UKC

In reply to JimbobC:

Yeah not disproprtionate in any way - they are used against zodiacs for christ sake - how much damage could one of those do to an ocean going whaler???????

In reply to John_Hat:

If it is investigated both ships masters would be at fault as the Col Regs do not allow for one party to be free of blame.

I personally think whaling is an anachronism, but I also sense an element of racism towards the Japanese. It is small minority who form the custmer base forwhale meat and speaking to Japanese I kow most think it akin to how we see tripe.


Rob - One of the reason I binned my Greenpeace membership was that I got bored of some Rodney or Cressida spouting rhetoric about highly complex issues, while they left the kettle boiling and drove a daddy's Porsche at weekends. That and the endless phone calls asking for money.

In reply to allysingo:


Izzat coz it is black....?

In reply to a13x: Seems to me the Adi G got its comeuppance. They are breaking all the rules of sea fairing constantly diving under bigger boats bows. The helmsman of the Adi G is extremely lucky that their was no loss of life. It's dangerously stupid to mess around like they do. If you go in the channel for example the warning is to stay out of shipping lanes as the helmsman on bigger boats may not see you (particularly if your firing laser beams at the bridge as well.)

In reply to tatty112:

They should have used sharks.

In reply to nomisb:

"Yeah not disproprtionate in any way - they are used against zodiacs for christ sake - how much damage could one of those do to an ocean going whaler???????"

If I was on a ship in the Antarctic and there was any chance of damaging/sinking my ship I'd take every precaution available to me. These protestors know what their facing, the whalers aren't searching them out to attack them, the protestors are bringing it on themselves.

In reply to nomisb:

If they managed to foul the prop of the vessel then quite a bit. The zodiac skippers are well aware that they'll have the hoses turned on them

In reply to a13x:

"The Sea Shepherd extremism is becoming more violent... Their actions are nothing but felonious behaviour," the (ICR) said in a statement.

Not quite as violent as murdering hundreds of innocent whales though...

In reply to permanenttrauma:

You post implies there are guilty whales out there, looking furtive and hiding behind wrecked galleons.

In reply to John Rushby:

I blame Moby Dick, giving normally-placid whales ideas above their (whaling) station.

In reply to Richard Carter:

So sit back , watch the slaughter and say tut tut ????

It's a profit motived commercial operation that is operating illegally.

At least they are doing something about it.

In reply to nomisb:

"So sit back, watch the slaughter and say tut tut ????"

I've never once said 'tut tut' with regard to whaling.

In reply to nomisb:

I thought they were doing it legally?

In reply to Richard Carter:

It's a bit murky - as I understand it, countries are allowed to catch a small quota of whales for scientific research, but the Japanese are catching more than the quota and are selling it commercially for food. I might be wrong though.

In reply to bouldery bits:

I'm sure I read somewhere that it was stink bombs they threw, which I suppose might make them cross too but somehow doesn't seem as serious as (unspecified) "chemicals".
Does anyone know if the chemicals and stink bombs were one and the same?

In reply to Tall Clare:

They catch a quota for "research" but conveniently Japan has a law stating no whale meat can be wasted so it has to be sold afterwards

In reply to MeMeMe:
The stinkbombs they were throwing last year reputedly smell pretty bad, as they eat through the paint. One member of the sea shepherd crew was interveiwed for a TV program a while ago and mentioned throwing acid bombs if I remember correctly.

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Ouch!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

Butyric acid is apparantly what they are using.

In reply to nomisb: Technically it isn't an illegal whaling operation - that is part of the problem. Either way given how Sea Shepherd like to manipulate the media (in their own words) then it is difficult to feel any sympathy for them.

In reply to nomisb:

Probably a lot, if they were lucky. One of our survey ships had its prop fouled by some wires trailed from a Greenpeace zodiac some years ago and basically became immodile and unsteerable apart from its bow thruster. If the weather'd blown up the crew would have been in serious danger for their lives.

By all means protest, but don't then try and spin the blame onto the bridge officers of a large, relatively unmanoeuvrable vessel if a small, fast, manoeuvrable craft deliberately puts itself on the bow wave of the clumsier vessel in such a way that a slight misjudgement on the part of its cox leads to it being crushed.

