Sea Shepherd

Boombastic

long range shooter wrote: »

ah yes,I am sure they had there reasons:rolleyes:

1992: Sea Shepherd vessel "Whales Forever" collides with Norwegian Coast Guard vessel "Andenes" on July 4. Charges against Paul Watson include negligent navigation, refusal to leave Norwegian waters on orders of the Coast Guard and transmitting false distress signals.


1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel Edward Abbey (formerly US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel. Sea Shepherd crew do not carry out the order, but instead fire a shot across the bow of the Japanese vessel. The Japanese vessel does not stop. (Recorded by Yorkshire Television Documentary "Defenders of the Wild - Ocean Rider".)

1993: Federal Grand Jury in Michigan State hands down five-count indictment against Coronado for illegal use of explosives, extortion, threats to interfere with interstate commerce and interstate transportation, to commit arson, theft and destruction of government property and for receiving stolen property. Indictments stem from February 1992 fire-bombing of Michigan State University in East Lancing. Coronado involved in sinking two whaling vessels in Iceland in 1986.

1994: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the combined minke whaling and fishing vessel Senet at her moorings in Gressvik. The vessel was salvaged, but the water had caused considerable damage. Paul Watson tells Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet on January 26 that former US Navy Seal Commandos took part in attack on the Senet. "Certainly these men are trained to kill, but they are also well disciplined and respect my orders," he told the newspaper.

1994: US National Fisheries Institute asks for investigation into Sea Shepherd. "The recent alleged actions against Norwegian fishing vessels constitute a clear case of piracy," it says in a letter to former US IWC Commissioner James Baker. "Acts of violence against fishermen of any nation cannot be tolerated. Their safety and livelihood could be threatened unless US officials vigorously condemn violence on the high seas."

Well I'm sure SSCS had their reasons too:rolleyes:

Can you link those sources? (actually its ok I've found them, not exactly from an impartial website)


I was referring to the 1994 incident of the Andenes ramming, trying to prop foul and using depth charges against SSCS 'Whales Forever' ship in international waters.


here's a link It should be appropiate seen as we are linking to biased websites

Here's another version of the same event


Here is the charges laid relating to that event:
The Norwegians accuse Watson of ramming the Andenes, illegally entering Norwegian waters and issuing a false distress signal.

Concerning the first charge, the Sea Shepherd Log (1st quarter, 1996) reports that "Capt. Watson finds it completely absurd that he is being charged for ramming his own ship. The video and photographic evidence is proof enough of what ship was the aggressor." The Sea Shepherd's journal then quotes Watson as saying: "the Norwegian commander either misjudged or he intended to ram my ship. There was nothing I could do to avoid being struck. I had already stopped engines".

With regard to the second charge, Watson cites the account in his own log book as evidence that "my ship was in international waters at all times". In his statement to Norwegian police, Watson said his request for permission to enter Norwegian waters had been met with an aggressive attack". During the attack, Watson issued a distress signal which was picked up in the US, Iceland and Great Britain, thereby determining the exact location of Whales Forever and proving that he did not enter Norwegian waters.

Regarding the third charge, Watson said he felt justified in issuing a distress signal. "After all", he said, "I had been rammed, fired upon twice, one of my props had been intentionally fouled with a howser, four depth-charges had been detonated beneath my ship and the commander of the Andenes had informed me over the radio that he was prepared to sink my ship".


Update: Norway Withdraws Case Against Capt. Watson

Although Capt. Watson repeatedly notified the Norwegian Consulate of his whereabouts, the Norwegian authorities failed to deliver a summons to appear in a Norwegian court in the Lofoten Islands. ..............................................Sea Shepherd's Norwegian attorney Rolf Bech-Sorensen informed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on October 10 that Norway has withdrawn the case against Watson. All of the independent journalists aboard witnessed the vicious attack and were also victims of Norway's actions.Some have even filed suits against the government of Norway. The Norwegian government contends that all of the respective journalists on board from England, Germany, France and the US "manipulated" their reporting photographs and film footage and that it is all false.

long range shooter

Boombastic wrote: »

Well I'm sure SSCS had their reasons too:rolleyes:

Can you link those sources? (actually its ok I've found them, not exactly from an impartial website)


I was referring to the 1994 incident of the Andenes ramming, trying to prop foul and using depth charges against SSCS 'Whales Forever' ship in international waters.


here's a link It should be appropiate seen as we are linking to biased websites

Here's another version of the same event

He he he,sorry for laughing,but do you really want me to believe that propaganda taken from Sea shepards own website,written by a captain with a criminal record and who doesn't even have the papers to qualify as a captain.
And do you relly think that Paul Watson gives a f..k if he's in International waters or not????

Boombastic

long range shooter wrote: »

He he he,sorry for laughing,but do you really want me to believe that propaganda taken from Sea shepards own website,written by a captain with a criminal record and who doesn't even have the papers to qualify as a captain.
And do you relly think that Paul Watson gives a f..k if he's in International waters or not????

I edited the last post to include the charges and outcomes.

Does the Norwegian government expect us to believe this?

All of the independent journalists aboard witnessed the vicious attack and were also victims of Norway's actions.Some have even filed suits against the government of Norway. The Norwegian government contends that all of the respective journalists on board from England, Germany, France and the US "manipulated" their reporting photographs and film footage and that it is all false.

http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/wrr35/wrup.htm


PS the website you got your sources from was far from impartial.

long range shooter

Boombastic wrote: »

I edited the last post to include the charges and outcomes.

Does the Norwegian government expect us to believe this?

All of the independent journalists aboard witnessed the vicious attack and were also victims of Norway's actions.Some have even filed suits against the government of Norway. The Norwegian government contends that all of the respective journalists on board from England, Germany, France and the US "manipulated" their reporting photographs and film footage and that it is all false.

http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/wrr35/wrup.htm


PS the website you got your sources from was far from impartial.

Like Watson says,it's ok to be a terrorist as long as you win.;)
Pity they didn't sink her while they had the chance.
And you are saying its ok to shutter and bomb ships in port in Norway??
And then after sue the Norwegian government because they where told to leve Norwegian waters and even an arrest warrant on Watson.??
I am sorry,but this doesn't Make sense to me??

Boombastic

long range shooter wrote: »

Like Watson says,it's ok to be a terrorist as long as you win.;)
Pity they didn't sink her while they had the chance.
And you are saying its ok to shutter and bomb ships in port in Norway??
And then after sue the Norwegian government because they where told to leve Norwegian waters and even an arrest warrant on Watson.??
I am sorry,but this doesn't Make sense to me??

In one breath you are saying pity they didn't sink her referring to 'Whales Forever', when she had a crew on board in international waters and in the next you are condemning SSCS for sinking whaling vessel in port with no crew aboard That makes no sense to me

long range shooter

Boombastic wrote: »

In one breath you are saying pity they didn't sink her referring to 'Whales Forever', when she had a crew on board in international waters and in the next you are condemning SSCS for sinking whaling vessel in port with no crew aboard That makes no sense to me

One of the main responsibilities to any nations coastguard and navy,is to protect shipping from piracy;)
Why don't you go onboard a ship in Dublin port and pull out the bottom plugs and see what happens??

Boombastic

long range shooter wrote: »

One of the main responsibilities to any nations coastguard and navy,is to protect shipping from piracy;)

Why were all charges dropped?

long range shooter

Boombastic wrote: »

Why were all charges dropped?

Cause Dutch authorities refused to hand him over,for the 120 days he was supposed to have spent in a Norwegian jail,but he spent 80 days in detention in Holland instead.
And I can't still understand why you actually are defending a terrorist?

Boombastic

long range shooter wrote: »

Cause Dutch authorities refused to hand him over,for the 120 days he was supposed to have spent in a Norwegian jail,but he spent 80 days in detention in Holland instead.
And I can't still understand why you actually are defending a terrorist?

Not for that incident they didn't. The summons to court was never served. Here's one theory of why not

Although Capt. Watson repeatedly notified the Norwegian Consulate of his whereabouts, the Norwegian authorities failed to deliver a summons to appear in a Norwegian court in the Lofoten Islands. Without the papers having been properly served, the Norwegian Government could not legally proceed with hearing charges against Capt. Watson.Sea Shepherd's Norwegian attorney Rolf Bech-Sorensen informed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on October 10 that Norway has withdrawn the case against Watson..........................................................................Sea Shepherd believes that Norway does not want to contend with the potential international fallout, since their entire case is based on a lie and would mean that, in order to make their case, deal with a mountain of irrefutable evidence from independent and respected journalists. Norway will hold the indictment to prevent Capt. Watson from returning to Norway to protest their illegal and criminal whaling activities. Norway does not want a trial for Capt. Watson because they want to keep the indictment alive to present the appearance that he committed a criminal act.



