The Institute for Cetacean Research has now uploaded two videos of the ramming by Greenpeace of their ship the Nisshin-Maru in the Antartic last Sunday, click here. The videos taken from the Nisshin-Maru show Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise heading for, and ramming the Japanese boat.
There are now at least three videos and two photographs that contradict the Greenpeace media release and in particular the claim by Greenpeace Southern Ocean Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury that
“…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.”
When will Greenpeace stand Rattenbury aside and relieve the captain of the Arctic Sunrise of his command?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It still looks undecided to me. From the 1st video on this site, the greenpeace boat seems to be heading for the japanese boat, but seems to be going very slow, perhaps trying to stop? the japanese boat seems to be moving faster (the greenpeace boat is moving progressively into the background as the japanese boat moves by).
Whether the greenpeace boat lined up and aimed for the japanese, or the japanese boat turned in front of the greenpeace boat is not evident from this videos or the photos.
The second video shows both boats initially travelling parallel, and then either the greenpeace boat turns into the japanese whaler, or else the japanese whaler turns in front of the greenpeace boat. you can’t tell which is true from the footage, though the absence of waves/drag around the right hand (starboard?) side of the grenpeace boat in the last 10 secs for impact suggests (albeit very weakly) that they are not the ones turning left into the whaler.
Steve, you’re just determined to see what you want to see. Neither of the videos shows the boats travelling parallel. If the Greenpeace boat was trying to stop it would have had its screws in reverse, and I can’t see any sign of that. Besides, it’s quite small and apparently manouverable. If it didn’t want to hit the Japanese it has plenty of opportunities to avoid them.
In fact, even if the Japanese should have given right of way, it is the obligation of both skippers to avoid a collision. The Sunrise quite clearly had no intention of avoiding as it would have been turning to starboard so as to pass the Nisshin on the port side.
These were not necessarily options for the much larger Japanese ship which is less manouverable and has a lot more mass to slow down.
One wonders why the Japanese left it so long to release these videos, but it’s a nice gotcha of Greenpeace who’ve probably fired all their shots and look pretty cheap and nasty.
Th 2nd video is interesting, two rubber duckies buzzing around may have been painting or may have been trying to foul the propellers, it would have been a worry to the Japanese skipper as a ship without propulsion could be put at risk if the weather turned bad. Fouling the props is an act of piracy.
Only in the last seconds do GP put the engines astern (you can see by the water ‘boiling’ under the stern). Prior to that they were travelling about 4 knots with no visible action being taken to alter course and speed. It appears that at the very last moment the GP master gave it a kick astern to slow down then reduced or put power into neutral, maybe to to maintain steerage. Much depends on the dynamics of the propeller (clockwise or counter clockwise) and rudder, the swing to port may have been a consequence of the ships steering capabilities. There may have been two propellers and rudders, another variability to factor in.
The GP skipper would/should have known all this and also would/should have known that their maintained course was one of collision.
Under the oft quoted maritime law the skipper has absolute control over the vessel as they are wholly responsible for the safety of the vessel and its crew. In this instance Captain Arne has been silenced and GP media apparatchniks have been holding forth. This reminds me of the communist era (both China and USSR) where every ship had a Party Commissar that held final say over the skipper.
Clearly the Japanese ship did not ram the GP ship.
Adds nothing new. The Japanese didn’t “ram” the GP ship – but they were playing chicken with it and compromising it. A glancing blow occurred.
See what you want to see. It’s called relative viewpoint.
Keep spinning…
Will the pseudo-Institute for Cetacean Research show good faith to make sure none of the research catches ends up on dinner plates. Harvest should be dumped after samples taken.
Meanwhile anyone interested in whale population dynamics?
It’s fascinating that you guys are totally morally bankrupt when it comes to formulating something positive. Give us a positive path forward and then we can insist that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd withdraw from the field.
But you clearly don’t have one. And you don’t care.
Sit on your hands and watch !
Sea Dog look at the first half of the 2nd video on the whalers website. They are definitely travelling parallel. That’s why you can see the Greenpeace boat from the side?
Phil, Please email me a page with some information on whale population numbers. I am interested and would probably post it as a new piece. I have previously written about whale population numbers but closer to the Artic – in the context of Norway and whaling … check my articles at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au .
Steve you are confusing the bridge with the boat, the bridge runs across a ship not along it.
Moral bankruptcy – is that an expert opinion?
If Greenpeace cant get their “ramming” story straight what other fabrications are they spinning?
No Rog that’s definitely a very opinionated pers.comm.
Any postive comments on whale conservation Rog ?or still swinging on the old boat anchor.
It’s obvious the Arctic Sunrise rammed the Nisshin Maru from the second video. I’d guess they achieved what they intended, a light contact with minimal damage to either ship. Quite an impressive bit of boat driving by the Greenpeace moonbats, but incredibly stupid.
Steve, if they were travelling parallel you would be able to see the stern, and you can’t. It’s basic perspective really.
Phil, you don’t want a positive conversation on whale conservation, you just want to divert attention from the current conversation because you know that you and Greenpeace are wrong. If you thought you were winning the argument you wouldn’t want to talk about anything else! I think your slip is showing.
you haven’t watched the second video from the whalers website have you?
Jennifer you asked (Steve) for whale populations. The IWC expressed its concern in the 2005 resolution:
CONCERNED that:
more than 6,800 Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) have been killed in Antarctic waters under the 18 year of JARPA, compared with a total of 840 whales killed globally by Japan for scientific research in the 31 year period prior to the moratorium
that Japan’s stated intention to more than double the annual catch of Antarctic minke whales and also take 50 fin whales (B. physalus) and 50 humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) under the proposed JARPA II program
the abundance of Antarctic minke whales is substantially lower than the earlier estimate of 760 000
there are no agreed data to indicate that endangered fin whale populations have increased
some humpback whales which will be targeted by JARPA II belong to small, vulnerable breeding populations and that even small takes could have a detrimental effect on the recovery and survival of such populations;
STRONGLY URGES the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means.
The following is extracted from a letter to Crikey:
Captain Paul Watson, skipper of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s Farley Mowat, writes:
we do have some independent journalists onboard. I can’t speak for Greenpeace. I don’t know if they do or not.
On board we have:
Peter Heller – National Geographic
Paul Taggart – World Picture News
Pawel Achtel and George Evart – Channel 7 Melbourne
Mathieu Mauvernay – Film maker from Paris, France
Emily Hunter – City TV, Toronto
Ron Colby – Independent film maker and television producer from Los Angeles.
I think I can explain the Greenpeace Arctic Sunrise and Nisshin Maru incident. We were approaching the Nisshin Maru as it was transferring whale meat to the Oriental Bluebird. When the Nisshin Maru saw us approaching from a few miles off they began to disengage from the supply ship. They let go the mooring lines and began to move away. As they did so they collided with the Arctic Sunrise.
The Nisshin Maru then did what it always does each time we arrive – it began to run. It is still running westward. We do not have the speed to stay with the Nisshin Maru so we must rely on waiting until they slow down to process whales. We then catch up and ambush them. We have intercepted them three times and they have fled each time we arrived. Was the ramming of the Arctic Sunrise deliberate? Maybe, but from our point of view it appeared to be an accident.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has not denied our deliberate side swiping of the Oriental Bluebird. The whalers are in blatant violation of international conservation law. We are not down here to protest them. We are here to shut them down in accordance with international conservation law.
That’s a fascinating list of “independent” journalists.
Doesn’t each and every one actually have form in inflating environmental stories in the past?
Just asking.
Cathy.
Cathy – probably in a similar way that this website and blog has form in inflating environmental disinformation that favours the corporate agendas of Jennifer’s employer’s sponsors.
Cathy it’s an ignorant post-modernist habit our society has of deconstructing and criticising the efforts of others without suggesting a viable, reasonable alternative. I support the actions of GP and Sea Shepherd because the whaling is not legal, doesn’t have international consensus and there is no reasonable alternative given that the government is ignoring it.
Can you please point to some facts that discredit these journalists or the organisations that they work for? Do you know if the Japanese whale “research” body or any of its affiliates or bodies with vested interests fund IPA for whom Jennifer works? undoubtedly.
Cathy, assuming for the moment that GreenPeace or Sea Shepherd *are* breaking the law, as you’re fixated on, then do you disagree with your predecessors who acted illegally when they fought for women’s rights? In demanding that legally-entrenched injustice (gender based discrimination) be rectified they broke the law and engaged in harrassment. They also burnt their bras, further contributing to anthropologically forced climate change!! If they hadn’t broken the law (at quite some personal risk) then where would you be today? What about the actions of the individuals who fought against governments and mainstream society to challenge slavery? When is it reasonable to take the law into your own hands?
On the contrary Richard to date I have only ever been interested in in comparing the claims made by various parties with the evidence made available in an effort to being better informed. Its a bit difficult with all this moral grandstanding and mud slinging going on.
Rog. You’re right. I think Jennifer’s demanding of “moral duties” is grandstanding. I’m glad to see that there are some objective thinkers present to balance things out and pull things up from slinging mud.
O.K., let’s just take the first one on the list.
Paul Heller works for the National Geographic, a worldwide icon of sanctimonious environmentalism.
Last year, or was it 2004, the NG ran a special issue on climate change. It was a travesty. Full of special pleading, specious statements and unbalanced judgement.
What reason is there to believe that their coverage of the whaling issue will be any better?
Cathy
Hmmm. 6800 minke whales over 18 years is only 378 each year. So even if the actual population is only half (380,000) of the estimate of 760,000, it is still an annual cull of one tenth of one percent. Now the exact gestation period of minke whales is unclear but these smaller whales are likely to have a similar gestation period to cattle. And that means new progeny each year for each adult female. And that means 190,000 calves each year. Half of these would be male and, as in the cattle industry, most of them can be culled without any impact on the breading rate of the females who can be serviced by a relatively small number of dominant males.
We also don’t know their lifespan or mortality from natural causes but if it is 20 years then 19,000 will die of old age each year, possibly 38,000 if the higher population estimate is true. I would welcome more detailed data but it is quite clear that current harvesting is of minimal impact on the Minke whale population.
Cathy – let’s just remove your personal bias for a moment… so, you said:
“NG, a worldwide icon of environmentalism”. No argument there.
“Last year, or was it 2004, the NG ran a special issue on climate change. Full of pleading, statements and judgement.” Sounds serious – we should do something about this climate disruption issue.
Now if the NG is inflating matters as you say, then how about some *facts* that support that?
Ian you confidently conclude from your rough calc that there is minimal impact on the Minke whale population. Unlike you, the IWC which has 200 whale biologist in receipt of more detailed data than yourself, has concerns about current harvesting.
But assuming that your confidence is well-founded, then tell us, what is the minimum viable population for Minke whales?
Recent whaling drove many species of whales through a population bottleneck, meaning that they now have greatly reduced genetic variation and therefore a much larger population is required to maintain a healthy breeding stock. It also makes it especially important to protect genetically distinct populations, eg the Antartica minke v’s the common minke.
there are additional pressures, such being struck by increased number of ships at sea, being stressed by ship radar and engine noises (that carry very long distances under water) and declines in plankton and fish abundance that further negatively impact on whale populations.
Therefore a minimum viable population needs to be much greater than it would be for cows fenced in safely on a farm. As you said gestation periods are unclear. therefore we can’t assume they are just like cows, particularly when species’ survival is at stake. Whales have more complex breeding behaviours than cows.
As for culling bull whales only – hasn’t that been tried unsuccessfully? The problem is that the poor Japanese are forced to harpoon, then slice and refrigerate whales to peform basic research on them precisely because they cannot, from a safe harpooning distance, determine the gender or length or age of the whales!!! ie they can’t visually determine bulls from cows from calves from greenpeace activists until they’re peering at it in-between a pair of chopsticks!
“Think objectively” (now there’s a name that telegraphs insecurity) what violence did the sufragettes, or whoever “predecessor” refers to commit which led to an improvement in women’s rights?
And Steve, I’ve looked at all of the videos, and without any prejudices. You obviously haven’t. Would be a good thing for all if the Japanese had reconnaisance planes down there to give an aeriel view of what is happening. We wouldn’t have the sort of nonsense that you’re trying to peddle.
Suffragettes carried out such minor offences as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to the contents of mailboxes and window-smashing. One suffragette, Emily Davison, died after she stepped out in front of the King’s horse at the Epsom Derby of 1913. Many of her fellow suffragettes were cruelly imprisoned and went on hunger strikes, during which they were restrained and forcibly fed lots of horrible foods such as garageroot – a poisonous herb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragettes
not unlike greenpeace tactics eh? actually more violent given that GP mostly just wave banners & zip around in boats & take pics
Sea Dog here’s an abstract on suffragettes’ political violence from an academic article (note: “violent campaign”, “bombing and arson”):
An Examination of Suffragette Violence
C. J. Bearman
University of Hull
This article offers the first fully researched analysis of political violence on the part of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) and its sympathisers in 1913–14. It shows that the number of incidents of bombing and arson was far greater than previously assumed, and that the economic cost was far higher. It examines the role of the leaders, officials and employees of the WSPU and shows that the violent campaign required a far greater degree of organisation, funding and participation by employees than has been accepted by historians. In these contexts, it examines the question of whether political violence can be said to have won the vote for women.
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/486/365
But the point was made for Cathy seeing the thrust of her arguments have been to condemn the alleged illegal behaviour of Greenpeace. Like GP, the suffragettes those who sought to abolish slavery fought for their ethical beliefs. Is it ever acceptable to take the law into your own hands? Laws are constantly and belatedly adapting to changing circumstances and awareness.
If the illegal activities of a few individuals can lead to the creation of new laws, should we ignore those laws which resulted from rebellions?
“Is it ever acceptable to take the law into your own hands? Laws are constantly and belatedly adapting to changing circumstances and awareness.”
The short answer is that you can do whatever you wish and are able to, provided you understand that you will cop the consequences. Thus many suffragettes were rightly (legally) imprisoned, as should be the skipper of the GP ship if the prima facie case against him is pursued and proven.
You might reasonably expect the legal system to be sympathetic to your transgression if (i) you were protecting yourself, close family, or even a stranger from mortal danger (i.e. killing in self-defense is understandable, and perhaps even fully justifiable); or (ii) you, whether as the member of a group or not, were being discriminated against in a demonstrably hurtful way (which many people would say applied to the suffragettes).
Conversely, you ought not expect the legal system to be sympathetic to your breaking the law if it is undertaken on behalf of vague moral concepts which (in a democracy) are not shared by the majority as reflected through the elected government.
Cathy
Laura O’Connell, (if that is your real name) aka think objectively, you have repeated the list of generalised threats that were outlined by Greenpeace Web Master Ms Major on another string on this blog. Again you have declined to offer any specific information as to the nature, scale and probable frequency of whale mortality from these “threats”.
And 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.
Ian, for the 3rd time, no I do not work for Greenpeace, not that it would matter if i did(?). But perhaps you could put in a good word for me? I hear GP jobs are hard to get. Actually I don’t even know anyone that works for Greenpeace or any other environmental or activist group. If I was working for GP or any other body on issues that I believed in strongly, I assure you that I would freely admit to that fact.
NEWSFLASH: John Howard again expresses his disagreement with Japan’s whaling and he thinks that Greenpeace have the right to express their views. From the SMH:
When asked if he supported Greenpeace’s presence in the area Mr Howard said: “I think the people have the right to express their view providing it is lawful, providing it is not provocative, providing it is not dangerous.
“Our views on Japanese whaling are well known. We don’t agree with it. We think the scientific justification lacks substance and we are very critical.”
He also said “this suggestion that the Australian navy vessel be sent there is quite absurd and won’t happen.” and the Defence Minister declared that it is a civil matter.
http://smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/PM-warns-both-sides-in-whaling-row/2006/01/12/1136956274337.html
So, the australian government doesn’t agree that GP are engaging in illegal activities, yet they disagree with the whaling.
The skipper of the Green Peace Vessel failed to comply with the rules of the sea and should be relieved of his ticket.
1)This Green peace vesel went to the area to specifically harass these vessels when and where it could, thereby legally providing motive for such an altercation.
2) The rules of the sea are that when a person in charge of a vessel has right of way they maintain course and speed until such time as a collision appears to be imminent and at that time takes the appropriate action to avoid a collision if possible.
3)The Japanese vessel was larger, slower, less manouverable and in the process of carrying out its business with another large vessel to the starboard and forrard, with small vessels also in the water.
It is clear, that with the known intention of harrassment by the Greenpeace vessel by virtue of its presence in the area, although it was to starboard of the japanese ship, that the Captain of the Greenpeace vessel, firstly placed his vessel intentionally and unecessarily in a dangerous position by course, and although he approached from the starboard, clearly failed to take the necesary actions any competent skipper would have taken to avoid a collision until the very last instance.
There is no doubt that a court of enquiry will find that the Green peace skipper not only negligent to the rules of the high seas, but will almost certainly find this skipper intentionaly caused such an incident to come about.
Greenpeace might like to have the world’s anti whaling fraternity emotionally on their side, but this is an instance of high seas recklessness and the international courts will not consider this in their deliberations and nor should
they.
Once again Green peace has oer stepped the mark and I hope they pay dearly for this high seas piracy act.
Sorry, but even these pictures show that the Greenpeace vessel is in reverse.
Also an expert in maritime has said that this was the whalers fault:
“By executing a 360-degree turn at exactly the moment he [Nisshin Maru Captain] did, he created a situation where the Greenpeace vessel could not but strike the Japanese vessel.”
People who want to all the evidence should also check this blog in witch the blogger changed his mind after about who was to blame after reviewing the evidence: http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/01/a_greenpeace_member_responds.php
I personally believe Greenpeace is doing a vital job by protecting whales witch are endangered. It is also putting a global spotlight on the fluting of laws designed to protect the ecosystem.
Seeing as you may wish to know this, I am an active member of Greenpeace; however I have never been employed by it or any other environmental or political organisation. I would like you to note that both links I have sent come from independent sources, in fact the blog is conservative.
If I believed Greenpeace were to blame for this I would give up my membership, the passive protest Greenpeace do is part of their philosophy and mine. In fact, it is due to this philosophy that Paul Watson set up the more militant Sea Shepard that Greenpeace regularly distances itself from.
You really have to giggle at these precious tirades of piracy. Come on.
Arrrr me hearties. We might board you, take your booty, and then make you walk the plank. And we’ll keel haul ya.
But today you’re lucky – we going to stop you “fishing” by buzzing around under your bow in a rubber boat and painting a slogan on your vessel.
Arrr.. .. pieces of eight, pieces of eight.
The parrot thing…it suits you Phil, hang on to it.
Rog is a norty boy, Rog is a norty boy, Rog is a norty boy Arkkkk !!! Polly want a sustainable outcome . ARRRkkkk ~!