In reply to JimbobC:

True, but I saw a programme a few months back where someone who was investigating seafood auctions in Japan seemed to find that the actual market for whalemeat in Japan has shrunk dramatically and that they had trouble even selling the meat from the number of whales they took *before* they upped their "quota". What happens to all the meat that stays unsold and goes past its sell-by date, I wonder?

In reply to a13x:

Anyone know what whale meat tastes like?

<ducks for cover>

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

'Leviathan' by Philip Hoare talks about whale products quite a lot, and iirc it doesn't give a brilliant review of whale meat.

In reply to permanenttrauma:


If the sea shepherds were to behave like they do on the sea on the roads we'd be calling for them to be locked up and have the key thrown away. No matter what the ins and outs of the whalers the sea shepherds are committing illegal acts (basically acts of piracy) with their prop fouling and other antics.

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

More people on here have eaten whale meat, and i think there where more of us who quite liked it.

In reply to Mokkel:

Oh the irony, it is harmful to aquatic organisms.

In reply to Clarence:
No, it is coz it 'as lost the 'il' bit off the end

Erm, they sold merchandise like this

http://shop.seashepherd.org/ukstore/product.aspx?p=137580%28base%29

at a local chruch's ethical christmas fair, proudly detailing the ships they rammed and sunk. The black hoodie with their skull logo was rather popular with the youths. You will be pleased to hear it's all 100% organic cotton...

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Was that 'Britains disgusting food' presented by some comedian I'd never heard of.... was quite funny when his fish he was eating moved.

He claimed there was a Whale Meat Mountain sitting somewhere in refrigeration... the stated decrease in Japanese people eating whale meat was based on him annoying people on the street though so not sure how accurate his conclusions were

In reply to Richard Carter:


Well you thought wrong then.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You're not belittling again are you?

In fact Bruce, it is you who is wrong. Whaling IS legal. It's very clear cut. It's not murky at all.

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I think I saw the same thing & the answer was that they were donating the meat to schools (presumably in the hope of generating a market in the future).
If this is true it makes a nonsense of the claims that this is a commercial operation.

In reply to i.munro:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4106688.stm

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

Rather nice - there was a restaurant in Reykjavik serving whale steaks when I passed through there a few years ago, well worth looking out.

Incidentally, while the Japanese are the most high profile whalers, Wikipedia, that ever accurate source of info says the following countries also kill whales:

Canada
Saint Vincent (Caribbean)
Faroe Islands
Greenland
Iceland
Indonesia
Norway
Russia
USA (Alaskan and Washington State natives)

Most of these are carried out by native peoples claiming the right to hunt as part of their traditional way of life, though it's interesting how many are willing to bend their traditional way of life to include snowmobiles, speedboats, rifles and other modern technology...

PS Speaking as someone who works at sea, anyone who places a manoeuvrable speedboat in front of something the size of a whaler is taking their life (and their passengers) in their hands and is a prime candidate for a Darwin award.

In reply to mariechen: Thanks for the link.

The last time that I changed my mind about something as quickly was when Klinsmann signed for Spurs.

In reply to tatty112:

You mean like when people protest and block roads and lay seige to oil refinaries?

In reply to permanenttrauma:

No, these tactics aren't like blocking roads.

A closer comparison would be for a protestor to deliberately ride a bike out of a side road just in front of a moving delivery truck and for the protestor's organisation to then complain when the truck hit the bike and mangled bike and rider.

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

It is delicious actually. I had it a couple of times in norway.

I highly recommend it if you are over there. It's a shame you can't get it in the UK really. Might change peoples attitudes.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Some whales have only recently been brought back from the brink of extinction. Not sure that encouraging people to eat them would be entirely beneficial to that. I think that farming whales might be a little tricky.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>

Whatever you think of whaling (and I'm against it), as somebody who's spent a number of years working at sea, and having finally viewed the video, I see something entirely different.

I see the Japanses skipper turning so as to pass behind the trimaran, which had been moving. This is correct procedure if the tri has right of way. The skipper then realises that the tri has cut its power and is in front of it, so brings the helm hard over to port to try and avoid hitting it. The tri skipper then applies a brief burst of power to bring his bow back into a collision zone.

This is exactly the sort of thing Greenpeace zodiacs used to do to our seismic vessels. I can see how, to the untutored eye, it might look different, but I'm 95% sure my reading of the situation's more accurate than yours.

In reply to Tall Clare: Some species are very abundant and could sustain a fishery. The main objection against whaling is that there is no way to kill them rapidly without a period of intense suffering.

In reply to IainRUK:

In reply to davidbeynon:

I had it a few times in Norway and on Norwegian vessels, but never though it "delicious". "OK" would be a better description. More like horse than beef.

I last had it in about 1982, stopping eating it on ethical grounds, apart from it also being such an indifferent "taste experience".

In reply to Rob Naylor:

... if there was a small child about to be run over by said vehicle then that would present an appropriate analogy. Can't just take wales outta the equation! (by the way they will be if the japs carry on)

In reply to Rockmonkey680:

Kind of a fishy horse/beef type flavour.
I'm struggling to explain it very well. lol

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I remember a TV programme about it a few years back, which also mentioned the declining demand for whale meat, despite Government campaigns in schools to encourage children to eat it again. So the whalemeat probably goes into vast Government cold stores... It certainly seems to me that the Japanese Government is intent on continuing part of its 'cultural heritage' with regard to eating whalemeat.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

It goes rubbery if it is overcooked. It needs to be well prepared I think.

In reply to MJH:


Commercial whaling is definitely illegal regardless what you paint on the side of the ships doing it.

But in a way the law doesn't really come into it. It's basically a lawless land down there because there's no one willing to enforce the laws. The Sea Shepard desperately want the Australian Government to get involved since it's all in Australian waters. But they probably won't because of not wanting to upset relations with Japan.

Because Sea Shepard doesn't suffer from such a handicap they're the only one's who can do anything to try to stop the illegal whalers.

In reply to stp:

That's just not true. If it was we would have illegal exploitation of mineral resources off antarctica.

In reply to stp: Is it not a bit hypocritical for the Aussies to hunt large sea mammals (dugongs), but not the Japanese?

In reply to chris j:

Im almost sure that the whales killed and eaten in Greenland and Faro island is not included in those protected by the ban.

Its the smaller species like pilot whales that they kill.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

To make your analogy accurate you should add that when the rather foolhardy, but very motivated, cyclist demonstrator tried to stop the delivery truck by putting himself in its way the driver accelerated hard, with outriders firing out the window and then deliberately bore down on the cyclist, cutting his bike in two, but by a miracle not killing him!

I'm not sure how you would see the legal side of the situation? I won't even bother asking you to consider the moral side

For those who think that the Japanese are acting within the law I would ask them to consider why it is necessary to kill hundreds of whales for "scientific research" each year! I certainly hope no other endangered kinds of animals are are aided by such curious methods of "scientific" assistance!

In reply to Rob Naylor:


I've had a bit experience of the sea too, but I must admit that not having been molested by Grean Peace myself I clearly lack your undoubted objectivity.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Why is this worse than the Faroese killing 900-odd pilot whales each year for "cultural" reasons?

In reply to Mokkel:

The objection to whaling is more about the large scale commercial operations, and so-called aboriginal whaling that is done as a way of life, for essentials, is regarded as OK.

Like a smallholder hunting and killing their own food, as they have a requirement / dependency on it.

Japan is at the forefront of wanting to restart commercial whaling using massive factory ships that can deal with 100s of whales at a time. And that is the sort of operation that drove some species of whale to the brink of extinction, purely from hunting.

Now, whales are being driven to the brink of extinction by other man-made problems, such as polluting (and poisoning) their food chain, over fishing their food chain, climate change causing food sources to disapear or re-locate (ie get extinct in some areas, and grow in other areas) and so on.

We see the same problems on fish stocks which are a) hammered by huge commercial fishing fleets, and b) have their food source migrate to cooler waters (ie further north in the northern hemisphere, and further south in the southern hemisphere) and so fish populations are struggling more with overfishing and climate change than us humans are, because we can adapt, and have massive resources, and they cannot. Move, or die

And sea bird populations are finding that their traditional nesting places, that rely on a supply of food at the right time of ear, in the right place, are starting to be in the wrong place. Of course, they don't know that, they just die, and nore southern, or northern, nesting sites tend to fair better, and get more populous.

But us humans are putting huge pressures on the ecology of the sea, and changing things purely by carelessness, or lack of consideration of the consequnces.

And some people want to hunt theese food stocks to extinction purely to maintain a commercail industry that no longer has any real reason for existing, other than commercial pressure.

||-)

In reply to chris j:

Worst or not is hardly the point, the Japanese have the right within international agreements to take a few whales for scientific reasons and they are clearly going beyond this. Whether the 900 you mention, assuming this is true, are within agreements or not doesn't change the blatant excesses of the Japanese whalers.

Perhaps what scares conservationists is industrial whaling, with modern equipment whales would probably go the way of fish in the Channel... Whaling by "traditional" means - I've seen documentaries about such whaling in N Siberia using light boats and hand held harpoons - is seen as less likely to wipe out these rather special beasts.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Ahh, so you've seen it on TV....

All this 'it's their culture' rubbish. Codswallop. If its cruel its cruel, regardless of culture, cannibalism was part of culture, doesn't mean we allowed it.

The argument about stocks is so flimsy, a well managed fishery for some species of whales would be sustainable, many top scientists have stated so in the past.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/head-of-whaling-body-quits-ov...

The only valid argument against whaling is the cruelty during capture issue. That should stand against commercial and 'traditional' whaling.

Whaling is as much a part of Japanese culture as it is Aborignhe's hunting dugongs (and yes they do use modern equipment). It's a nonsense argument.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: http://www.news.com.au/flannery-says-japan-whaling-sustainable/story-e6frfk...

In reply to IainRUK:

who are you to make such a bold claim?

In reply to subalpine: A person with a doctorate in capture stresses associated with fishing.

In reply to subalpine: Answer me this, if an elasmobranch fishery is considered sustainable, how can a whale fishery be automatically classed as unsustainable?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It is not pretty, but it is in the law, morality aside.

I suspect it more like a woman throwing herself under the King's horse then blaming the horse

In reply to IainRUK: whales are not the same as lobsters..

In reply to IainRUK:


I haven't noticed anyone using this argument on this thread, it may have been used when all this was being discussed before the various international agreements, necessarily compromises, were set up. You often seem to invent the arguments of others on a thread to suit your preordained answer rather than relate to what is being said... maybe you have a stock of paragraphs and just wait until a thread comes along that seem to vaguely suit them you slip one in.

A better method is to relate your posts to those you are answering.

If you spend a little while reading about whaling, from the days of Moby Dick to the end of the 20th century, the near destruction of whales is so obvious that secondary arguments are hardly required. A further argument, and one that is a bit ambiguous to any of us who eat meat is a growing feeling that there is something wrong with killing such remarkable creatures, a feeling that it is getting rather close to murder, that such large apparently intelligent animals deserve more respect than gracing the table of some gourmet, especially if it is true what imonro's BBC link says about even the Japanese becoming less and less interested in eating whale-meat themselves.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The arguments that whales are close to be extinct makes it sound like there is only 1 kind of whale in the sea.

In reply to subalpine:

You've said what I was trying to say a little more succinctly!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Endangered? Which species are you refering to?

Minke's are least concern, not Endangered.

In reply to John Rushby:

Excepting that the King's Horse didn't swerve and accelerate to deliberately crush the suffragette... at least I've never heard of a murdering macho monarch's horse doing this. The video's are quite clear, despite what Captain Haddock insists

In reply to subalpine: Lol, I've read enough papers on stress of capture in vertebrates and inverts to comfortably wipe the floor with Bruces arguments.

But please, answer my question re Elasmobranchs. Similar life history strategies, so if one fishery can be sustainable, how can that argument be used against whaling?

PS. I'm against Whaling. However the sustainability argument is widely known to be codswallop. Many top scientists have stated so.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Rubbish, Dominion for one spoke about sustainable 'traditiona' fisheries.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

People eat Horse, dog, dugongs, why do Whales deserve special attention?

In reply to IainRUK:


Not going to read all through this thread, but is the sustainability argument the bit where the Japanese claim that Wahles are destroying the fish stocks - whereas it's perfectly clear that large scale commercial fisihing is not only destroying the fish stocks, but also some forms of it are destroying the habitat that the fish stocks use as breeding grounds?

||-)

In reply to Mokkel:

Exactly, that argument has gone. It's ignorant arguments like that which allow the japanese and other countries to continue to hunt. The sustainabile fishery argument has been blown out of the water so many times now it's incredible its still used.

Some species are now quite numerous and could sustain a 'fishery'. That's a very simple unequivacal fact.

In reply to IainRUK:

OK, we'll bow to your doctoral expertise, there's no problem concerning whale populations, they haven't been diminished to near extinction by industrial whaling... every thing's fine and it's all just anti-Japanese (and Norwegian) racism.

The truce's over lads, get those harpoons loaded, let the slaughter begin again Ahab!

In reply to IainRUK:


They don't necessarily.

Maybe other species need protection to have them stop being killed in particularly violent, cruel and barbaric ways, too...

In reply to Dominion: Commercial fishing destroys the ocean full stop. However we have a very strong anti-aquaculture attitude in the UK. If people want to eat protein sourced from the sea its fishing or farming. Fishing is out of sight out of mind, but there are few more destructive processes. In fact harpooning is probably one of the most environmentally friendly ways to catch a marine animal, however there are then animal welfare concerns.

In reply to IainRUK:

He didn't actually, he just said, as I have, that this argument is used... He didn't say what he thought of the argument.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Brilliant. Look at the numbers. You stated they were endangered. They aren't. This suggests you are ignorant of the facts..again..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
>... a growing feeling that there is something wrong with killing such remarkable creatures, a feeling that it is getting rather close to murder, that such large apparently intelligent animals deserve more respect than gracing the table of some gourmet

well said

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

therefore he spoke of it...

In reply to subalpine: So why don't you speak out against Dugong hunting?

In reply to Dominion:

No, it's the bit where the Japanese claim that the numbers of the whale species they hunt are at a level they can be hunted commercially (subject to quotas etc) without endangering the population...


This part is very true and all the developed countries with fishing industries are guilty of it! Especially the EU with the farce of the CFP, and excepting possibly Iceland who I understand have fished more sustainably since taking back control of their fishing grounds.

In reply to chris j:

Spot on!

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You need to try and look at it a bit more objectively, and come down off your high horse.

1. The Adi G shouldn't have been where it was. Someone who obviously has a good deal more experience of sea fairing than you has explained what they think it looks like happened from the video evidence provided.
2. No one thinks that commercial whaling is ethical, the japanese have however found a loophole that means they can catch and eat whales legally. Until that loophole is closed its futile to carry on as the sea shepherds do.
3. It is extremely hard to justify condemning whaling by the japanese without condeming other ethnic groups are allowed to catch and kill whales using traditional methods and their methods are far crueler and the whales suffer for far longer than when a modern exploding harpoon is used by someone who knows what they are doing.
4. You have absolutely no evidence that the japanese are fishing more than their quota, I'm sure the sea shepherd would say they are but the Japanese would probably say they don't........ who has more interest in lying about the figures?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The pilot whales are not included in the IWC. Ironically in 2008 the Faroe Island chief medical officer recommended the meat should not be eaten due to the increasing level of toxins in the whales yet the hunt still continues. Slaughter of entire pods when the meat isn't even safe to eat is to me a worse excess than the Japanese hunting. An interesting social commentary is that children get the day off school to go and join in the fun...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Excepting that the Ady G had right of way over the Maru. It was approaching the Maru on starboard and thus had rights. THe Maru should have passed behind. THe master of a vessel should make an obvious change of course. THe Ady was not moving but was making way. Making way is a very salient point in the Col Regs.

I have watched that clip several times and the Maru seems to have borne down on the Ady. I don't see it as cut and dried as Rob does.

Aside from the whaling argument, it was poor seamanship from the Ady. In defencde of the Maru he we do not know what the course of the Ady was prior and the effects of the swell on the Japanese.

I would hold the master of the Ady 50% responsible for that collision.

In reply to chris j:
They get the day off from School because when a pod comes into the bay EVERYONE takes part, so there wouldn't be anyone left at the School.
The meat is shared out between everyone.
I know more people on Faro islands and they do eat the meat, they don't think they eat enough of it for the toxins to be a problem.

I know it must seem horrible wrong when they could just go and buy food in the supermarket.

In reply to John Rushby:
From a collsion regs point of view, I'm not really sure how you would apply them where two vessels are deliberately and aggressively at close quarters. Looking at the footage the visibility from the whaler appears to be hampered by the plume from the fire monitor, not that this excuses the action. Responsibilities between vessels are clear cut in an ordinarily peaceable situation, but this was quite different. If you do deem the Adi Gil to be the stand on vessel in this situation, then the collision regulations allow that:
When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
All rather embarrassing for a vessel as manoeuvrable as the Adi Gil I would suggest. Unless of course she had suffered some fault to propulsion or gear. Which is not clear from the video. The marine lawyers will enjoy sorting it out.

In reply to allysingo:

Thanks for that. I am a YM Commercial so I will defer to your much greater experience. It is an interesting situation.

I would welcome your thoughts as imho the master of the Ady is as you say the stand on vessel. My understanding is as follows:

1) all master of vessels have a duty to keep their vessel from harms way
2) the Maru in any typical situation would turn to STB and pass behind. The master of the Maru would expect the master of the Ady to allow him to do so - expected behaviour a
3) the Maru realises the Ady is not maintaining speed, but appears to be making way nonetheless and is confused - is it too close for a radar course? and thus a radar assisted collision?
4) A guess is the Maru was progressing on course at a given speed and the Ady made to pass in front but cut speed to hamper said course

Yep, a good one for the lawyers

In reply to John Rushby:
Sorry I was merely spouting (forgive the whale pun)the provision in the collision regs that doesn't relieve any seaman of his obligation to avoid collision regardless of the fact that he may be (under the collision regulations) the stand on vessel. The idea that two vessels deliberately engaging eachother in an aggresive fashion whilst still observing the nicities of good seamanship seems to be rather ludicrous. I think even the chaps at the Admiralty with their bulging marine brains would have difficulty with that one. Outside the realms of us simple Jolly Jacks I think.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

(Ooh! Meta-thread juxto opportunity! Too good to pass up...)

But that sort of thing happens several times a year in London, except instead of riding out of a side road, they pull up inside the truck when it's about to turn left...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If you'd read my reply to your "I've seen the video" post you would have seen that this is absolute bollocks. The Japanese skipper was trying to *avoid* the trimaran...look at the video OBJECTIVELY rather than with your emotional blinkers on. As soon as the Japanese helm is put over to port the tri cox gives a brief burst of power to the engines to move back into the collision zone.


You don't need to! I've already made it perfectly clear that morally I'm against whaling, and my comments on the lack of a market for whalemeat in Japan should have reinforced that. Again, you're not actually listening...just charging in with your preconceptions in full flight.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Just because I've worked on seismic vessels doesn't mean I'm for whaling...in fact I've made it clear several times that I'm against it.

In this case, what I was doing was bringing my previous experience of tactics used by protestors in a different protest but in the same environment to bear on interpreting what was going on in the video.

Since I'm against whaling but nevertheless concluded that the Japanese skipper was trying to avoid, rather than deliberately ram, the trimaran, I think that shows a damned sight more objectivuty than your emotion-led but analysis-free diatribes.

In reply to subalpine:

I think you'll find that IainRUK probably has more expertise in this field than the sum total of everyone else posting on this thread. You can disagree with him, but you can't "diss" his knowledge of the area.

It's a bit like you asking Horse "who he is" to make comments on metallurgy or Dominion "who he is" to make comments about computers

In reply to John Rushby:

And it seemed to me that that Maru *would* have passed behind, as required, if the Adi hadn't manoeuvred a bit. I think you may have a point in that the Maru could have changed course even further to starboard, but from then on in I think the collision was "orchestrated" by the Adi.


As above...maybe the Maru could have turned further to starboard initially.


Agreed


Here we'll have to disagree. I'd hold him 80% responsible. He powered up at a point where that particular action made a collision unavoidable. If he hadn't done that, there is a very high probability that no collision would have occurred, IMO.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd (to say the least) that people here are actually arguing that a boat run by an organisation whose entire purpose is to obstruct and disrupt whaling vessels could not possibly have been deliberately obstructing and disrupting a whaling vessel?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Common misconception there. Whale takes in many different types of whales - *some* of which have been hunted to the point of extinction, others weren't and others have recovered. Without any question of doubt there are some types of whale that could be hunted/fished "sustainably", hence Iain's question about Minke whales.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I think you need to buy some new glasses Captain Haddock, or you were looking at a different video to me!

Your encounters with Green Peace seem to have robbed you of all objectivity.

Whatever the right of way rules may be there is an overriding one to care and attention... the whaling boat could have slowed before, as it did immediately after the collision, but it chose not too. That the Green Peacers were pushing their luck is clear but this does not justify attempted murder.

If the governments concerned enforced their treaties and stopped the whalers from flaunting them this sort of thing wouldn't be required, but it's hard to see what other method can be used to show up the Japanese (and others) from what is basically a pig-headed bit of nautical nationalism... "We do it 'cos we have always done it and sod what the rest of the world think!"

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I doubt your nautical experience runs to much more than reading Jerome K Jerome.

As has been referenced upthread, the video is a snapshot. We don't know what the whaler was doing, what it's course was, if it was in a following sea and what the Ady was up to. I guess would be that the master of t he Maru thought , or rather expected the Ady to pass to front and he would pass to stern. THat is how it is done. The ady then farted about, confusion reigned, water cannons did not help and it all went a bit Pete Tong from there.

It is not cut and dried. The fact thqat it was a whaler involved makes no odds. THe morality of whale bashing is a seperate argument.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Sorry to pick on you Bruce as you are not the only one who has said this, but the treaty that you refer to allows the Japanese to hunt whales. Of course it makes a mockery of the moratorium on whale hunting, but being imprecise and claiming that the Japanese are flaunting international treaties does not help. It just makes one look ignorant.

Before you start ranting that I am giving licence to murder whales - of course I would rather it whale hunting didn't happen, but then I would also rather 100s of millions of sharks weren't killed each year.

In reply to MJH:


ah, but that is mostly by the Chinese, and Bruce blows sunshine up the collective arses of the Chinese.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
encounters with Green Peace seem to have robbed you of all objectivity.

This is laughable even to a relative sailing layman. The whaling ship that takes comparative country miles to slow, stop or turn could have slowed but the dinghy that can turn on a sixpence can't get out from under it's bows?


Or, we do it because the treaties allow it and its profitable? (whatever the rights and wrongs of it)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

They endangered their lives to try and save whales lives? Quite easy to see how they think they're morally above the whalers.

In reply to John Rushby:

I've been boating for all my life, on sailing boats, motor boats, old trawlers, rafts (when a kid)... even spent a while falling off windsurfs and when an ado my brother and I had our own sailing dinghy... since coming to France I've passed all the required "driving tests" (obligatory here, unlike in Britain) and I own a motor boat in England... in fact according to my parents I was conceived on a boat stuck on a mud bank on the Medway, and carried aboard when still in a carry cot, so if 60 years experience is not enough I don't know how much you need to watch a video, several in fact as there are quite a few on internet and even one I saw on the French telly taken from the whaler, of one boat bashing into another!

Once again people bandy about their supposed "experience" or even that of others, when the real debate is not a technical one at all... it's about whether you or I think that the continued whaling when normally treaties are supposed to have limited it are a good thing or a bad thing, and secondly, on a wider level whether we humans really have the absolute right to kill any other species as we see fit?

I'd say no to both... and there's absolutely no need for a doctorate in animal subjects or 30 years years before the mast with Captain Pugwash or the Royal Navy. When posters start dragging "qualifications" into a thread it's usually because they are short of arguments.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce, please explain why an elasmobranch fishery can be sustainable, yet a whale fishery not.

This is about knowledge. Such a 'fishery' can be sustainable. If you would like to argue against that point, please provide some evidence.

Greenpeace have rammed boats before too, reap what yo so!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I know you have, I recall a conversation to that extent. I think you lost your sense of humour over the side of a cobble sometime in 1965, followed by any shread of objectivity.

You are totally unable to seperate the two arguments.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>it's about whether you or I think that the continued whaling when normally treaties are supposed to have limited it are a good thing or a bad thing,

Actually no it isn't - you just seem to want to be wilfully ignorant of what the treaty allows. Whether you like it or not the treaty allows the Japanese to go about their "scientific" whaling - I don't like it and would rather it didn't happen, but to then try and excuse the Sea Shepherd behaviour on the grounds that they are protesting against something illegal just means you have fallen for their propaganda.

>and secondly, on a wider level whether we humans really have the absolute right to kill any other species as we see fit?

What like cows or sharks or cod? If you accept that it is fine to kill species provided we are not wiping them out then clearly some whales are "fair" game eg Minke.

In reply to tatty112:


You haven't bothered to look at the videos, have you? If you had you would have noticed how swiftly the whaler stopped when it wanted too... prior to that it was ploughing down on the trimaran (why do you mention dinghy's?) throwing up an impressive bow-wave... which even a total land-lubber cannot fail to notice... Talk of navel experience is just flannel (naval experience too).

The treaties allow the Japanese to kill some whales for scientific study, a loophole that they are exploiting shamelessly to continue whaling to eat the meat... This clearly abusive situation is what allows some scurrilous people to claim that their activities are "not illegal"! It carries on because those that could challenge don't... Australia, for example, turned towards Japan when Britain's adhesion to the EU deprived them of their traditional market to some extent - they need Asia more than they need Whales, apparently.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Why aren't you similarly enraged abour Dugongs?

In reply to MJH:

As subalpine said last night, whales are not lobsters!

Are you really so insensitive or is it an act you put on for forums?

Concerning sharks, I quite agree, although I'm not sure if I would put them on the same level as whales (don't ask me for a reference to justify why, it's just a feeling), but the way they haul them on board from drift nets, cut off the fins (the main marketable part) and just chuck the still living (but not for long) animals in the sea is quite disgusting... and this whoever does it.

It's funny how a trawler-man in the Channel can have his nets confiscated and suffer heavy fines just for having slightly undersized mesh and yet these massacres go on in full view of the world's population and there is never any action... which is one reason for my accepting the sometimes heavy tactics of Green Peace. They see such horrors more often than most of us do so it's not surprising they choose to fight fire with fire.

In reply to Rob Naylor:
true- it was meant partly in jest as i knew about Iain's lobster research etc. my obtuse point was about ethics that Bruce articulated well in the next post
just because whales can be harvested sustainably, doesn't make it right..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That makes it one OK and the other not - I must have missed the hierarchy of "acceptableness"


Not at all - I just don't see the rationale behind what you are saying.


I quite agree (and have seen it happening sadly). But Iain's point about certain whales is still valid - what makes fishing cod any better than hunting minke whales?


Is this not just a case of successful campaigning by green groups? ie Pandas and whales are "sexy" and vast amounts of money chucked at saving them whereas Sharks are scary and man eaters etc.

In reply to subalpine:

So what makes it more wrong than fishing cod?

In reply to subalpine:

I agree, so why do we still harvest other large marine mammals?

Why is traditional hunting of whales still allowed?

In reply to MJH:

Could be something to do with it being an intelligent mammal.

In reply to allysingo:

That, and size. As a very rough rule of thumb, the bigger something is the less we like killing it. No one - Jains aside - seems to stand up for ants or spidermites, and I've yet to hear of the bacteria defence league.

In reply to MJH:


I realised you were a little "challenged" in this domain quite a while ago... and yet....

In reply to allysingo:

rather than a stupid cow, or sheep, or pig - they're supposed to be quite bright ...

In reply to ericoides: how can you eat chicken knowing the intelligence of their corvid brethren?

Apparently some breeds of dog are as bright as a three year. Has anyone told the Koreans before they put a furry toddler in a bap?

In reply to John Rushby: how did you feel when you killed your first large mammal?

In reply to subalpine:

he fails at the last minute, and takes them all home instead to keep as pets. It's hell in the bathroom at his place.

In reply to MJH:


It would see mthat the way that we go about fishing cod is pretty much destroying the species as well. I believe that the average size of cod caught now is very small compared to what we used to catch (1970's etc) and that part of this is down to use destroying the breeding stock by catching the big fish, and so we are effectively selectively breeding cod to be smaller, as the parents are smaller and more immature.

Something similar was reported in the ocean of the west coast of South America, where all the really big sail fish (and Marlin and swordfish) have been caught, and the average weight of a breeding female is now about 400lbs, and not over 1000lbs (as in Ernest Hemmingway's The Old Man and The Sea)...

One reason for the smaller sail fish is that the prey that they eat have been caught and decimated by commercial fishing for both human food, and for cheap fish meal protein to feed meat animals for the western cheap meat market, or for fertilize for the crops that are fed to the meat animals for the cheap western meat market...

In reply to Dominion:

Yep - that is why i get annoyed with pescatarians who preach but know feck all about sustainable fishing.

Much as I find whaling grim, I think we would do well t look at our impact on our fisheries, and wrld fseres for that matter as we are often the ed consmer of dubios practices in far off places

In reply to subalpine:

Sad, but I had chance of braking in time.

In reality, icky, but I never liked cows anyway.

In reply to tony:
Pigs like playing football.