So, I can understand aversion to Watson's methods, but what I can't understand is when people totally ignore the main issue, which is the whales themselves....

Just a note aimed in general and not specifically at you. I've seen a few people in this thread saying that the whalers have every right to ram or destroy any boat that gets in their way. Apart from the fact that's not true at all, do any of the people saying that realise how far away from help this has happened? If someone needs rescuing, it's not like help's going to arrive in an hour or two - it could be days. That's why it's so utterly irresponsible for any contact between boats to happen down there, and regardless of who started it, all involved are responsible. While my government is so far holding back from sending a Navy vessel down there to keep an eye on things and keep them separated (and very importantly to stop the whalers from hunting there), both the Liberals and the Greens are calling for it to happen, and I think it's a very wise move...

:wtf:

It might have been excessive use of the water cannon. The big story is that the captain of the small vessel intentionally put it and its crew in harm's way.

Let me state that I do not have any problem with what the Sea Shepard is trying to do. But it is CLEAR from the show on animal planet that his crew is made up mostly of kids that really don't have any idea what they are doing in some of the most dangerous waters on earth. The Antartic Seas are not the place to try out your sea legs for the first time.

this leads me to wonder if this indeed may have been an accident.

The boats had been dancing for some time. Low visibility, lasers, water cannon, possible lack of LOS from the bridge of the whaler...I do not see this as intentional at this time, but more information is coming out, so we should wait to see what comes.

However primary responsibility will be assigned to the master of the Ady Gil since they initiated the maritime game of chicken and look to have done a stop and squat.

Especially in Antarctic waters.

His histrionics when the whalers turned his own tactics and even one of his prop foulers back on him last season was priceless.

This is, after all, a whaler we're talking about. The guys in the wheelhouse spend lots of time looking in almost precisely that direction (chasing whales). The hull is even cut away to facilitate this.

When harpooning (yuch) there are either voice comms or at least hand signals to bridge crew. Not clear if anything like that was being used. There were mild to moderate seas, lots of water in the air and the Ady Gill is low and dark. Been interesting watching that discussion. I expect it will be one of the things modeled for analysis.

But if i was controlling the larger ship i would likely have seen the smaller one zoom by on one side; and as such to AVOID hitting the smaller ship(when it vanishes from view) I would have moved in the direction they came from; since common sense would be that they would be appearing on the other side; not putting their boat on idle in front of where my large ship was.

So in my opinion if the Japanese ship turned somewhat in the direction of the Ady Gil(haven't seen any of the movies) i would wager its because the captain of the Japanese ship did what most would have; tried to avoid hitting the smaller boat that he expected to come out at the other side

That tho is going by the assumption that the boat was idle and didn't make a last moment boost into the path of the ship which I've also heard a number claim happened.

They destroyed the small craft and attempted to force the remaining crew over board with high pressure water jets. Why aren't they facing criminal prosecution?

I think that Watson is a well-intentioned but seriously deluded individual who should never be allowed anywhere near a ship's controls. He has clearly proven the saying, "Two wrongs never make a right." Most of what he does is for media attention in order to get more money for their organization (publicity stunts). What the Japanese government is allowing is despicable as well, but that doesn't excuse Watson in the least.

They have to up the drama to keep the attention on issue and do anything they can to make the Japanese look bad.

What they are doing is evil, and everyone knows it.

That was (yet another) criminal act by the Japanese whalers.

So tell me again, what the fuck do you want me to explain for you?

It's obvious that the smaller vessel was intentionally put into the path of the much larger one. There is no way the Japanese ship could possibly have avoided the collision. IT takes a long time for a ship that size to change course or slow down. They had no time to react.

BTW, it's not "my" video.

Ady Gil was much faster and more maneuverable.

The Shoshan Maru had the Ady Gil on her starboard side. The responsibility to avoid collision was hers.

Both vessels were violating Rules 7 and 8, but the Ady Gil was off the starboard rail of the Shoshan Maru. One more wrong makes her wrong, and the rules say nothing about vessel size.

Not that I think such barrack-room lawyering matters at all in this situation - it's becoming more and more obvious to me that the Ady Gil was annoying the Shoshan Maru, and that the master of the Shoshan Maru recklessly tried to kill the crew of the Ady Gil.

based on the number of rules you broke.

This isn't America's Cup racing where you intentionally put the other boat in a position where they must alter course or violate a rule. In this case one vessel was intentionally harassing another. If you've watched their TV show, you know that they constantly get too close... cut under the bow at ridiculously unsafe disatances... etc.

My point is that even if your analysis were correct (and I'm not saying it is)... there's no way they could win in court because absent their purposeful actions, there never would have been a collision. They've put themselves in a position where if the japanese wanted to ram them, they could and would get away with it.

