Japanese whalers in the Antarctic claim their boat the Nisshin-Maru was rammed by Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise earlier today, while Greenpeace claim they were rammed by the whaler’s Nisshinn-Maru.
Photographs emailed to me by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research appear to show the bow of the Arctic Sunrise approaching and then colliding with the starboard side of the Nisshin-Maru.
The first photo appears to be taken from the starboard side of the Nishhin Maru looking at the port side of the Arctic Sunrise. The second photo appears to be from the same side of the Nisshin Maru looking back at the starboard side of the Sunrise.
Greenpeace prides itself on the photographs and video images its has taken over recent days and weeks showing its war against whaling in the Antarctic, click here.
There’s obviously two sides to this story, and I’m keen to post Greenpeace’s photos and their explanation here.
Update 10.15pm, 8th January 2006
Greenpeace now have a media release with a picture showing damage to the bow of the Arctic Sunrise at their website, click here. This picture is consistent with the claim by the Japanese that they were rammed by Greenpeace, however, in the caption to the picture, Greenpeace claim the Japanese boat cut across the front of their boat thus the damage to the bow. In the text of the media release Greenpeace claim the Japanese boat struck their boat port side. What really happened?
Update 9am, 9th January 2006
Greenpeace have now uploaded video of the collision at their website, click here. The video shows the Arctic Sunrise (which appears the size and shape of a tug next to the very large and apparently near stationary Nisshin Maru) heading towards and then ramming this much larger ship port side. There is then an interview with presumably the captain of the Arctic Sunrise, in which he explains that the large Nisshin Maru should have given way to the Arctic Sunrise because Greenpeace had right-of-way. The interview ends with the Greenpeace Captain stating: “I maintained my course at speed”. The video shows that Greenpeace took no evasive action, maintaining its course which appears to have been to ram the Japanese ship.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Greenpeace say that they were hit from behind yet photos clearly show damage to their bow.
Typical dopey greenies, dont know if they are coming or going.
I realise that because this incident occurred on the high seas, it is beyond the law of an individual nation state. (Except perhaps for Japan, should they choose to deploy a naval vessel to protect this or future whaling fleets.)
But the video footage released by Greenpeace over the last few days makes it utterly clear that they are harassing, if not committing acts of agression or piracy (ramming), against the Japanese ships.
What international law or UN convention covers such eventualities, and why on earth hasn’t somebody done something to implement it?
Cathy
I have studied the images above.
No conclusions are possible from the data.
Have a look at the Greenpeace site for video footage and explanations. And if you really care, check your martime conventions.
Could it be that the whaling fleet are trying to take the attention away from the horrific images of the whale slaughter in what is supposed to be an internationally recognised whale sanctuary? hmm…
rog – your comment about the whaling ship coming from behind, so to speak, was related to the incident on the 28th December 2005 where the Kyo Maru (catcher ship) bumped the Esperanza several times. Today they used a different manoeuvre. Then there was the time in 1999…
There are various international marine laws including collision at sea; generally fishing boats, if they are displaying the appropriate lights, symbols and sounds are exempt.
Greenpeace are intruding into a lawful workzone and are provoking the Japanese to commit an injury that would be used as publicity against them.
Greenpeace are deliberately taking a risk of injury.
In fact the law (rule 18 COLREGS) states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
Pity Greenpeace didn’t sink them. Need bigger boat.
So, Phil, you are condoning an act that could endanger human lives. An assault with a deadly weapon, a ship, and the right of a bigger ship to destroy a smaller one that one does not approve of? Perhaps I should forward your views to the Japanese so they can act accordingly?
If GreenFarce did the same thing with a car or truck on our roads they would all get a stretch, and deservedly so.
Hi Ian,
Have a look at the video – see my latest update for the link to the video. In the video Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise is the smaller ship – appearing about the size of a tug next to the very large and apparently stationary Japanese ship. In the video the Arctic Sunrise is heading directly for the Nissan Maru. It would appear to have been able to have change course and avoid the Nissan Maru, but as the Greenpeace captain says in the video “I maintained course and speed” because I had right-of-way. …Greenpeace appears to have maintained course and speed because Greenpeace intended to ram the Japanese ship. The organisation then put out a media release claiming to have been rammed by the Japanese.
Didn’t think you right wingers would be defending them after WW II. You’ve obviously sold out.
A reader of this blog sent in the following comment: “Both ships look to be moving, but not particularly quickly. Greenpeace claim that the Nisshin Maru came around in a circle to get in front of them. You don’t turn these things on a sixpence, so if that were the case they would have had plenty of warning of what was likely to happen.”
Who knows a marine law expert who could comment?
Here are a couple of points (from a non expert)
The Greenpeace p/r says that “the captain of the Sunrise tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler.”
This is in conflict with the video where the skipper clearly says that he maintained course and speed.
Both extracts confirm that the Greenpeace ship was under way.
Also in the video the Greenpeace skipper claims he was in open waters – judging by the number of ships at anchor or in the vicinity “open waters” could be debated.
Under maritime law the Greenpeace ship must give way to the fishing ship. Also under maritime law all skippers must at all times make every effort to avoid a collision. Whilst the Japanese ship did make warning the Greenpeace ship made no obvious effort to avoid collision.
A whale is not a fish.
The question of who rammed whom is irrelevant to the principle of whether whaling is good or bad. Both sides are likely to have over-reacted in the heat of the moment, both hoping for their action to demonstrate some moral superiority. The important question is whether Greenpeace can achieve by action what it has failed to achieve by persuasion – namely, to stop the killing of whales.
Meanwhile, scores of whales have been beaching themselves, and many dying as a result, around the shores of New Zealand in recent weeks. Nobody appears to have established a cause. Could they be driven mad by the whine of fizzboats or sickened by pollution? There may be other actions we can take – lower profile, admittedly – that can save more whales than are deliberately slaughtered.
It appears obvious to me by the video and by the captain of The Artic Sunrise comments about “maintaining course and speed” that Greenpeace is more concerned about sea mammals than they are about human safety in this instance. Makes me think they have lost the plot a bit if they have turned to such obvious vigilante tactics to get their point across.
All this stuff about who rammed who isn’t the issue. I would suggest both sides would be pretty revved up and in such an atmosphere tempers would be frayed and judgement clouded. You can spin it any way you like.
The issue is that whales have gone close to extinction from over-exploitation. The “harvesting research” is a joke. Let’s chop up a few pandas, tigers, gorillas, orangutans, hairy nosed wombats and other sundry interesting wildlife to “help them”. Sorry about this but killing you will help you in the long run. Whale species in general are nowhere near their pre-whaling extent.
It’s very simple – a few countries want to eat whales.
Many of us don’t like these harvesting highly intelligent life-forms that have been close to the limits of existence.
Why the heck would you support the Japanese in this anyway? Would you like to chomp through a whale steak or take some piccies of them at Hervey Bay. Japan seems to have a habit of annexing world resources for selfish reasons.
How much Oceania rainforests have ended up Tokyo form-work and chopsticks ? While their own forests sit immaculate and untouched as scenic beauty.
But if it’s the hallowed market at stake and a buck to be made, maybe Grannie is up for sale too.
So Greenpeace doesn’t agree with whaling. OK. Protest. As part of the protest ram a japanese whaling ship. OK. Now claim responsibility and cop the consequence.
But Greenpeace didn’t claim responsibility. Greenpeace instead put out a media release claiming it was rammed by the Japanese ship.
How low is that?
Cathy has been getting error messages when she tried to post the following comment, so I am posting for her:
“Phil, by all means feel free to froth with moral indignation, and to discuss the moral issue if you wish.
But the matter that I raised has nothing to do with morality, or even with whales, but simply asked about the legality of Greenpeace’s behaviour.
No-one has yet answered the question as to why there has been no intervention to prevent Greenpeace’s self-evidently dangerous, and almost certainly illegal, behaviour.
Cathy
Guys – you don’t know that. I say the Japanese were at fault. You’ve just assumed a position based on your opinion. It’s far from self-evident.
How low is whaling in the circumstances – my opinion – one hundred miles lower.
Jen – the world has protested diplomatically – didn’t work. So now we’re reduced to this.
About as bad as other Japanese international resource management issues – why support them?
I have to say looking at the video it seems to me that Greenpeace has been cut off, is trying to avoid the collision, and that the Japanese vessel has higher speed. In any case we have a small biff to the nose of the Greenpeace ship. Japanese damage unknown?
Nobody was cut in half. If this was a full ramming there would be much more damage. Should someone have backed off earlier, were they both playing chicken, do any of us who were not there really know.
Principles, ethics and rule of law are thrown out the window by the greenies to be replaced by emotive arguments and moral equivalence – mob rule.
Actually – the point is that Greenpeace loses credibility every time it pulls stunts like this. People who genuinely care about these issues will increasingly ignore greenpeace petition bearers in the street in search of a more credible organisation with better ethics.
The reality is that regardless of how people see whaling (and compared to over fishing of stocks such as north sea cod or alsakan pollock the whales, which are a front page issue and subject to international convention, are frankly not the biggest issue out there) there are laws under which the operation of ships are governed.
What the Greenpeace ship did is simple from their own video and photographic evidence – they rammed another ship on the high seas. This is an illegal act, from memory its may also be barratry but im not a maratime law expert – a deliberate act.
Whats next for these fleets? Will it get to the situation where we see naval escorts for fishing fleets? The fact is that its not going to be long before we do and thats what Greenpeace appears to want – a sunken protest ship suits them to a T.
Laws exist at sea for the protection of lives and vessels – this act by a supposed professional captain breaks numerous ones and should come with consequences. I would be intrigued to see under whose flag the Greenpeace ship sails – there are criminal proceedings which can be actioned against captains breaking the laws of the sea like this and some countries take those very seriously indeed.
Sorry but no the ends do not justify the means – instead of using political leverage to ensure thatyour governments dont give in to the Japanese at the first sign of resistance on whaling some people would rather see rephrensible acts of reckless behaviour as a fair act.
Thats eco terrorism and sorry but its not something the environmental movement needs nor wants.
John at the end of the day whaling needs to be stopped…one bloodied nose to a Japanese ‘research’ ship will be forgotten, whaling is a disgrace and the means do justify the end…
Whaling is eco terrorism of the highest order
Not really interested in who rammed who. The main point I would like someone to verify for me is this:-
Are Japanese researchers that incompetent that they need to keep killing hundreds of whales to undertake their research? If researchers in history had have been this slow and ponderous and wasteful, we would be in big trouble with life-threatening diseases at the moment!
Please tell the truth Japan – don’t treat the rest of the world like idiots!
Greenpeace have a weblog recording some of the crew’s impressions like this one;
“At first Arne (captain of the Arctic Sunrise), maintained his course and speed, as he was obliged to do under maritime rules of the road.”
Capt Arne might be looking for a new vessel.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/
How is whaling an act of “eco terrorism” whilst fishing is a recreational sport?
I am glad I have seen this site. I am indcredulous that there are so many people supporting the Japanese whalers. Would someone like to tell me why they support the whalers? Do they believe tha “research” story? Have they no interest in conservation of the whales or perhaps think the world would be better off without them? Do they still think the English suffragettes were wrong to break the law in order to help them win the vote? Answers, please.
Harry,
I can’t recall anyone on this thread “supporting the Japanese”, or whaling, as such. But several contributors, including me, have expressed support for the rule of law.
If you have a fervent belief that you think justifies breaking the law, then feel free to act upon it; the suffragettes did just that.
But kindly do not act surprised, nor expect moral sympathy, if and when you are put in jail for such behaviour.
Cathy
Cathy…there are acts in the world that are patently wrong, whaling is one of them, we seem agree on that point. There have been many years of political effort to get japan to stop this…this year they’ve increased the harvest. When all else fails, then sometimes you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do…By the way comparing whaling to other fishing, Rog, is ludicrous
PS Apparently they struggle to sell the meat in Japan
I have written articles in support of sustainable whaling here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3634
and
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=199 .
Also, type ‘whale’ or ‘whaling’ and you will find more here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/search.php? .
The issue of this thread is did Greenpeace ram the Japanese or vice-versa? If they did, and the evidence presented does raise some issues with regards to their statements (their captain did state that prior to the collision he maintained speed and course and it is a fact that they hit the Japanese with their bow), then there is a problem with Greenpeace maintaining their stated policy of non-violent action.
Other photos from past collisions also raise some questions as to who hit whom however Greenpeace appear to have eluded further inquiry.
If they had a legitimate case I would have thought that they would have pursued it through the courts.
Personally I think Greenpeace were outmanouevered on the seas.
At the end of the Greenpeace video they interview the captain of the green peace ship. he states that since he was on the starboard tack the boat on the port is required to give way – he’s technically correct – however the Greenpeace captain then says that “I therefore maintained the same course and speed”. Obviously Greenpeace was looking for a collision as watching the video no turn to avoid the collision was made and this is also a requirement of captains.
Greenpeace pick a fight then get all upset when they get a punch in the nose (literally in this case!)
The Japanese ship should give way, but the Greenpeace should have avoided a collison if at all possible, and it did appear possible.It’s an interesting one for Lloyds of London.
Rog it really is about whaling, they wouldn’t be there if not for the whaling, the ramming episode was part of the on going battle to get it stopped. Mostly, people don’t want sustainable large scale whaling, ‘aboriginal’ whaling in small vessels is one thing, large scale factory processing ships is another…it’s just not necessary.
In the video we have the Captain of Artic Sunrise saying that he maintained Speed and direction, but now Greenpeace spin doctors say in their press release:
“the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side. The ship’s captain tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler”. source: http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/press-centre/press-releases/whalers-ram-greenpeace
Now the Captain is supposedly trying to pull out of the way. Really…
Greenpeace need to own their action if they want to continue being seen as a reputable organisation. If they want to claim a higher moral law then own up to breaking a lower one. That is what activism/civil disobedience is all about is it not.
article 97.1 “1. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.”
Flag state == Greenpeace ship’s flag state (USA?) if you think the Greenpeace ship is at fault, or Japan for the Factory ship (assuming the factory ship is Japanese-flagged, which is likely).
Only warships are allowed to board another vessel suspected of breaching international maritime rules (eg pirates).
Statements that “fishing vessels” are exempt from navigational rules are false — quite the opposite, fishing vessels are not allowed to impede navigation.
Ken,
“Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do”.
(1) Who elected Greenpeace to go around “gotta-doing” on my behalf; and (2) Who granted Greenpeace immunity from prosecution for illegal acts?
Cathy
COLREGS states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
COLREGS also state that fishing vessels “shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane” but are not banned from fishing. This is in line with Rule 9 which states that “a vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.”
http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=649&topic_id=257
It will be interesting to see who will take it further.
I hate to see whales killed, but there is an intriguing legal/ethical dimension here. A few comments back, Phil Done objected to the killing of intelligent creatures. Is it worse to kill an intelligent animal than an unintelligent one? If so, at what intelligence level do we draw the line? Maybe the Jains are right, don’t kill anything. But what about a mosquito, or a deadly virus?
How do we measure intelligence anyway? Also, is it worse to kill a rare animal than an abundant one? Should these ideas be extrapolated to humans? Worse to kill a QC than a solicitor, or legal clerk? Chinese matter less than Amazon Indians? Ooer, I think I’ll chicken out of this one… (sorry, pejorative to chickens, which are actually very brave and intelligent …)
Davey – we’re talking about mammals that were harvested close to extinction and I suggest have nowhere near recovered. Anyway who’s for bagging a few hundred pandas and gorillas each year for science – why not? Just to check they’re doing OK – you know – for science. We could BBQ them I suppose.
Anyway Greenpeace says:
The Arctic Sunrise was more than a kilometre from the other two ships when the Nisshin Maru hurriedly cast off its lines and made a sharp turn to port (left) – coming all the way around the stern of the tanker in a circle – to set a collision course for the Arctic Sunrise. At first Arne (captain of the Arctic Sunrise), maintained his course and speed, as he was obliged to do under maritime rules of the road. But still the factory ship kept coming.
The Nisshin Maru is more than twice as long and six times heavier than the Arctic Sunrise. When Arne realized the Nisshin Maru was set on a collision, he put the Sunrise into full astern (reverse) in an attempt to avoid it. The Nisshin Maru put on more speed, and very intentionally struck the Sunrise a hard glancing blow on her port bow with their starboard side. More of a sideswipe than a direct hit, thank god.
As the Nisshin Maru went by her crew directed one of their massive fire cannons at the bridge of the Sunrise.
We’ll get some video footage of the incident up soon. It’s possible this ramming was purposefully done in a way that makes us look bad if you don’t have all the facts. Fortunately, the video record makes it obvious the whalers were at fault. I really encourage you to watch it so we can get back to talking about how to end commercial whaling.
Anyone have an alternative view of events?
Can get worse .. ..
http://www.seashepherd.org/
“As incredible as it seems, the Japanese whalers that are down in Antarctic waters conducting a blatantly illegal slaughter of whales are complaining to governments like Australia and the United States and accusing the people trying to stop their illegal activities of piracy. And Australia and the United States are both giving credence to the complaints of this criminal nation.
Is there no limit to the hypocrisy of these politicians and bureaucrats?”
AND
“At 0030 Hours GMT – 09 Jan 2006 (1930 EST Hours – 08 Jan 2006): The flagship of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, the Farley Mowat, continues to chase the outlaw Japanese whaling fleet out of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary after sideswiping the Japanese whaling supply ship Oriental Bluebird.
Captain Paul Watson ordered the Japanese-owned Panamanian ship Oriental Bluebird to leave the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese supply ship was waiting to rendezvous with the Nisshin Maru to continue the off-loading of whale meat for transport back to Japan.
“I informed the Oriental Bluebird that I was acting under the authority of the United Nations World Charter for Nature to uphold international conservation regulations prohibiting the slaughter of whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary. When they refused, we backed up the message by slamming our starboard hull against their starboard hull.”
There was no damage apparent to either ship aside from a long scratch along the hull of the Oriental Bluebird caused by a device attached to the Farley Mowat’s hull called the “can opener.” The blow was meant as a warning to convey the seriousness of our order for them to leave the area and to stop assisting with the illegal slaughter of whales.
After the collision, the Oriental Bluebird began running with the Farley Mowat in pursuit. Farley Mowat First Officer Alex Cornelissen reported. “We are not down here to protest whaling. We are here to uphold international conservation law. This ship is assisting an illegal operation and thus has no business in the whale sanctuary.”
Phil listen to what the Greenpeace skipper said on the video; “maintained course and speed”
Davey, Tim Flannery has said that some whales are pretty dumb “much like sheep” and could see no problem in sustainably harvesting them.
We now have another group shunting Jap whale boats, the Sea Shepherds
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060108_1.html
Phil, At a different thread you said you were reading Richard Dawkin’s book The Ancestor’s Tale which includes something about whales and where they fit from an evolutionary perspective. I don’t have a copy of the book handy, but if you do, could you tell us please how they are related to people from an evolutionary perspective? Are they closely related to the hippopotamus?
I thought it had some irony, Sea Shepherds guarding the flock of Sea Sheep?
No?
Back to the ironing….
Rog – (a) you weren’t there an a cherry picker from way back (b) that was an initial fragment of a conservation (c) Greenpeace have given a complete account on their site where they describe the Japanese vessel “as breaking away” and engaging them (d) note the lack of wash or wake in Jen’s photo at the front – look at back – hard to determine but I could believe it was in reverse from the look and captain’s description.
But not mincing around I have given you a more vigorous account with admitted some biffo from Sea Shepherd who have declared the Japanese are breach of international law and criminals.
Call for a Queen’s counsel !
I would suggest both sides hate each others guts and are hardly objective.
But where is Saint Rog when all the other acts of more deliberate violence are carried out on the high seas. It’s simply because it’s a protest movement and a demonstration and its Greenpeace – it’s on your Guide to Right Wing Extremists checklist and so you’re “up it”.
No comments on the whaling and whether the Japs should be doing that.
If we had an Australian warship in the region looking after OUR part of the world instead of buggering around in Iraq, in an unpopular and unmandated action (if Cathy wants to discuss electable mandates), things might not be as “hot” and dangerous. Anyway if the world wasn’t watching the Japs would sink them Rainbow Warrior style. Then you’d defend the accident and say Greenpeace deserved it.
I don’t forget WW II and their behaviour to resource management – so on this issue stuff’em !
So this is an interesting interaction and philosophical point for Jen:
(a) probably two thirds writers against Greenpeace railing against the illegality of their tactics and leaving things to proper international processes
and
(c) one third saying all reasonable diplomatic actions have been exhausted so some direct action is a last resort; and some discussion of the whales themselves.
Interestingly (and no not looking to open it right up) – the situation on the Iraq war using similar would attract the opposite sides of the argument.
I wonder if the whales have a view of our human logic or are just dodging harpoons.
International maritime laws required the Arctic Sunrise to maintain its course and speed. To do otherwise could cause a crash if the faster whaling ship moved to avoid the Arctic Sunrise as it was obliged to do by law.
The greenpeace ship took the correct action by sounding its loud horn, alert, radio call and maintaining course. The Arctic Sunrise was in full reverse when hit by the whaling ship (which did a 360)
Our human perspective may limit our ability to understand the sentience or long-term ecological role of whales. This doesn’t justify allowing their slaughter. The Sea Shephard website very clearly explains the international laws that they are observing (not breaking, unlike the whalers).
Jen – yes Dawkins discusses whales as evolutionary developments of hippos (around page 206-208) whereby whales have gone into “evolutionary overdrive” from entering the water permanently. Also discusses what molecular biology shows us is related to what. Whales and hippos have historical ancestors. Some surprises in many creatures.
Gee I wonder if hippo tastes like whale. (OK that’s joke’s been done err Done) Cripes – you’d need a bloody big barbie for a hippo too. I hope someone is shooting the hippos to find out if they’re alive and healthy too.
And there’s a market opporunity here for Rog – McHippo – and McMinke. Or a Panda Caesar deli roll?
Sometimes I’m still suprised at the ignorance in this world. I wonder how it is that people who know virtually nothing about something can spout such opinionated crap – like they were there and they are experts in the matter. I guess that’s the beauty of the internet – everyone is an expert.
Unless you were actually there you do not really know what happened. Think about it – yes that’s right, think. What good would it have done Greenpeace to have their comparitively tiny ship ram the monster mother ship? The whole point of Greenpeace is “PEACE” – they get plenty of stick for doing things in a non-violent manner, but that is their core belief. The people onboard the Arctic Sunrise may be passionate about saving these whales but they aren’t stupid.
The day before the ramming occurred, the whalers were recorded taking half an hour to kill a whale. The footage and images are gut wrenching and the evidence of cruelty is undeniable. And that was with people watching – what happens when no-one is around to monitor them? Is it just possible that they wanted to take the focus away from what they are actually doing down there?
As my ol Granpop said – “think before you speak” – your ignorance isn’t pretty.
Elaine, Do you work for Greenpeace? Jen
Jen do you work for ICR?
Jennifer’s post claims that the “Photographs … show the bow of the Arctic Sunrise approaching and then colliding with the starboard side of the Nisshin-Maru”. The movement of the water beneath the undamaged bow of the Arctic Sunrise (in photo above) supports Greenpeace’s claim that they were reversing (trying to avoid collision) before they were hit.
The Greenpeace video shows their ship being hit (twice) by the whaler **as** the whaling ship was turning. Ie: the whaler neared the greenpeace ship whilst performing a turn so an initial glance at a still photo might give the impression of the bow of the greenpeace ship hitting the whaler but the video shows this is not the case.
For Cathy, who has been asking what international laws or conventions cover this matter, the most comprehensive and best argued case I’ve seen (from any side) is here:
a summary of laws and regulations violated by the Japanese whaling operation:
• Violating the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
• violating the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling.
• targeting endangered fin and humpback whales that are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (CITES).
• in violation of the Australian laws protecting the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters.
• violating the IWC moratorium on the use of factory ships to process any protected stock which includes the whales they are hunting – minke and fin whales.
It is Japan that is violating international conservation law. The following list summarizes their violations:
1. The Japanese are whaling in violation of the International Whaling Commission’s global moratorium on commercial whaling. The IWC scientific committee does not recognize this bogus research that the Japanese are using as an excuse.
2. The Japanese are killing whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for whales.
3. The Japanese are killing whales unlawfully in the Australian Antarctic Territory
4. The Japanese are targeting fin whales this year and humpback whales next year. These are endangered species and thus this is a violation of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
5. The Japanese are in violation of IWC regulation 19. (a) The IWC regulations in the Schedule to the Convention forbid the use of factory ships to process any protected stock: 19. (a) It is forbidden to use a factory ship or a land station for the purpose of treating any whales which are classified as Protection Stocks in paragraph 10. Paragraph 10(c) provides a definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Table 1 lists all the baleen whales, including minke, fin and humpback whales and states that all of them are Protection Stocks.
6. In addition the IWC regulations specifically ban the use of factory ships to process any whales except minke whales: Paragraph 10(d) provides: (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships. This moratorium applies to sperm whales, killer whales and baleen whales, except minke whales.
It is not illegal to interfere on the high seas against their illegal whaling activities. In fact, we are legally authorized to do so in accordance with the U.N. World Charter for Nature.
The United Nations World Charter for Nature states in Section 21:
States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall…:
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) safeguard and conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
And finally, Section 24 states:
Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.
This is what we are doing in the waters of the Southern Ocean. We are acting as individuals and non-governmental organizations to uphold international conservation law for the purpose of protecting the environment. In so doing, we are challenging a rogue pirate nation intent upon arrogantly violating international conservation law.
Australia is obligated to enforce international conservation and Australian law against Japan in the Australian Antarctic Territory, but so far they have irresponsibly refused to do so because of economic conflicts of interest with the nation that is trespassing in their territory.
link: http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051227_1.html
Thank you Legal Eagle for that fascinating account of the conservation agreements that you allege the Japanese are breaking.
You say: “This is what we are doing in the waters of the Southern Ocean. We are acting as individuals and non-governmental organizations to uphold international conservation law for the purpose of protecting the environment. In so doing, we are challenging a rogue pirate nation intent upon arrogantly violating international conservation law.”
The “we” here seems to mean Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
When an individual or organisation thinks that another is acting unlawfully, whether on conservation matters or otherwise, they have recourse to the courts to deal with the matter. In the meantime, or instead, they do NOT have the right to resort to what is indubitably harassment and arguably illegal action against those who have earned their ire.
Though I thoroughly enjoyed your knowledgeable explanation, I can only repeat my question: who elected or authorized Greenpeace and the SSCS to go around “gottadoing” on my and your behalf?
Cathy
We did !
Law of the sea, an act of piracy has occured, a skipper is required under sea law, for bow and speed.
An act of piracy is ramming a vessel with bow, ever it was so and so it remains.
I am against whaling we farm better however the act is piracy, nothing more or less.
Green peace have attacked a vessel in Australian waters illegally.
All law is law. Green peace have attacked a ship in Australian waters, the charge is Piracy.
In oz and under our sea law Green Peace skip answers the question.
We hold in our jurisdiction one of the largest area of geo shipping there is.
It costs our nation a bit.
Green Peace must answer to the charge of piracy.
To “harp on a point” – ICR’s photos are very interesting, and support Greenpeace’s assertions.
In the second photo above, you can see a discharge of water from the starboard (right side) of the Arctic Sunrise. The direction of flow/bubbles etc, appear to indicate that the vessel is still moving forward – but at barely wake speed – the foam at the stern of the Arctic Sunrise suggests it is in reverse thrust, attempting to avoid collision as a last ditch effort. As mentioned elsewhere the Captain was right to initially maintain course and speed – to do otherwise would have been potentially more dangerous, as the Nisshin Maru was obliged to adjust course/speed and pass to the stern of Arctic Sunrise – if AS stopped/turned earlier how would Nishin Maru know where to go?
At the same time the Nisshin Maru appears (from Greenpeace’s video) to be making a hard turn to left – directing its stern to the right, straight into Arctic Sunrise – the absolutely worst thing they could have done if they wanted to avoid “being rammed”, and resulting in the second blow to the Greenpeace vessel.
It’s just as well the Nisshin Maru had a photographer poised ready to record their Captain’s agressive move. The ICR has shot themselves in the foot sending these photos out, if they think they demonstrate otherwise (with their own grenade tipped harpoon hopefully).
Piracy my foot. Greenpeace didn’t attack a vessel – look at the photos. The Japs harassed Greenpeace. And if all law is the law – well better send a gun-boat and arrest the Japanese fleet immediately then for contravention of the international laws listed.
Send the our Navy and impound their fleet.
In terms of legal action Cathy – you have to be joking – ourselves and all the whales would be dead before you got an outcome.
You guys are simply on an anti-greenpeace rant – not one of you gives a toss about real incidents and piracy. How utterly precious.
Jack – “All law is law” indeed. Laws and rules exist for good reason. In this case the rules of navigation, just like the rules of the road, dictate how this collision should have been avoided. The Captain of the Nisshin Maru quite apparently made an aggressive move and did not abide by the rules of navigation. None of this incident constitutes “piracy”… (http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051228_1.html)
Nevertheless, I expect that both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd would welcome an Australian naval vessel demonstrating some sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory, and the illegal actions going on there.
I think Greenpeace were the agressors in this instance. Rather selective morality, no?
Louis – you said earlier “No conclusions are possible from the data”. If you “think” Greenpeace were the agressors, it must be your personal politics that lead you to that conclusion then?
Why would anyone who wasn’t a part of the Japanese whaling expedition, give a damn about whether the rights (legal or otherwise) of the Japanese have been impinged upon???? I can’t believe I’m reading this crap. You people must be really quite dim – the Japanese are thumbing their noses at YOU as citizens of this country, by pulling whales out of it – they are showing you just how much they give a damn about YOU!!!!And yet, YOU (in your obviously basic intelligence) feel like you have to spend serious time debating just how wronged they’ve been in terms of international maritime laws blah blah blah. What exactly is the outcome you need to see? Would you go to sleep at night happy if some legal nut were able to successfully prove Greenpeace had been awfully disrespectful to the poor fisherman and thus send all Greenpeace to jail for 50 years? I’m in shock. YOU are so boring. YOU are also stupid if you think those more intelligent than yourselves can’t see through your weasely words right through to your real feelings of right-wing fervour. One of the saddest things is that you can’t be honest about what you really want to say about the environment, animals and all of those “left-wing” extremists you hate so much…But what a pathetic cause to take up – the safety of Japanese whalers ! Tragic. They care less about YOU than you make out YOU do about them. No-one should bother posting replies to the Japanese whaler supporters in respect of what laws have been breached/what piracy has been committed blah blah blah, because this is merely diversionary and YOU all know it. I’d love to see the curriculum vitaes of the Japanese supporters – wouldn’t be a bloody QC amongst them..just bores. Real average, ORDINARY, know-it-all, right wing BORES. Go the whales. Go home insecure, underperforming, ORDINARY, bores. Why don’t you try putting all of your brain power together to fight for something deserving – like campaigning on behalf of the rights of abused children or the chronically disabled/sick or even those people whose lives have been destroyed by war with no homes, no money, no medicine etc…They are in a whole lot more need of support than Japanese whalers…although, no political mileage there, eh!!!!
Louis – look at the photo from ICR. The rising water under the bow of the Greenpeace ship clearly shows that they are NOT charging forward. In contrast, the video shows a wake from the bow of the whaler as its fast circular movement strikes the greenpeace ship.
In a similar incident in 1999, the Nisshin Maru was officially recorded as being at fault in the Lloyd’s database (the international record of maritime movements and casualties).
Greenpeace have been waving banners, taking pics & trying to obstruct the harpooning. Not very aggressive. The Japanese have nudged the greenpeace ships twice, pointed harpoons in the direction of greenpeace inflatables and killed whales in protected waters. That’s aggressionve.
Sea Shephard, unlike Greenpeace, are aggressive. Their stance is clear: they’re out to stop illegal whaling, not wave banners. Therefore the Japanese ships charge the Greenpeace ships but run away from the Sea Shephard ship. Accuse Sea Shephard, not Greenpeace, of aggression and you have a valid point.
Cathy: we/they/anyone have not just a right, but an OBLIGATION to safeguard nature against illegal activities. Reconsider the UN World Charter for Nature:
s. 21: States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment;
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction , or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
(e) safeguard and conserver nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
S.24: Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.
ie: EACH PERSON, individually, has a DUTY to protect nature against illegal activities such as whaling for commercial purposes in protected waters.
Sea Shepherd appear to be quite jolly about their role as pirates and have enjoyed some commercial success marketing pirate merchandise to kids of all ages who seek a romantic link.
It’s difficult to envisage pirates who “uphold the law” unless it is booty they be after.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051228_1.html
Nathalie – I admire your passion. Frankly, I would like to be down in the territory helping Greenpeace / Sea Shepherd, but alas, like most here, I’m on land in front of a computer.
Jennifer raised the question here “Who rammed who?”, and Nathalie, you are right that in the scheme of things – who cares – it is probably a diversionary tactic by ICR (whether or not Jennifer has any affiliation with them). If ICR want to make a fuss that Nisshin Maru was rammed, by for example, emailing these photos to Jennifer then I’m sure you agree that they should be quashed as flimsy “evidence” that actually supports Greenpeace’s non-agressive activism.
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has split and formed his own rather less hysterical group
http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm
He says that todays Green activists are people “..who prefer rhetoric to fact and refuse to evolve beyond confrontation,”
“.. I see environmental groups today becoming increasingly extreme, promoting arguments that have less to do with the environment than their own political agendas.”
http://www.sensibleenvironmentalist.com/
You are posting at Jennifer Marohasy’s website (www.jennifermarohasy.com ). You can read all about me by clicking on ‘About’. I have no affiliation with the ICR. But could ‘Elaine’ please clarify whether or not she works for Greenpeace. It is OK if she does, but I think it would be relevant to the discussion.
Rog the other co-founder of greenpeace decided that greenpeace had become too tame and bureaucratic, so he went and founded the more activist Sea Shepherds. He’s the radical captain running alongside the whaling vessels with a “can opener” and throwing towlines to foul their propellers when the whalers look ready to ram like they did to the Arctic Sunrise.
Speaking of ‘extreme’, it’s the world’s environmental and social problems that are becoming more extreme.
Whales play important ecosystem roles as key predators of complex plankton communities (phytoplankton in the oceans produces a lot of the oxygen we breath). Scientists are just starting to comprehend the important role that the behaviour of key predators (hunting & consuming) plays in regulating population abundance, community interactions and therefore, ecosystem resilience. Whale populations are vulnerable, plankton stocks are being lowering by extreme weather events and fish stocks are at record lows. We’re not just endangering the populations of whales, we’re potentially endangering the greater systems of which they’re part.
YO MISS JENN:
I WAS BORN 10-18-1941 = REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR ??
I DO VERY WELL, AND IF A JAP TELLS YOU THE SUN IS COMING UP ???
YOU BEST GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF.
ANY RACE THATS HELL BENT ON THE TOTAL ANIALATION OF ANY SPECIES IN THE NAME OF $$$$$$$ SHOULD BE –
BLACK LISTED – BLOCKAIDED – PUT IN A CAGE & FED PIG DUNG ON TOAST FOR BREAKFAST.
GREENPEACE MY NOT BE PERFECT IN EVERY WAY ….. B U T, THER THE BEST WE HAVE BECAUSE THE REST OF EM ARE TO BUSY “TRASHING~SMOKERS~RIGHTS” TO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE CROOKED POLITICANS THAT ALLOW THEZ GOIN’S ON’S.
whaling battles
Greenpeace continue to annoy the Japanese whaling fleet in the southern oceans: Paul Taggart, World Picture News The photo depicts an attempt by the group Sea Shepherd to disable the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru after it collided with the Greenpe…
Well, Natalie certainly gets the cake for exposing the classic green/left mindset. So any view contrary to your own is booring and stupid? Then just flick the chanel dearie, whale salvation is just another soap opera to keep the mediocre occupied. What Phil and all the other whale wallowers have demonstrated here is a clear capacity to substitute emotive self indulgence for reason.
Greenfarce had to ram the boat because it is now caught in a spiral of intensifying violence as the threshhold needed to generate a headline gets higher and higher. For them, the headline justifies the means.
And as for all this quasi legal bumph, countries all over the world make legal claims over teritory that are not recognised by other countries. The International Whaling Commission is not a representative body because it gives small Pacific and Caribean nations the same vote as India or China. And the greens then have the gall to cry foul when one of those small nations sells its vote contrary to the interests of Australia, NZ or Britain, the countries that set them up in the first place for the primary purpose of stacking such forums.
Of course the Greenpeace ship applied reverse thrust just before impact – the ship is considerably smaller than the Japanese vessel and the object wasnt to sink the boat but to damage it and put it out of commission – thus they would reverse thrust for just that reason.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of boats and boating should be able to work this out in a blink – the Greenpeace ship would have reversed engines just prior to impact to stop them from sinking themselves which is what would have happened if they had continued at full speed.
If you dont get this talk to someone who has experience at sea and you will get a pretty clear explanation of why and how this happened – the videos and photographs make what went on more than clear despite greenpeaces claims.
Now THIS thread demonstrates why I love the internet!!!
As an Australian living in Japan, let me just say:
Whale tastes good 🙂
Jennifer seems to like interpreting the videos her own way and presenting that as the uncontested version of events.
That’s fine, but these facts remain:
Our captain tried to avoid collision. The important thing to note here is that we are to their starboard, their right hand side, meaning under Rule 15 of the international collision regulations we have the right of way.
Under Rule 17, our ship was required to maintain our course and speed, which was dead slow at any rate. The purpose of this rule is to avoid any confusion about who should turn. Once an imminent collision became apparent, our captain went full astern attempting to avoid it, as also required by Rule 17.
Shane Rattenbury was on the phone to The Age newspaper in Australia at the time of the collision and the reporter heard everything over the phone. You can read the article here.
I think the video shot from the Esperanza shows pretty clearly that the Arctic Sunrise was not moving at the time of impact, and was hit across the bow by the Nisshin Maru. Additionally, as Shane points out in his blog, for us to ram the Nisshin Maru would be a “suicide mission” since it is 6 times heavier than the Arctic Sunrise. And if, as you say, we hit the Nisshin Maru head on into her side, then why do photographs clearly show damage to the *side* of our bow?
Our evidence seems to be convincing enough for the UK government which according to Channel 4 in the UK is considering launching a diplomatic protest.
And lastly, Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and ramming is not a tactic we would ever consider. Besides, an impact would clearly damage the Sunrise more than the Nisshin Maru and in temperatures where any crew member unlucky enough to end up in the water would be in mortal danger, why on Earth would Greenpeace take this kind of action in violation of our principles?
Adele, Greenpeace Web Editor
Elaine – Jen works for the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne.
http://www.ipa.org.au/units/environment.html
Greenpeace may well be say they are committed to non violence but the sending out young and enthusiastic volunteers in ‘rubber duckies’ in stormy Antarctic waters to play ‘human shield’ against grenade loaded harpoons does not appear to be the action of a group promoting the responsible and considerate preservation of life.
Rog – as you say, they are enthusiastic VOLUNTEERS – I cannot even wildly imagine that anybody is forcing them into a little boat to pursue their passions and ideals protecting something that they believe in. Credit to those brave guys and girls for their selflessness, and credit to Greenpeace for facilitating the actions of those volunteers.
So Greenfarce has principles now? [enter flying pigs, stage left]
If Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd succeed in damaging or immobilising a ship they will be classed as pirates and the Skippers of Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd would be held accountable.
Similarly if crew of Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd end up in the water their lives could be at risk and the would be held accountable. Photos and reports of rubber duckies dodging whale hunters in 25 knot winds and choppy seas make you wonder.
For all their sakes you would hope that they have a functioning Risk Management Plan in place.
i gather that their risk mngt plan is focused on what they perceive as a greater risk than their individual lives: that of ocean and planetary ecology if populations of the world’s largest key predators collapse, possibly with negative long-term effects on the reproductive behaviours and population regulation of plankton, with flow-on effects on global oxygen production and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Or perhaps they’re just in love with whales and can’t see anything beyond their senseless slaughter.
it’s worth remembering that laws and regulations are fluid. they change over time according to societal pressures.
just because i have the right of way at a crosswalk and i see a big truck coming at me not slowing down, am i going to just go ahead and step out? i dont think so!! im going to alter my course which is exactly what the captain of the greenpeas ship should have done.
and by the way why is it that whales have become some sort of sacred cow?
les: Whales perform an important ecosystem role in complex global dynamics which humans are just starting to comprehend (computer modelling and modern research is helping). Our lives depend on interlinked ecosystems. Eg: whales eat plankton, phytoplankton produces a lot of the oxygen you breath in. Plankton and whales have evolved together. Scientists are concerned with drops in plankton populatons. If you eradict a key predator, you can disturb the balance of an ecosystem. This view has widespread scientific consensus.
Further, whales have a 4th lobe of the brain. Humans only have 3 lobes. Whale brains are larger than humans (human scientists regularly claim the large size of human brains helps explain our higher intelligence). Some whales sing songs that last a day and that gradually change over their lifetime. Humpback songs have distinct individual patterns and use rhymes. Why endanger the survival of a species, particularly an intelligent one, just because you have the technology and the appetite to do so?
Les,
My thoughts on your sacred cow question here:
Greenpeace is the largest environmental organisation in Australia and made its name by opposing commercial whaling. In an insightful review (pdf file 46KB) of Greenpeace’s early years, Fred Pearce has written, “Greenpeace was far from being the first green group to oppose whaling. But it was the first green group to ignore the scientific arguments about whale reproduction rates, population dynamics, and how large a sustainable cull might be, in favour of an undiluted ethical argument: save the whale.” The media war was effectively reduced to the simple issue of whether or not “whales are good”.
As a consequence of this campaigning have many Westerners, to quote Ron Brunton writing in The Courier-Mail in 2001, “come to venerate cetaceans, the zoological order which comprises the 80 or so species of whales, dolphins and porpoises”? It is not unusual for cultures to venerate particular animals. Orthodox Hindus venerate cows, believing them to possess divine qualities. But is this a useful basis from which to develop national and international environmental policies for the conservation of species?”
Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3634
with link to piece by Fred Pearce.
Cheers,
Veneration, and other attitudes, is important when developing international policies. Why else don’t we condone cannibalism? Because people venerate people (some so much they want to eat them, but we dont’ allow that).
If public policy shoots too wide of public opinion and mainstream attitudes, then policy changes or there is a revolt. The importance of veneration is such that some corporations fund lobby organisations such as IPA to sway public opinions.
You say that greenpeace campaign led to people venerating cetaceans. No-one venerated them before GP? You ignore the possibility that a fledling, poorly funded greenpeace won support from the significant numbers or people because the people already recognised the beauty, gracefulness, intelligence and playfullness of these creatures.
A Greenpeace member responds
To my post Sunday about the collision between the Nisshin Maru and the Artic Sunrise. Andrew Davies, stationed aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, posted the following comment: Thanks for trying to tell both sides of the story, but there is…
Laura O’Connell, (if that is your real name) aka think objectively, I repeat my question;
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member or employee of Greenpeace or any related organisation. I will gladly list all my affiliations if you will provide readers of this blog with the same courtesy. They have a right to know.
T. O. wrote “whales eat plankton, phytoplankton produces a lot of the oxygen you breath in. Plankton and whales have evolved together. Scientists are concerned with drops in plankton populatons” this would indicate to me that perhaps the whales are in danger of “over grazing” their range. which could lead to them starving to death. which i would imagine is a slow and painful way to die. proper game management would allow for a reasonable harvest to reduce the pressure on the plankton. this harvest would in no way endanger the survival of the species.
i also agree with T.O. that whales are graceful, beautiful, intelligent and playfull. yet so are many other animals which are part of my diet. (no i dont eat whale. although i have tried muktuk. found it to be a bit chewy for my liking.)
i think the fault is with the liberal media machine in place throughout the world. they seem to pull at the heart strings of the population. always looking for the next crisis they can take advantage of.
if greenpeas and sea shephard wasn’t able to get any play from the liberal media they would be sorely hurting for funding.
im sorry if maybe i have gone off track a bit here. the point that i was trying to make in my original post was that the captain of the greenpeas ship did not do the prudent and safe thing by trying to avoid a collision instead of maintaining speed and course just because he had the right of way. just because you have the right of way doesn’t mean you should contest it. simply put, if he had done the safe and prudent thing it wouldn’t have made for good t.v.
oh yea one more thing concerning right of way. i think that the vessel least restricted in its ability to manuver has the right of way whather its on the left or right. who is more manuverable? the japenese ship or the greenpeas ship. it looked to me like the greenpeas ship would have been the more manueverable of the two ships giving the japenese vessel the right of way. again the captain of the greenpeas vessel appears to have been derelict of duty.
Maritime law expert Dr Eric Wilson, of Monash University, Melbourne, said the Arctic Sunrise was set up for the collision by the clever skipper of the Nisshin Maru. “By executing a 360-degree turn at exactly the moment he did, he created a situation where the Greenpeace vessel could not but strike the Japanese vessel.”
The Japanese are like the clever insurance scammers who cut in front of you then slam on the breaks.
They are making every effort to sidetrack public attention and lie about their practices – everybody see the “science based lethal research” signs they hold up while packaging whale meat for sale?
Japan has the right to engage in cultural practices the rest of the world finds abhorrent, but only within their borders.
They are floating between Australian Waters and International Waters – in either case, all of their actions in the Antarctic are illegal.
mike come on now. the nisshin maru is like a 18 wheeler towing 3 trailers and the arctic sunrise a porsche in comparison. are you really willing to give the japenese captain credit for having that much skill to be able to anticipate exactly where the arctic sunrise would be and spin his behemoth ship 360 degrees and causing the arctic sunrise to hit the nisshin maru in the side. ships that size dont just power slide around a corner. they take forever to turn, slow down or speed up.
les, you’ve concluded in an absolute and linear fashion that lower plankton numbers mean the whale are eating too much and therefore they will starve so we’re doing them a favour by killing them.
There are many faults with that line of thinking.
Firstly, plankton numbers are suspected of declining due to climate changes (changes in water temperature and currents) and increased CO2 (absorbed by oceans, makes water more acid, makes it difficult for organisms with exoskeletons, such as krill, to build their shells). This has caused the starvation/hunger and decline in reproduction of ocean birds in europe this year and possibly also mammals. Do you propose we just shoot them all?
Secondly, it ignores the complex nature of ecosystem dynamics in which whales can pay an important life-sustaining role as key predators.
Plankton is at the bottom of the food chain for most fish and ocean mammals and birds. Whales help to regulate plankton population abundance. This doesn’t mean that whale predation reduces plankton numbers. The important role of key predators is that they help to maintain healthy and robust populations of prey.
there are a number of factors that regulate populations of a species: conditions and essential resources (eg sunlight, nutrients, habitat space), competition *within* a species, competition *between* species, predator behaviour (eg hunting and consuming patterns, preferences for certain prey) and decomposers (who release nutrients for reuse). Plankton includes animal plankton of numerous species that prey on phytoplankton (plants who produce the energy upon which the entire food chain depends).
Predators, who have evolved with their prey, often have hunting and feeding patterns that coincide with the natural biological cycles of their prey, and predators can actually make a population more robust by culling the genetically weakest individuals
Culling predators may not have the desired effect:
*Reducing predation may reduce mortality rates, therefore reducing competiton within the prey species for scarce resources, therfore allowing the population to remain constant.
*Species interactions can change, eg because the competitive balance (previously mediated by predation) has changed. This may have an unpredictable effect on the numerous species of prey: eg the population numbers or a previously non-dominant competitor may have been regulated by the consumption preferences of the predator. Remove the predator and its preferred prey may start to dominant its competitors, with further flow on affects for the entire ecosystem.
Due complicated ecosystem dynamics, whales may actually perform an important role that creates an abundant and genetically diverse supply of plankton that in turn maintains abundant fish stocks and produces oxygen for you to breathe. Eradicating whales to see if this is in fact the case is a dangerous experiment indeed. Do yo still want to go ahead with it?
les you equate the artic sunrise to a porsche but actually it’s a much slower ship than the NM. Are you more knowledgeable than a maritime law expert?
just because a expert knows the law doesnt mean hes ever stepped on a boat. your experts main areas of expertise are public international and international enviromental law. he also has research interests interests in air and space law, enviromental law, the european union law, and international management of natural resources. no where did i see where he had a captains license for anything.
i am not a licensed skipper either, however i have over 1000 days experience as operator of many different types of small craft. top speed is not the issue. manuverability is. perhaps i should have used a yugo instead of a porsche.
Think objectively, and provide full quotes from greenpeace and the marine expert!
Wilson goes on to say that Greenpeace rammed the Japanese … see my most recent post here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001106.html .
What Eric Wilson actually said is NOT the same as how it was reported see,
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001108.html .
thank you jennifer for pointing me to what exactly think objectively’s “expert” really had to say. the press involved are apparently also pursuing their own agenda. for greenpeas to have rammed the NM would not have made a good sound bite. i said it before and ill say it again. the captain of the arctic sunrise was derelict of duty for not doing everything he could to avoid this avoidable collision. the people back in the head office of greenpeas should remove him from command before all respect for their organization is lost.