update on whales and the andy gil collision

[Ken Gargett]

aussies may remember the enormous chest pounding in the previous electoral campaign by the jellyfish masquerading as our leader. he would take on the japanese. there would be action in international courts, pressure brought to bear. rudd would save the whales. it has all, of course, come to absolutely nothing other than yet another world record attempt for retreating quickly. all that said, i have no doubt that the whales would fare no better with abbott in control.

here is the latest from sea shepherd re the various investigations. completely sums up the spinelessness of our politicians.

Maritime Justice in the Land of Oz

Response from Captain Paul Watson on the Australian Conclusion on the Destruction of the Sea Shepherd Vessel Ady Gil.

We just received the report from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) entitled “Fact finding report into the reported collision involving the New Zealand registered craft Ady Gil and the Japan registered whaling ship Shonan Maru No. 2 in the Southern Ocean on January 6th, 2010.”

I did predict months ago that the investigation would come to nothing because Japan would refuse to cooperate as they did in 2007 when they rammed our vessel Robert Hunter.

And sure enough, the conclusion from the AMSA is that the investigation could not be completed because Japan refused to cooperate with the investigation.

That’s like the police saying, “well we caught the bank robber on video and we had plenty of witnesses BUT hey, he refused to cooperate so we dropped the case.”

We have a 22-page report on why they could not make a decision on the case.

On page four, the report states that the incident did not occur in Australia’s territorial seas. Yet our GPS position from the Bob Barker only a few hundred meters away has the position at 64 Degrees 2 minutes and .835 seconds South and 143 Degrees 5 minutes and .52 seconds East. This is inside the Australian Antarctic Economic Territorial Zone.

The report said that the investigation was hampered by lack of witnesses, yet the entire incident was witnessed by six crewmembers on the Ady Gil and numerous crewmembers from Sea Shepherd and television film crew onboard the nearby Bob Barker.

The report said that the investigation was hampered by the “quality” of the video yet there were three video angles, two of which taken by professional cameramen, one on the Ady Gil and the other on the Bob Barker. The third angle was taken from the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru 2. This means that there was video from the ship struck, the Ady Gil, from the ship striking, the Shonan Maru 2 and position of cameraman observer on the Bob Barker. There have probably been very few collisions in maritime history with three perfect angles caught on film. To say that the quality of the film was poor is ridiculous. The film has been seen on high definition television by millions of people.

The report says that the investigation was hampered by the difficulty of interviewing witnesses yet all six crew on the Ady Gil were interviewed.

Page four of the report states that this report is not related to the investigation by the Australian Federal Police on Japan’s request into the collision. In other words, Japan is not cooperating with the AMSA investigation into the collision but has requested that the Australian Federal Police investigate Sea Shepherd on their behalf.

On page six of the report, the position of the collision is stated as taking place 1300 nautical miles South of Tasmania and 170 nautical miles North of the Antarctic coast. This places the incident within the 200-mile Australian Antarctic Territorial Zone (AATZ) yet the report states that the incident did not occur in the AATZ.

The AMSA report argues that even though the incident occurred in the AATZ, they have determined that for the purpose of the report that the incident occurred in international waters.

On Page 11, the AMSA report stated that the Shonan Maru 2 remained in the area but did not respond to the mayday signal by the Ady Gil. The Bob Barker responded and rescued the crew. The report contains the testimony and the video footage from the Ady Gil crew and video footage from the Bob Barker. The Japanese refused to provide video or testimony.

Page 12 states that AMSA requested information from the Japanese government. The report states, “The Japanese government subsequently advised the Australian Government that it would not be in a position to provide information to AMSA’s questions owing to the possibility that this material might be required in any investigation by Japanese authorities.” (It appears they don’t have Kinko’s in Japan).

The report states that Japan refused to provide information on timing, position, weather conditions, sea state or course at the time of the incident. In other words, the message was “we ain’t talking.”

AMSA concluded that, “it is beyond the scope of this inquiry to investigate the Japanese government’s allegations against Sea Shepherd.” However, according to the report, such an investigation is underway by the Australian Federal Police on behalf of the Japanese government.

So the conclusion here is that Australia is assisting Japan in their investigation against Sea Shepherd, but Japan refuses to assist Australia in their investigation of the actions of the Shonan Maru 2.

The fact remains that the captain of the Shonan Maru 2 rammed and destroyed a multi-million dollar vessel and almost killed six crewmembers of which one suffered rib injuries and no one from Australia, New Zealand, or Japan has questioned this captain.

Instead they arrested the captain of the Ady Gil and he is still being held captive as a prisoner in Japan, despite the fact that he was the victim of the captain of the Shonan Maru 2.

The Ady Gil had the right of way because the Ady Gil was on the starboard side of the Shonan Maru 2, but there is no mention of this in the report. Instead, the report states that the video appears to show the Shonan Maru 2 returning to offer assistance to the Ady Gil. This did not happen, and the report is prejudiced by the wording “appeared,” and further still there is no mention that the Shonan Maru 2 “appeared” to be to the port side of the Ady Gil despite the fact that the video clearly indicates that it was the vessel that should have given way. Instead the Shonan Maru 2 can be seen to alter course to starboard and not to port, a course change that led to the collision that cut the Ady Gil in half. The Shonan Maru 2 is also seen in the video training their water cannon on the crew of the Ady Gil before, during, and after the ramming of the Ady Gil. Yet there is no mention of this. Instead the report states that the Ady Gil was harassing the Japanese fleet, implying that because of that the Ady Gil may have been responsible.

The AMSA Analysis

“Due to the limited scope for AMSA to investigate the incident, the lack of access to the crew and the absence of a detailed response from the Shonan Maru 2, AMSA was unable to collect sufficient evidence to fully examine the circumstances pertaining to compliance with regulations or to conclude the facts of the matter.”

The report says there was an absence of “face to face interviews” (page 13) yet the entire crew of the Ady Gil and crew from the Bob Barker were interviewed face to face.

The report said that AMSA could not independently verify the answers provided by the Master and crew of the Ady Gil with any other available witness statements or information, despite the availability of witnesses from the professional film crew on board the Bob Barker.

So, in the end we have a New Zealand vessel rammed and destroyed by a Japanese whaling vessel in the Australian Antarctic Territory and the incident was captured on three video cameras and witnessed by dozens of people on board two ships including independent parties from media outlets and AMSA says it cannot come to any conclusion because one of the parties, the Japanese whalers, refuse to cooperate.

This report sets new standards in ineptness for investigation. To close an investigation because of lack of willingness from one of the responsible parties to cooperate sends a message to other parties that all you need to do to avoid incrimination is to not cooperate with the authorities.

The New Zealand Maritime Authority is also conducting an investigation and also reporting refusal by Japan to cooperate. I’m betting that Japan will take a tip from this report and will see the advantage of not cooperating and will also not cooperate with New Zealand.

What this will do of course will give Japan the green light to escalate their violence next season. Once they know they can sink a ship without even being questioned, they will realize they can take even more aggressive means to defend the illegal activities of their whaling fleet.

In the unlikely event that someone on the Sea Shepherd ships die or are injured next season at the hands of the Japanese whaling industry, blame will partially be held against Australia and New Zealand for cowering before Japan and refusing to oversee justice.

After all, there are trade treaties to be considered and Japan is used to getting what Japan wants.

It is amazing that only one small non-governmental organization has the guts to stand up to the crimes of the Japanese whaling fleet, while governments cower before or are bribed by Japan to look the other way or to support the slaughter of the most gentle, intelligent, and socially complex sentient beings on the planet – the whales.

The Australian government promised to stand up for the whales. That promise went no further once they were elected. Instead, they have take on a passive aggressive role in dealing with the defenders of the whales. In other words they are talking big but doing little and it has all become about “pretty pictures of whales, smoking mirrors, and posturing.” Those are the exact words used by Environment Minster Peter Garrett before he was elected, and before he was Minister, when he referred to the lack of action on the Liberal government’s part to defend the whales from Japan.

In other words, the whales can always depend on the opposition in Australia whoever they are or might be, but most likely will never be able to depend upon an elected government (unless that government should happen to be Green).

Fortunately for the whales they have the support of the Australian people who will be reminding Kevin Rudd’s government at the election this year that the ballot boxes are in Oz and not in Japan.

This report is worthless and smacks of political pressure. To end an investigation because of a failure of one of the parties to cooperate is to ridicule the entire process.

[mazolaman]

This is a disturbing turn.

It's bad enough that nations like Japan and Norway buy up votes from places like Gabon,to a:continue whaling and b;stop projects like the south sea island whale resrve.

This is a step further,violating international boundaries,and sinking other vessels.

I recall Peter Garrett being vociferous in opposition regarding the environment,this makes this rolling over all the more depressing.

Firms like Mitsubishi are now also catching and freezing vast numbers of bluefin tuna,as they are aware that it is almost extinct,so they are garnering the last for the future price rise...

Appaling human behavior.

[Warren]

It seams that it would have been a very different story had the whaling ship been crewed by Israeli's.

Rudd would have had them all up on charges at the blink of an eye just to impress the Arabs that he want's votes from for his position on the UN Security council.

So according to his logic, if Mossad counterfeit a couple of Australian passports it's an act of aggression requiring the expulsion of that countries representative.

If you sink a ship in our waters and risk the lives of our people hey no hard feelings you big lovable fisherman.

[SmokinLightning]

While I do disagree with the practice of whaling...

<rant>

I wholeheartedly believe "Captain" Watson should spend the last pathetic moments of his worthless life crying on his knees with his lips wrapped around the double barrels of a 12 ga. shotgun. This power hungry moron does nothing but endanger the lives of the pseudo-hippy. tree-hugging retards that flock to his banner, too stupid to see he is using them to bolster his own grossly inflated ego.

If this guy hadn't gotten into whales, he'd probably be the ******* president of some suburban HOA.

</rant>

[reg]

If this guy hadn't gotten into whales, he'd probably be the ******* president of some suburban HOA.

haha, now THAT is a successful rant

[Ken Gargett]

i am completely aware that watson and his methods alienate people - and that even many who support stopping whaling dislike him - but he has had a very sytong commitment to achieving his aims (preventing the slaughter of whales and other efforts to protect marine life) for a long time and i would think that those that get on board share a similar commitment. i suspect part of the reason he goes so far is because governments do nothing but offer hollow talk and no one else is doing anything about this. if we wait for govts, we may as well shoot the whales ourselves.

if there are other alternatives, then please let us know.

[frenchkiwi]

yup spineless.

the newly elected govt in NZ is just as bad, won't make a peep about this or anything else that causes offence to a rich trading partner. PM Key will just smile inanely and his foreign minister Mccully aka Machiavully will pass the buck. So much for NZ's post-rainbow warrior international activism ...

[nocsious]

What is wrong with killing a sustainable population of animals for consumption? If you are a vegetarian I might be able to understand the premise of your argument, however I still respectfully disagree.

If the alleged research of the Japanese whaling fleet is illegal, the enforcement of those laws buy this vessel is also illegal. He does not help to gather support around his cause, just as those that practice terrorism with environmental motives further harm their position with the public.

Humans have been hunting since our emergence as a species. Was it wrong in the primeval past? If not, then what makes it wrong now?

[DrunkenMonkey]

What is wrong with killing a sustainable population of animals for consumption? If you are a vegetarian I might be able to understand the premise of your argument, however I still respectfully disagree.

If the alleged research of the Japanese whaling fleet is illegal, the enforcement of those laws buy this vessel is also illegal. He does not help to gather support around his cause, just as those that practice terrorism with environmental motives further harm their position with the public.

Humans have been hunting since our emergence as a species. Was it wrong in the primeval past? If not, then what makes it wrong now?

I hesitate to respond to this, because I know how these things have a way of getting out of control. But just one thing out of, well, everything you said in this post that I'd like to respond to: what, in your estimation, would be a sustainable harvest of an endangered species?

To Ken: thanks for the update. Depressing. But equally depressing are the homicidal whishes expressed by one of the FOH members above.

[Ken Gargett]

What is wrong with killing a sustainable population of animals for consumption? If you are a vegetarian I might be able to understand the premise of your argument, however I still respectfully disagree.

If the alleged research of the Japanese whaling fleet is illegal, the enforcement of those laws buy this vessel is also illegal. He does not help to gather support around his cause, just as those that practice terrorism with environmental motives further harm their position with the public.

Humans have been hunting since our emergence as a species. Was it wrong in the primeval past? If not, then what makes it wrong now?

will try and have a crack in more depth if/when have a bit of time (deadlines and crap) but i think a lot of people would start with the 'sustainable' suggestion. i spend a fair bit of time at places like hastings point and fraser island, both east coast of australia. 20-30 years ago, seeing a whale would have been a truly rare and astonishing event. numerous species of whales were headed for extinction and some still are.

the bans, notwithstanding the japanese butchery, have certainly improved things - and what a tragedy to go back to the bad old days. now, there are days at fraser in season where you might see 20-30, sometimes in close. to see these creatures leaping about makes for a hell of a better world than a barren, dead sea, speaking personally.

and as alluded to above, i understand that many people detest his means but no one else is doing a thing, despite all the politicians' rhetoric. for me, he is a hero for going out and doing something. he gets his boats in the way of the japanese harpoons. in front of boats committing illegal acts that he and his team are trying to prevent. i fail to see the terrorism in that. it was the japanese that rammed the andy gil. and everyone lets it go because we don't want to offend trade with japan?

and no doubt humans did many things to survive in their primeval past. doesn't mean that we have to keep doing them or that they are appropriate now. have we not progressed as a species?

[nocsious]

I don't know what whale species they are harvesting for their research, so I'm not going to make an argument about the specifics of the Japanese program. It very well could be a genocide of the whales disguised as research. I was merely raising a point about sustainable harvest. What I'm arguing is that we shouldn't accept at face value that killing whales is never sustainable under any circumstances.

What species are they killing? What list of endangered species is it on and who made the list?

If there was irrefutable evidence that a sustainable harvest could be made, would these activists leave them alone? I doubt it. I don't think we are dealing with rational people here.

[Ken Gargett]

I don't know what whale species they are harvesting for their research, so I'm not going to make an argument about the specifics of the Japanese program. It very well could be a genocide of the whales disguised as research. I was merely raising a point about sustainable harvest. What I'm arguing is that we shouldn't accept at face value that killing whales is never sustainable under any circumstances.

What species are they killing? What list of endangered species is it on and who made the list?

If there was irrefutable evidence that a sustainable harvest could be made, would these activists leave them alone? I doubt it. I don't think we are dealing with rational people here.

i suspect we'll never agree re this but i would have thought attempting to stop the illegal slaughter - helping to protect the environment - is more rational than illegally harpooning whales.

as for the research, i know the japanese use that as their excuse but i don't think that even they genuinely believe anyone swallows that. without the benefit of chatting face to face, it is impossibl for me to tell if that was tongue-in-cheek, though i suspect it would be.

and re your last para, if "there was irrefutable evidence that a sustainable harvest could be made", don't you think we'd have seen it? the japanese would shout it from the rooftops.

[mazolaman]

our inability to harvest the seas sustainably has been proven time and time again,blue fin tuna,Canadian cod,currently 150million shark are killed each year,JUST FOR THEIR FINS.Not to mention the scores of whale species that are now extinct.

There is also the issue of territorial boundaries being ignored,which also happens alot in Europe.

[nocsious]

There are stocks around the world that are carefully controlled by stron local government fish and wildlife departments, and fished sustainably. Science has given us that knowledge. Certainly you can find contrary examples as well, mostly in previous history without the tools of modern science.

You guys have completely ignored my points If there was a sustainable industry possible, should it be allowed? It already is sustainable and allowed for some native Alaskans. It is untenable to allow native people, but to deny Japan for this reason alone. If you want to ban all whaling outright, then come out and defend that position. That is probably a more credible position anyway.

If sustainability is the only criteria, I see no reason not to allow the practice. There may be other good arguments to ban whaling however.

I've done a little bit of reading on the Japanese research, and although some research might be taking place, their definitely is commerce going on as well. I cannot support vigilante justice though, and that is where you lose the majority. The Sea Shepard has committed illegal acts. Do you go around throwing acid around? Sounds like an adult temper tantrum.

You are also dealing with a sovereign country here in Japan. Do you honestly think a few guys trolling around the ocean looking to cause trouble is going to stop this. Elect some officials willing to put economic sanctions on Japan. Money talks.

[Fuzz AI]

Humans have been hunting since our emergence as a species. Was it wrong in the primeval past? If not, then what makes it wrong now?

To excuse an action because we have done that since time immemorial, is a little narrow-minded. There are plenty of things done in the past that we now consider wrong. Times have changed, and I can only hope that as a society, we can see the error of our ways.

As Spock said in Star Trek IV, "To hunt an animal to extinction is not logical."

[nocsious]

It has been a good debate and you guys have more reason to care. Good night guys.

[Ken Gargett]

There are stocks around the world that are carefully controlled by stron local government fish and wildlife departments, and fished sustainably. Science has given us that knowledge. Certainly you can find contrary examples as well, mostly in previous history without the tools of modern science.

You guys have completely ignored my points If there was a sustainable industry possible, should it be allowed? It already is sustainable and allowed for some native Alaskans. It is untenable to allow native people, but to deny Japan for this reason alone. If you want to ban all whaling outright, then come out and defend that position. That is probably a more credible position anyway.

If sustainability is the only criteria, I see no reason not to allow the practice. There may be other good arguments to ban whaling however.

I've done a little bit of reading on the Japanese research, and although some research might be taking place, their definitely is commerce going on as well. I cannot support vigilante justice though, and that is where you lose the majority. The Sea Shepard has committed illegal acts. Do you go around throwing acid around? Sounds like an adult temper tantrum.

You are also dealing with a sovereign country here in Japan. Do you honestly think a few guys trolling around the ocean looking to cause trouble is going to stop this. Elect some officials willing to put economic sanctions on Japan. Money talks.

there are many that would see watson's actions as having more in common with mandela, gandhi and martin luther king than a terroroist but there were plenty that thought they were pretty close to terrorists in their time. the sea shepherd mob would not be committing illegal acts had the japanese (and to be fair to them, they are not the only ones - i think norway plays its part) not committed illegal acts in the first place. that means that they should be rammed???

we very much agree on one thing. money talks. hence why politicians talk about everything they'll do. and then do absolutely nothing.

[Colt45]

Ken, with no offense intended (seriously), you obviously have a personal agenda when it comes to this subject, which is fine. But to my ears, much of

what you've posted sounds very much like things I've heard / read from various extremists - some of who will do anything to force their ideology on

the masses (not saying you are trying to force anything). If they really want to make an impact, and force the government's hand, they should try a

torpedo boat.

I'm far from an expert, but I tend to doubt Mandela, Gandhi, or King would have suggested the use of violence as a way to further their causes. As for

the sustainable harvesting of whales, I doubt humans are capable, as has been shown time and time again with various fish stocks around the world.

Also, how many whales would need to be taken to make the factory ships profitable? Other than a food source, is there any other reason to harvest

them?

[Warren]

As a matter of fact Mandela did have a violent past. He planted bombs that killed people, an act that he deeply regretted later on. We now love him for the man he became.

You can not compare the affects of hunting by native peoples to the practices of the Japanese.

One tends to use small boats and a lot of courage.

The other uses teams of factory ships that can wipe out a whole school of wales in one go and backed up by a lie.

I think you know that the Japanese can only believe that we think the only outcome of their

"research" is what brand of Saki goes best with whale meat.

[mazolaman]

Ken, with no offense intended (seriously), you obviously have a personal agenda when it comes to this subject, which is fine. But to my ears, much of

what you've posted sounds very much like things I've heard / read from various extremists - some of who will do anything to force their ideology on

the masses (not saying you are trying to force anything). If they really want to make an impact, and force the government's hand, they should try a

torpedo boat.

I don't think anybody's ideology is that relevant,it's just facts regarding the number of species who are being eliminated,due to our own greed.

It's about facts.

[Colt45]

I don't think anybody's ideology is that relevant,it's just facts regarding the number of species who are being eliminated,due to our own greed.

It's about facts.

It's no doubt factual that whales are being harvested. But again, to my ears, personal beliefs are playing a large part in how this discussion has been presented.

[DrunkenMonkey]

It's no doubt factual that whales are being harvested. But again, to my ears, personal beliefs are playing a large part in how this discussion has been presented.

Are you saying that's a bad thing? I'm trying to undrstand the point you're trying to make. If someone believes that whales are a special group of species that deserve to be treated differently than fish (which belief I think there is a good case to be made for), than are you saying it shouldn't be made here? Or were you talking about the guy who was fantasizing vividly about the murdering of a man with a shotgun in his mouth? If it's that particular belief system/valuing of life you're suggesting is out of place, I'm completely with you. But that's not what you meant, was it?

[Colt45]

But that's not what you meant, was it?

One man's gandhi is another man's bin laden.

[DrunkenMonkey]

One man's gandhi is another man's bin laden.

Truly disgusting

[khomeinist]

Lol. This debate is very confusing to me. Personal beliefs play a role in all political conversations, whether explicitly stated or not.

Not to be an egghead, but there is a psychological phenomenon called 'value-laden observation.' Basically, a lot of evidence we see (and later present to others) is based on the various ideological commitments we have.

I support what these activists are doing. Point blank.

Comparing Gandhi with Osama? Apples and oranges really. How about Malcolm and Dr. King. Sierra Club and Earth Liberation Front. These debates make more sense in the context of activism.