Are you referring to the 1997 incident? Why wouldn't the Dutch hand him over if he's an international criminal....mmmmm

long range shooter

Boombastic wrote: »

Not for that incident they didn't. The summons to court was never served. Here's one theory of why not

Although Capt. Watson repeatedly notified the Norwegian Consulate of his whereabouts, the Norwegian authorities failed to deliver a summons to appear in a Norwegian court in the Lofoten Islands. Without the papers having been properly served, the Norwegian Government could not legally proceed with hearing charges against Capt. Watson.Sea Shepherd's Norwegian attorney Rolf Bech-Sorensen informed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on October 10 that Norway has withdrawn the case against Watson..........................................................................Sea Shepherd believes that Norway does not want to contend with the potential international fallout, since their entire case is based on a lie and would mean that, in order to make their case, deal with a mountain of irrefutable evidence from independent and respected journalists. Norway will hold the indictment to prevent Capt. Watson from returning to Norway to protest their illegal and criminal whaling activities. Norway does not want a trial for Capt. Watson because they want to keep the indictment alive to present the appearance that he committed a criminal act.



Are you referring to the 1997 incident? Why wouldn't the Dutch hand him over if he's an international criminal....mmmmm

And why didn't the Dutch release him straight away then I wonder?
The reason is because the SS was under Dutch flag when this happened,and in international waters as Watson claims,but international waters can't stop it when it comes under universal jurisdiction.
In this case the prosecution of Watson,or should I say 2 of his crewmembers attempt to scutter a whaling vessel.

Discodog

The Japanese are also breaking the law.

http://google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-asia-21289000%23sa-ns_mchannel%3Drss%26ns_source%3DPublicRSS20-sat

The fact remains that a huge number of people support the Sea Shepherd operations. They are very well financed. People donate because the majority perceive Whaling as unacceptable.

Tabnabs

Discodog wrote: »

The Japanese are also breaking the law.

http://google.com/gwt/x?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-asia-21289000%23sa-ns_mchannel%3Drss%26ns_source%3DPublicRSS20-sat

The fact remains that a huge number of people support the Sea Shepherd operations. They are very well financed. People donate because the majority perceive Whaling as unacceptable.

But in this forum it is generally recognised that the SS crews are reckless, operate illegally, are putting peoples lives in serious risk and are breaking international maritime laws. They are not seen as a paragon of anything nor are they worthy of praise for their stupid and illegal conduct.

There are rules and treaties signed ashore and then there are the laws of the sea.

R P McMurphy

Tabnabs wrote: »

But in ocassionally forum it is generally recognised that the SS crews are reckless, operate illegally, are putting peoples lives in serious risk and are breaking international maritime laws. They are not seen as a paragon of anything nor are they worthy of praise for their stupid and illegal conduct.

There are rules and treaties signed ashore and then there are the laws of the sea.

And as for the japanese response on ocassion?

Tabnabs

Very responsible considering the illegal tactics used by the SS. You try that with an American crew, or Ukranian, or Icelandic. They'd be a bit more proactive in asserting their right of way and defending their home from home...

Discodog

Tabnabs wrote: »

But in this forum it is generally recognised that the SS crews are reckless, operate illegally, are putting peoples lives in serious risk and are breaking international maritime laws. They are not seen as a paragon of anything nor are they worthy of praise for their stupid and illegal conduct.

There are rules and treaties signed ashore and then there are the laws of the sea.

It may be "generally recognised" but, in an open forum, this isn't the view of everyone.

Some of us believe that their conduct is acceptable in order to prevent cruelty & crime. If Maritime law doesn't cover this then maybe the law needs to change.
Law encounters problems when the vast majority disagree with the law.

Many of the rights & protection in law were obtained as a result of illegal protest. It is obviously from the huge support given to the Sea Shepherds that they are seen as worthy of great praise.

The Japanese react the way that they do because the World is watching them. The condemnation by the few is drowned out by the millions who rightly oppose Whaling.

At the end of the day weight of public opinion will prevail.

SarahFinglas

long range shooter wrote: »

How can whaling be cruel,When scientific data proves hat 80% of the Whales died instantly using the penthrite grenade harpoon??

How long did it take the other 20% to die, according to this scientific data you mention?

long range shooter

SarahFinglas wrote: »

How long did it take the other 20% to die, according to this scientific data you mention?

Same time as in does in any other hunting that brings food to the table;)
Average time was 2 min TTD.

You will find it here

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Norwegian_Minke_Whaling_2008

Discodog

long range shooter wrote: »

Same time as in does in any other hunting that brings food to the table;)

Totally untrue. Most hunting for food involves shooting an animal usually after stalking it.

The 20% have already been chased until they are close enough to shoot. They then face a potentially cruel lingering death.

The Norwegians conveniently ignore this as it would go against their PR image as a green economy. They argue that Whaling is sustainable but ignore the cruelty.

It's not as if the Norwegians are desperate for food.

Freedive Ireland

Originally Posted by Tabnabs View Post

But in this forum it is generally recognised that the SS crews are reckless, operate illegally, are putting peoples lives in serious risk and are breaking international maritime laws. They are not seen as a paragon of anything nor are they worthy of praise for their stupid and illegal conduct.

There are rules and treaties signed ashore and then there are the laws of the sea.

1. I woyuld say the crews are vastly inexperienced and their enthusiasim is let go unabated at times which leads to some recklessness imho. So I kinda agree with you on that one but they did volunteer.
International maritime law is not policed by anyone so when you campaign againest a group who are breaking international maritime and nothing is done then real action is required.
They break no laws in international waters only customs of the seas. if their actions are so bad why does and upstanding nation like Australia continue to let them use them as a base?
Why havent the japanese left Austrailian waters as they were asked to?

long range shooter

Discodog wrote: »

Totally untrue. Most hunting for food involves shooting an animal usually after stalking it.

The 20% have already been chased until they are close enough to shoot. They then face a potentially cruel lingering death.

The Norwegians conveniently ignore this as it would go against their PR image as a green economy. They argue that Whaling is sustainable but ignore the cruelty.

It's not as if the Norwegians are desperate for food.

Norwegians are the only country at actually have done research on this since the 1980s,and even aboriginal tribes/Eskimos have seemed help from Norway because of he more humane killing of whale the penthrite grenade gives.
The figures I gave you was 2000-2002 season,it's gone even better today,where compulsory training of the harpoon shooters has come in as well.
The modern penthrite grenade explodes with such a vibration force and frequency that unconsciousness - and usually death - result instantaneously. Unacceptably long killing times only occur as an "accident", which can also happen in a state-of-the-art abattoir, where an animal may occasionally bleed to death or be scalded without having been stunned first.
To make instantaneous death the criterion for the moral right to hunt and catch animals would render all kinds of fishing and most types of hunting impossible. In such an argument the cart is put before the horse.
Commercial whaling is a negligible factor in the economies of whaling nations
This is true for the national economy as a whole. But for the regional economy and communal structure, whaling has very great significance. (This explains the "stubbornness" of the whaling nations in the face of the political pressure exerted by the Western industrialized nations).
Whaling is no longer an over-capitalized business
Today's whaling is community-based. In Japan there are four, in Norway about 30 shrimp boat-sized vessels (average 20m or 60 ft.), which are usually owned by families and crewed by four to nine people. This happens to be a small-capital form of enterprise which many "green" economists recommend as a safe-guard against the destructive over-exploitation of our planet's natural resources. In addition, together about half a dozen large-scale whale catchers can be operated by Japan and Iceland. Since there is no more competitive whaling for a world market, these vessels will never participate in any "whaling olympics".

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/eskimo-whalers-seek-atf-support-build-more-humane-bowhead-bomb?page=full

Coffee table

Why or how could hunting endangered species upon whom the oceans depend for their survival, ever ever be justified? No whaling country is in the midst of a famine People are not dying for want of the flesh of endangered animals. By all means, kill the whales and sharks, destroy the earth. I do not have or want kids so it will not actually affect me personally. But if one gives a **** about the survival of humanity, which I really do not beyond myself and close family and friends, why jeopardise that future by destroying our own habitat?

long range shooter

Coffee table wrote: »

Why or how could hunting endangered species upon whom the oceans depend for their survival, ever ever be justified? No whaling country is in the midst of a famine People are not dying for want of the flesh of endangered animals. By all means, kill the whales and sharks, destroy the earth. I do not have or want kids so it will not actually affect me personally. But if one gives a **** about the survival of humanity, which I really do not beyond myself and close family and friends, why jeopardise that future by destroying our own habitat?

One cannot talk about the whales. Rather one must distinguish between more than 75 different species. Not a single whale species has become extinct because of whaling. Furthermore, one must distinguish between different stocks of whales. There may be threatened and non-threatened stocks of one and the same species.

The California gray whale stock, for instance, has been hunted by the Soviet Union since 1962 with an annual quota of almost 200 animals. In the same period, this stock has almost doubled its numbers to over 20,000 animals, so that at the beginning of 1993 the US government removed this stock from the list of endangered species. Overfishing of whale stocks has invariably occurred where there was economic competition for them.
In today's whaling operations this is no longer the case - almost for the first time in about half a millennium of whaling history.

Freedive Ireland

"Not a single whale species has become extinct because of whaling."
They came awful fcking close though and would have had the campaigns not started.
Long Range you write well and are informed on the topic.
This is the SS thread though and SS are not just anti whaling. Shark finning and the dolphin slaughter and captivity in Taji are right up there too. Are you of the same opinion those issues? Ie are you anti SS or just anti their whaling policy?

long range shooter

Freedive Ireland wrote: »

"Not a single whale species has become extinct because of whaling."
They came awful fcking close though and would have had the campaigns not started.
Long Range you write well and are informed on the topic.
This is the SS thread though and SS are not just anti whaling. Shark finning and the dolphin slaughter and captivity in Taji are right up there too. Are you of the same opinion those issues? Ie are you anti SS or just anti their whaling policy?

I only support whaling methods approved by the IWC;)
And being Norwegian and having whalers in my family, i can only speak for them.
But I know some aboriginal tribes still use the old way,with cold harpoons and handheld harpoons.
I am against SS reckless,dangerous way of trying to stop the whalers from doing there jobs.
Whaling is managed and regulated on a number of levels, both in the form of international conventions or agreements, such as the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling on which the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is based, the Agreement which established the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), or the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), as well as legislation formulated on the national level, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act of the USA. Only a sovereign state can "rule" what happens to the whales within its jurisdiction, i.e. if they are either found in the territorial waters of that state, or if a vessel registered in that state encounters them on the high seas. In an international treaty, convention or agreement, however, the contracting parties are not "subjects to be ruled", but equal partners who convene to cooperate for their mutual benefit, while at the same time agreeing to forfeit certain sovereign rights of their own. To ensure in the best democratic spirit their equal rights, an international contract must contain a strong provision to protect dissident minority positions among its contracting parties. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) requires states to cooperate on the management of whales through the appropriate international organizations. This was also reaffirmed by Agenda 21, which resulted from the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992.
No aspect of Japanese (research) whaling or Norwegian (commercial) whaling today is "illegal", either on a national or international level.

goldie fish

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729043.000-taxpayers-money-keeps-japans-whaling-fleet-afloat.html

Interesting New Scientest article detailing how there is no longer a demand for whale products, however the Japanese Government still subsidise the whaling fleet.

Discodog

goldie fish wrote: »

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729043.000-taxpayers-money-keeps-japans-whaling-fleet-afloat.html

Interesting New Scientest article detailing how there is no longer a demand for whale products, however the Japanese Government still subsidise the whaling fleet.

Japan has warehouses full of unwanted Whale meat. The reason why countries persist with whaling is to preserve their "culture". Most cultures have moved on from cruel practices but the whalers hate the idea of being told to stop.

Cookie_Monster

The Japs have mistaken the Steve Irwin & the Bob Barker for whales and attacked them

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10866655

The Japanese vessel hit the Steve Irwin twice and then hit Bob Barker several times, pushing it into the Sun Laurel, which was also damaged in the collisions.

Tabnabs

reminds me of a little ditty I've heard many times

"Here lies the body of Johnny O'Day
Who died Preserving His Right of Way.

He was Right, Dead Right, as he sailed along
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

andy_g

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The Japs have mistaken the Steve Irwin & the Bob Barker for whales and attacked them

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10866655

Forgot to mention they also rammed the Korean Vessel the sun laurel.

http://www.seashepherd.org.au/news-and-media/2013/02/20/japanese-whale-poaching-vessel-nisshin-maru-rams-s-korean-fuel-tanker-sea-shepherd-ships-sam-simon-s-1501#.USTy-9L7N4Y.twitter

long range shooter

Discodog wrote: »

Japan has warehouses full of unwanted Whale meat. The reason why countries persist with whaling is to preserve their "culture". Most cultures have moved on from cruel practices but the whalers hate the idea of being told to stop.

Maybe they should study this before they try running a ship:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea