Inevitable?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

They're not performing sneak attacks on moored vessels in the middle of the night here.

Because ramming other ship isn't dangerous as long as it's overt???

There's no one on either boat that doesn't know collision is imminent.

So?

But let's say I go out in a little motoboat and some jerk keeps coming up alongside me and bumping into my side. And--even worse--he's rigged a two-inch blade that's scratching the heck out of my nice paintjob. Yeah, he's a bastard.

To bad we're not talking about a two-inch blade, nor about "scratching paint." We're talking about a device designed to punch holes in the hull.

And no, knowing that 30 years ago he bumped another boat quite a lot harder (and didn't kill anyone) doesn't give me a right to kill him. And no, knowing that 30 years ago he sank a boat in harbour with no loss of life doesn't give me the right to kill him.

Wow, talk about "picking your facts because they happen to suit you." He didn't just sink a boat in a harbor. He stalked it with a larger ship. Rammed it once. Rammed it again, opening up a hole in its hull. Then he pursued it back to harbor and blew it up. That's what happened.

Are you disputing that that action was dangerous? Are you disputing that it could have killed somebody? As best as I can tell, you're just quibbling because their website is maybe ambiguous about when their group was founded (even though it was all the same people), and because it was a while ago, neither of which strikes me as remotely important.

But the "Who We Are" link is obviously less detailed than the link I provided you with. You can't just pick your facts because they happen to suit you. The "Our History" link provides the actual history. Before they were incorporated in 1981 they were not the current organization that bears that name--regardless of the fact that many of the same people were involved.

The "actual history" simply states they were incorporated in Oregon in 1981. Clearly, they consider it as having been one continuous organization given that they state quite clearly on their website that they were founded in 1977.

And no, somehow I don't think Wikipedia trumps their own legal history as detailed with some specificity on their website.

And somehow, I don't think your personal interpretation of their history trumps their own.

Edit: Incidentally, the rest of the website is pretty clear. Paul Watson's biography also states quite clearly that he founded the Sea Shepherds in 1977. And it says it more than once. The "legal incorporation" is just that. It became legally incorporated. That doesn't mean the group didn't exist.

 

[Yoink]

I wasn't aware that any members of Sea Shepherd have ever been killed by whalers?

And you really think that it was more than luck that preserved the lives on the people of the Ady Gil?

But fine, if you want to be pedantic change "kill" to "attempt to kill" in the above analogy. The question is whether the skipper of the Shonan Maru had the right to deliberaty run his 491 ton steel vessel over a carbon-fiber speedboat. I don't see how that could be described as anything much other than "attempted murder."

 

[lionking]

And you really think that it was more than luck that preserved the lives on the people of the Ady Gil?

But fine, if you want to be pedantic change "kill" to "attempt to kill" in the above analogy. The question is whether the skipper of the Shonan Maru had the right to deliberaty run his 491 ton steel vessel over a carbon-fiber speedboat. I don't see how that could be described as anything much other than "attempted murder."

Maybe, but self defence is justification for attempted murder.

 

[gumboot]

And you really think that it was more than luck that preserved the lives on the people of the Ady Gil?

All they did was shear the very long nose off the central hull. It didn't even sink, and all of the personnel were at the very rear of the ship.

Aside from that, I've seen four different videos of the impact and I am not even remotely convinced that the whaler deliberately rammed it. Since no one has provided any evidence in this thread that they did, I think by your own standards we can agree that claim is without basis.

You might feel comfortable accusing people of attempted murder without evidence, but I'm going to wait until Maritime New Zealand completes their investigation.

 

[Yoink]

Because ramming other ship isn't dangerous as long as it's overt???

So?

Let me explain this v-e-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y:

You said that the blade might kill someone.

In order for the blade to kill someone, they would have to be standing almost immediately on the other side of the steel panel that the blade penetrated.

If every single person on the vessel is aware that they are about to be rammed where do you think they will choose to stand?

Do you think they will choose to stand as close as possible to the point of potential impact?

Do you think they will press their bodies against the hull of the ship in some mad endeavour to lend extra strength to the steel?

No, I think it's pretty safe to say that they will move AWAY from the part of the ship that is about to suffer a collision with another vessel.

Ergo, the odds of the blade actually harming someone are slim to none.

To bad we're not talking about a two-inch blade, nor about "scratching paint." We're talking about a device designed to punch holes in the hull.

Oh, no, really? But we are talking about two small motorboats, right? I mean, I got that bit right, didn't I?

Try looking up the word "scale" some time. I don't think I can be bothered explaining yet another basic concept in this thread.

Wow, talk about "picking your facts because they happen to suit you." He didn't just sink a boat in a harbor. He stalked it with a larger ship. Rammed it once. Rammed it again, opening up a hole in its hull. Then he pursued it back to harbor and blew it up. That's what happened.

Wow, talk about being completely unable to read the very words you just quoted:

And no, knowing that 30 years ago he bumped another boat quite a lot harder (and didn't kill anyone) doesn't give me a right to kill him.

First they rammed the Sierra. Then later they sank it with limpet mines. In harbor. I referred (once again, using the magical properties of 'scale') to both separate incidents.

Are you disputing that that action was dangerous? Are you disputing that it could have killed somebody? As best as I can tell, you're just quibbling because their website is maybe ambiguous about when their group was founded (even though it was all the same people), and because it was a while ago, neither of which strikes me as remotely important.

No, I'm not disputing that the action described on the website as having been taken BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE CURRENT SEA SHEPHERD ORGANIZATION sounds extremely dangerous the way they describe it. It also sounds as if the CURRENT Sea Shepherd organization (the one that has been in operation for almost 30 years since that time) has never once engaged in any action remotely similar to that one. When they ram ships nowadays they seem to do it in the way shown in the videos that have been loaded into this thread. I.e., ways calculated to minimize the possibility of human injury.

The "actual history" simply states they were incorporated in Oregon in 1981. Clearly, they consider it as having been one continuous organization given that they state quite clearly on their website that they were founded in 1977.

And somehow, I don't think your personal interpretation of their history trumps their own.

It's not "personal interpretation" ffs: "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was formally incorporated in the United States in 1981 in the state of Oregon. Previous to this, the idea of Sea Shepherd was formed when Captain Paul Watson founded the Earth Force Society in 1977."

To say that Watson founded "Earth Force Society" in 1977 and that the "Earth Force Society" contained the "idea" of the "Sea Shepherd" which was, itself, incorporated in 1981 is very plainly and simply to state that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was not formed (except in "idea") until 1981. What was formed in 1977 was a different society called "Earth Force Society."

That's not an "interpretation" that's just "being able to read."

 

[shuize]

Yeah. Let's see if you can spot the difference in relative danger between being sideswiped in a car and being sideswiped at sea.

You mean being about to get out and walk away on dry land?

Oh, wait ...

I take it that if you were on a whaling ship in the Southern Ocean and you developed engine trouble you'd simply abandon ship. Correct? I mean, clearly death is imminent if you have no propulsion.

No. But loss of propulsion means loss of steering. Tell me again that's no big deal in heavy seas.

Care to cite a few cases of ships of that size being lost at sea merely due to loss of propulsion? I mean, there are a hell of a lot of ships working the Southern Ocean and we all know there's no such thing as a perfectly reliable engine and we also know that the oceans are full of things that can foul a ship's props. So if it's so amazingly dangerous it stands to reason that there must be at least dozens of cases of ships being lost that way every year. Care to cite a few? Odd we don't hear about the rescues more often...

Sure, the first that comes to mind was the 93-foot Katmai in an incident featured on the program "Deadliest Catch." It sunk in the Bering Sea after it lost steering in 2008. There are many more.

 

[NYCEMT86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQq78lvKrU

This incident happened nearly a year ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZcLVXyn8

This incident happened nearly two years ago.

 

[Yoink]

Maybe, but self defence is justification for attempted murder.

"Self-defence" does not include killing somebody because you think that maybe, later, they'll get off the harmless vessel they're currently on and get onto some other vessel and maybe cause you some possible harm then.

There is no possible way of describing what the Shonan Maru did to the Ady Gil as "self-defence."

 

[gumboot]

No. But loss of propulsion means loss of steering. Tell me again that's no big deal in heavy seas.

Not to mention seas full of icebergs (this is off the coast of Antarctica, remember).

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

No, I think it's pretty safe to say that they will move AWAY from the part of the ship that is about to suffer a collision with another vessel.

Ergo, the odds of the blade actually harming someone are slim to none.

Then you just successfully proved that sheering the hull off a boat isn't dangerous. Because the people in the boat can (and did) do the same thing. So great. Neither action was dangerous. The Sea Shepherds "safely" ram other boats, and so do the Japanese whalers. Apparently.

Oh, no, really? But we are talking about two small motorboats, right? I mean, I got that bit right, didn't I?

Try looking up the word "scale" some time. I don't think I can be bothered explaining yet another basic concept in this thread.

So a two inch blade can slice a hole through the hull of a motor boat? Well fine then. That's quite a bit more than "scratching the paint."

First they rammed the Sierra. Then later they sank it with limpet mines. In harbor. I referred (once again, using the magical properties of 'scale') to both separate incidents.

So the "magical properties of 'scale'" include calling ramming a ship and tearing a hole in its hull as "bumping"? That's some.. uh... scale.

Sorry, but it seems you're being deliberately obtuse here. And we could do without the condescension, thanks. You asked us to provide evidence of them doing something dangerous. We did. Now the best you can say it, "well it was 30 years ago!" or "but but... the website says in one place that they were founded in 1981!" And attempt to downplay it by calling it "bumping."

It's not "personal interpretation" ffs: "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was formally incorporated in the United States in 1981 in the state of Oregon. Previous to this, the idea of Sea Shepherd was formed when Captain Paul Watson founded the Earth Force Society in 1977."

To say that Watson founded "Earth Force Society" in 1977 and that the "Earth Force Society" contained the "idea" of the "Sea Shepherd" which was, itself, incorporated in 1981 is very plainly and simply to state that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was not formed (except in "idea") until 1981. What was formed in 1977 was a different society called "Earth Force Society.

That's not an "interpretation" that's just "being able to read."

It's also "ignoring virtually everything else on the website." Like, for example:

June 1977, Watson left the Greenpeace Foundation because of disagreements on tactics and with the emerging bureaucratic structure of the organization. Patrick Moore had replaced Robert Hunter and was opposed to direct action campaigns. Moore had informed Watson that he would not be allowed to lead another seal campaign...

To answer that need, that same year, Watson founded Sea Shepherd Conservation Society - dedicated to research, investigation, and enforcement of laws, treaties, resolutions and regulations established to protect marine wildlife worldwide.

So it wasn't just "an idea."

Over the years, Watson has exhibited a remarkable diversity in his activism. Aside from being a co-founder of Greenpeace in 1972, Greenpeace International in 1979, and founder of Sea Shepherd in 1977, Watson was a Field Correspondent for Defenders of Wildlife between 1976 and 1980. He was a field representative for the Fund for Animals between 1978 and 1981, and a representative for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals in 1979. He co-founded Earthforce Environmental Society in 1977 and Friends of the Wolf in 1984. Watson's first affiliation with the Sierra Club was in 1968 and he has remained a Sierra Club supporter ever since. Watson was elected to the National Board of the Sierra Club USA serving as a director from 2003-2006.

And then yes, in 1981, they incorporated as a "charitable organization" in Washington. And clearly, it was not the same group as Earthforce.

 

[lionking]

Sea Shepherd ships go out of their way to deliberately ram whaling boats. They got some of their own back. Cry me a river.

 

[shuize]

Not to mention seas full of icebergs (this is off the coast of Antarctica, remember).

That's true too.

The loss of propulsion/loss of steering puts the boats broadside to the waves and then they run the risk of rolling in heavy seas. Most of the accidents in the Bering Sea that I've been able to look up in the past few minutes are due to rolling.

Of course, accidents rarely come in from single cause. A fact which was brought home to me a few years ago on a just a brief day trip when two or three small things piled up to put us in a rather dicey situation.

Loss of outboard.

Plus.

Loss of mast light.

Plus.

Shipping lane.

 

[Yoink]

You mean being about to get out and walk away on dry land?

Oh, so if I gave you the choice of driving down the street and being sideswiped by a car and going out in a motoboat and being sideswiped by another motorboat you'd choose the car because of the "walk home" factor.

Really?

No. But loss of propulsion means loss of steering. Tell me again that's no big deal in heavy seas.

I know loss of propulsion means loss of steering. That's why I RAISED loss of propulsion in relationship to the question of loss of steering.

As to how much of a "big deal" it is, it depends on the size of the boat. In a small boat likely to be capsized by wave action, it's a pretty big deal. Of course, the best advice for a small boat in a big storm is to deploy a drogue and ride it out--for which you don't need "steerageway" anyway. For a really big ship (cruise liner, oil tanker) it's really neither here nor there. You might have some unpleasant moments, but the seas aren't going to sink you (navigational hazards of other kinds could, but not wind and wave alone). For an intermediate size vessel like a whaling ship, it would take a pretty "perfect storm" to seriously endander the vessel simply from loss of steerage--I suppose it's just possible that once in a hundred years of so this would happen, but it's certainly not an imminent likelihood that makes the deliberate attempt to foul the props of whaling ships into some kind of deadly action.

Sure, the first that comes to mind was the 93-foot Katmai in an incident featured on the program "Deadliest Catch." It sunk in the Bering Sea after it lost steering in 2008. There are many more.

You're comparing a 93ft fishing boat to a 50meter whaler in the Southern Ocean. Seriously?

From what I can find online about the sinking of the Katmai, it doesn't sound as if she sank simply because she lost her steering. The one detailed account I could find simply said that first she lost her steering and then the pumps couldn't keep up with all the water she was taking on. Why she was taking on so much water, however, was not explained. If you can find an account that says she sank simply because she lost steerage, I'd be interested to see it.

But about these 50 meter vessels in the Southern Ocean?

 

[Yoink]

Then you just successfully proved that sheering the hull off a boat isn't dangerous. Because the people in the boat can (and did) do the same thing. So great. Neither action was dangerous. The Sea Shepherds "safely" ram other boats, and so do the Japanese whalers. Apparently.

I have to go, but I'll just address this.

If I gave you the choice of sitting on a boat like the Ady Gil while it got rammed by a 491 ton steel-hulled whaling vessel, or of standing on the deck of any one of the vessels we've seen "rammed" by Sea Shepherd vessels while they got rammed by a roughly-equivalently sized ship, which would you choose?

If you chose the former, you have a suicidal streak. If you chose the latter, you're in for a bit of a judder and then some leaning over. Horrors.

 

[shuize]

Oh, so if I gave you the choice of driving down the street and being sideswiped by a car and going out in a motoboat and being sideswiped by another motorboat you'd choose the car because of the "walk home" factor.

I'd say no thanks to either and, if done intentionally, I'd call both aggravated assault.

I know loss of propulsion means loss of steering. That's why I RAISED loss of propulsion in relationship to the question of loss of steering.

And boats never roll.

If you say so ...

 

[Farencue]

I have to go, but I'll just address this.

If I gave you the choice of sitting on a boat like the Ady Gil while it got rammed by a 491 ton steel-hulled whaling vessel, or of standing on the deck of any one of the vessels we've seen "rammed" by Sea Shepherd vessels while they got rammed by a roughly-equivalently sized ship, which would you choose?

If you chose the former, you have a suicidal streak. If you chose the latter, you're in for a bit of a judder and then some leaning over. Horrors.

Yep well that's why the former are called eco-warriors.
Shame you have to go sunshine.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

There is either anarchy on the open seas, or there isn't.

Either you can go around ramming or otherwise attacking boats you don't like, or you can't.

The rules that apply, or don't apply, to Sea Shepard also apply or don't apply to the Japanese.

Simple as that, really.

 

[portlandatheist]

How can people appeal to international maritime law in regards to a vessel flying the Jolly Roger? By definition, their flag represents complete disregard for maritime law. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander! I have spent 15 months of my life out at sea(early 90's) and in all that time I have only seen one pirate vessel and it was a little freaky even though they posed no threat to our vessel.
If someone chooses to fly a pirate flag and is in proximity to your vessel, then open fire is reasonable and should be anticipated. These lawless buttholes and their supporters only appeal to international law when it suits their interest, in all other circumstances it is summarily disregarded as evidenced by their prior behavior.
There should be a different set of standards the Shonen Maru should be held accountable for between a properly flagged vessel and lawless pirates.

 

[Farencue]

How can people appeal to international maritime law in regards to a vessel flying the Jolly Roger? By definition, their flag represents complete disregard for maritime law. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander! I have spent 15 months of my life out at sea(early 90's) and in all that time I have only seen one pirate vessel and it was a little freaky even though they posed no threat to our vessel.
If someone chooses to fly a pirate flag and is in proximity to your vessel, then open fire is reasonable and should be anticipated. These lawless buttholes and their supporters only appeal to international law when it suits their interest, in all other circumstances it is summarily disregarded as evidenced by their prior behavior.
There should be a different set of standards the Shonen Maru should be held accountable for between a properly flagged vessel and lawless pirates.

Thankyou! I was looking for a good way to describe Paul Watson and his merry crew, can stop looking now.

 

[Ravenwood]

From the evidence presented here (and I've done no separate research into this), broken equipment and lost time. I've seen no documentation whatsoever of any attempt to cause physical injury (oh, other than temporary dazzling with a laser pointer--which I hope no one will try to parlay into "piracy" or "terrorism.")

.

A 100Mw IIa laser is NOT a laser pointer, but a device capable of causing severe retina damage & is classified as a prohibited weapon in Australia, IIRC. The devices they were using were confirmed as the model known as the "Photonic Disruptor' made by Wicked Lasers.com and are classed for military & law enforcement use only. IMO using lasers in this fashion is irresponsible & might just provoke the whaling vessels to up the ante with their own lasers, which may be even more high powered (The military has experimented with man-portable "blinding" laser weapon systems before, I'm sure there are some sitting around waiting to be bought.), because that's just what we need, people crewing large vessels in a very dangerous part of the ocean being blinded by high powered laser devices and having a collision, possible triggering a massive fuel spill &/or loss of life.

edit to add: It appears that one with a 925m range for mounting on ships is already available from:
http://www.genesis-illumination.com/Products/ShipRay.html