More like two Roosters in the Hen House. Each trying a one upsmanship game of chicken. Sooner or later bad things are going to happen when one or the other assumes wrongly what the other is going to do.

For ICR a successfull season would be one where SSCS gets No exciting video or anything else to help with fundraising. They would like nothing better than for SSCS to spend all it's money chasing phantoms around the Antarctic with nothing to show for it.

you will clearly see the Ady Gil idling forward and then accelerating into the path of the Japanese whaler. All of a sudden they look a lot less like innocent victims. the skipper of the Ady Gil was foolish to put his crew in this kind of danger. Exactly what did he think he was accomplishing by putting his boat into this situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_KnBKriGog&feature=player_embedded

No question about it.

Here's another video link:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sea-Shepherd-Anti-Whaling-Boat-Sliced-in-Two-By-Japanese-Vessel-In-Antarctic-Waters/Article/201001115515153?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15515153_Sea_Shepherd_Anti-Whaling_Boat_Sliced_in_Two_By_Japanese_Vessel_In_Antarctic_Waters

The way out for the Ady Gil was forward and to the right.

then hitting the fuel accelerating toward the whaler. If he wanted to avoid collision reverse was the best tactic.

During the whole video until after the collision he was in gear going forward. First with the engine idling than going faster toward the whaler right before the collision.

My boat experience is quite extensive. In my opinion he was idling in his forward gear so he could better time when he was going to advance forward. You need to be irrational to intentionally hit a bigger boat like that. My guess is that he mad a judgment error and got too close for his own safety.mHe will not be so brazen next time.

He would have kept a reasonable distance between the two vessels in the first place. The Japanese vessel didn't chase Ady Gil down and ram her.

as the Whaler is approaching. It was clearly going forward. After the collision they put the Ady Gil in reverse. You can see this about the time the last hose hits them. the stern is moving toward undisturbed water.

I have spent quite a bit of time earning a living on the water. No matter what the situation a skipper made a judgment and put his crew in harms way. This collision was completely avoidable.

Watson has shown his willingness to risk the lives of idealistic young college-age kids.

He got what was inevitably going to happen and he probably actually wanted it to happen on some level to improve his popularity.

Look at this self-aggrandizing puffed up peacock:

became a "puffed up peacock" after his spilt with Greenpeace, which he helped found. Every sailor on that vessel is a volunteer, and it is made clear to them when they come aboard, that they may be put in a situation where their lives are in danger. I suppose this Princess of Peace was a puffed up peacock too....

Bob barker, what a tool, he couldve taken that 5 million, bought a couple hundred of the somali pirate boats and put them to work chasing the japanese, and they would be a hell of lot better at it than the current crew of misguided douche bags!! killing two birds with one stone, meaningful employment for the somalis and saving the whales all in one fell swoop too!! the cherry on top being that it would be much better television show to watch as the not only save the whales but board the jap ships and rob everything, take hostages, ask for ransom etc!!!

The vessel with the highest gross tonnage always has the right-of-way. The smaller, more maneuverable vessel is obligated to stay out of the way of the larger one. This video clearly shows the Ady Gil being intentionally placed in the path of a ship so large that it could not possibly have avoided the collision.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sea-Shepherd-Anti-Whaling-Boat-Sliced-in-Two-By-Japanese-Vessel-In-Antarctic-Waters/Article/201001115515153?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_6&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15515153_Sea_Shepherd_Anti-Whaling_Boat_Sliced_in_Two_By_Japanese_Vessel_In_Antarctic_Waters

Kind of like machine gunning survivors in the water...

The apparent angle relative to the whaler did not seem to change over time. In one clearly the cannon continues as they pass and ends up pointing well ahead for the Ady Gil.

Still, turning them off under the circumstances would have been a nice gesture.

they would have hit them with the bow of the boat and the crew would be dead or bobbing in the water. It was a fixed position hose. The Ady Gil is way more maneuverable than a whaler. the skipper of the Ady gil could have easily avoided this collision. In fact he caused it bu moving toward the whaler instead of away.

Spraying water cannons is kind of like spraying people with water cannons...

and as Adam Sandler knows, don't fuck with Bob Barker.

This will go over great hee at DU. But a fantastic remedy for C-3 Corvette rear ends where the gears tend to grab up is an additive made from Whale Oil.
But when your baby cries, you'll do anything to make it happy. PS They make a whale free additive now, which is what I run.

Dog fighting. Whaling. Experimental research on chimps.

And yet we still call them the animals. :eyes:

For what happened in this incident, clearly not.

But then, unlike you I don't have my Master's ticket.

Basically, the larger motor-powered vessel always has the right of way in open ocean because it can't maneuver as quickly. The Sea Shepherd vessel clearly cut in front of the Japanese ship and is at fault for the collision.

I do have a Red Cross Basic Sailing certificate, which is more than adequate to make a casual assessment of this incident.

Given the aims of SSCS, how much does it matter if they were "wrong" from a Law of the Sea perspective?

Their goal is to raise awareness (and money). Watson knows that incidents like this are going to draw the spotlight. Watson and everyone that crews for him know the intended tactics and the risks -- i.e. he doesn't spring possibilities like this on the crews at the last second, they go in well-briefed. From a PR perspective this was a well-planned incident, like most of Watson's other escapades. The videos that will go out around the world show a great big hulking ship smashing a tiny little boat to flinders and the crew scrambling under the high-pressure streams of Japanese water cannons. This is a perfect outcome for Watson, and I doubt he will care how a few sailboat captains judge him.

It's very, very fortunate that nobody was injured or killed.

Despite claims of AUS territorial waters, which few recognize, where are you going to file a suit? Which court has jurisdiction in what is international waters? I am sure there are AUS judges that will be glad to claim it, but nothing from an AUS court will be enforceable, including subpoenas for data and witnesses.

As for insurance, anything the owner of the Ady Gil used to have disappeared when it was transferred to the SSCS. That there is insurance on any SSCS vessel is laughable. Any broker or underwriter fool enough to take on the SSCS would never get reinsurance etc.

thats like saying terrorists are ok because they are just trying to raisw awareness about their cause in the middle east.

Every time, in every place.

so you support terrorism? really? thats soooo fucked up!!!

whats the difference? one group is breaking the law to bring attention to their cause
one group is breaking the law to bring attention to their cause??

you claim that you will give your support to people who take action against state sponsored criminals....well that seems to clearly state you would support terrorism....every time in every place thats your stance....so you by your own words suicide bombers are ok?? after all they are taking personal action against "state sponsored criminals"....dumbass

Watson is certainly a tosser - but the anti-whaling cause would be going nowhere without people like him.

If you think back - from the women's suffrage movement through civil rights and the Vietnam War - nobody ever got
anywhere asking nicely for what is right. It's only when people are forced to go to extremes and the inevitable
violence ensues that governments begin to listen. Human nature is perverse.

All we can do is donate to Sea Shepherd, and don't buy sushi.

Greenpeace haven't been involved in trying to stop a hunt for two years now, opting instead to try to educate the Japanese people about whaling and changing things from within that way. Yeah, maybe in a couple of generations, they'll all see how bad it is and it'll come to an end, but why should whales be wiped out just because a very polite and very slow way is preferred to a very direct and in-yr-face one?

Right now governments are listening and hopefully our govt will be shamed into getting off its arse and starting to do what it promised to do before it was electted, which is to put a stop to the whaling...

Not enough to sideswipe a 20,000 ton ship of foreign registry with your 10,000 ton ship on the high seas and plead innocence, let's spend $1,500,000 worth of donations on a 10 ton plastic boat and sail it to the freezing Antarctic waters.

When we get there, let's dare a 20,000 ton ship to run over us!

Sue them, protest them, boycott their supporting businesses, outsmart them, ban them, and shut them down.





:nuke:

They don't normally have a problem with one ship ramming another intentionally.
:shrug:

Which of course is attention.

The "outrage" has all been manufactured by the media.

It's too bad to see an iconic work of art like the Ady Gil destroyed, but from the SSCS perspective that simply gave the incident extra mindshare.

but they can't sound like they're happy about it, or it's not as good of a fundrasing tool.

I sent them a little money and I am sure that others will as well. I would be very surprised if they could come close to covering their loses from small donors.

Harassing whaling is one of the things that the SSCS does. The Japanese calculated that sinking the craft and possibly killing the crew was worth doing. The SSCS is going to win this publicity battle as usual but is a bit like making lemonade.

it is not their intention to see collisions during their activities, that they would probably not come close to recovering their loses "from small donors" (big donors don't count). I've seen the video and it's not exactly clear who did what, who drifted where, or whether the collision was the result of poor maneuvering in choppy seas or deliberate, but I don't KNOW what the Japanese have calculated, nor do you.

I know is that the SSCS is on record as being fine with collisions, so it's not crazy to assume THEY have already calculated that sinking a craft and possibly killing the crew is worth doing.

from some a single donation of substantially more than 2 million dollars.

The market value of 1000+ whales is worth a lot more than that.

cost them was fuel, $ for that was probably donated too.

That much money would cover all the necessary bribes and sabotage several times over. Could have been done long before the Marus were ready to sail. No endangerment of human lives, no dead whales this year, etc...

Sea Shepherd, for all their good intentions, made a MAJOR strategic error.

Not sinking boats.

:spank: