Blueboatman
Well-known member
''There's no such thing as bad publicity''
For which 'side' I wonder ?
For which 'side' I wonder ?
Whale wars new boat is sinking
- Thread starter snooks
- Start date
Cruiser2B
Active member
Imagine if a group of Japanese enviromentalists had gone to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland to take on the factory ships in the 1980s. Had they been effective, there might still be a cod fishery there! Instead, the Canadian government "managed" the largest cod fishery in the world to extinction. I have no doubt the Canadian government would have been just as pig-headed in "protecting" the cod from eco-terrorists as the Japanese government is in "protecting" the whales. Lets hope the whales don't suffer the same fate
Best,
Robin
There was no Exclusive Economic Zone in the 80's - the cod fishery was overfished by the Asian and European ships, while the Canadian ships were kept in port, restricted by the limits of their commercial licenses. At the time, there was no legal recourse for the Canadian government - should they have resorted to piracy, like Watson's mob?
doris
Well-known member
The Canadian government also arrested a couple of Spanish cod fishing boats when they were found to have undersized nets. Despite them being caught totally red handed the Spanish government squealed about illegal arrests and piracy. The Cunuks stood firm, unlike our fishery protection tossers, and fined the dago fishing companies huge. They had to pay to get their boats back.
robin_99
New member
The EEZ came into effect on Jan 1 1977. Admittedly a lot of the damage had been done by then. But the Canadians then proceeded to ramp up their own fishing fleet to take out whatever was left.
Best regards,
Robin
robin_99
New member
That was in 1995. Much too little, too late. And I stand by my previous point that if there had been effective resistance by protesters from Japan or anywhere else, there might still be a cod fishery there.
Best,
Robin
robin_99
New member
And by the way, the Spanish boat was fishing for turbot. And they were arrested outside the 200 mile limit, in international waters!
Cruiser2B
Active member
Back then it was all talk; it wasn't recognized internationally until it was put into writing in UNCLOS III - which was open for signature in 1982, but not in force until 1994.
They were fishing inside the EEZ and followed out - it's called the right of hot pursuit.
binch
New member
please do not be so maudlin sentimental. The sea is a hard place. And whale meat is OK. You'd have been glad of it during WW2.
Thistle
Well-known member
Aye, so let's make sure there is some available for WW III as and when it occurs.
As far as I can see ...
... there is wide international agreement against killing whales at the moment
... the Japanese claim of needing to kill 1000 whales annually for "research" is questionable
... the seamanship and the legality of the actions of both vessels in this incident (and its surrounding circumstances) are also questionable and these questions will be better answered (and discussed) after a court hearing and / or a MAIB-type report than in forums like this.
That's my opinion ... and it doesn't stop others having and / or expressing theirs!
Sybarite
Well-known member
I agree entirely with you. That was my analysis. They (Japs) only avoided T-boning the AG because they first struck the port float which spun the main hull away resulting only in the bow being lost.
John
John
Sybarite
Well-known member
I carefully watched both videos and my comments are made based on what I believe I saw :
1) The AG was either stationery in the water or at best moving so slowly that it did not create a wake.
2) the beginning of the film (taken from the SM) shows both boats roughly parallel; there is no wake behind the AG.
3) the film taken from the BB shows the SM then veering sharply to starboard leaning out as it turns.
4) they are hosing the AG obscuring their vision.
5) As the AG gets underway presumeably to get steerage, the SM which had turned to starboard and was lined up midships begins to turn again to port, following the AG's advance.
6) The SM is a converted whaler. I would expect it to be very manouvrable to follow a whale's movements and therefore capable of tight turns; anyway this was evident from the BB film.
7) While I appreciate your qualifications and your experience I feel entitled to have an opinion. After all you don't have to be a taxi-driver to be a good driver.
8) Which was the stand on vessel when it appears that the AG was stationery or as near to stationery as would make no difference? Similarly if you are motionless in the water you cannot take evasive action.
9) I believe that the AG was only saved by the fact that the SM first hit the port floater and deflected the AG avoiding thus what would otherwise have been an intentional amidships ram.
John
1) The AG was either stationery in the water or at best moving so slowly that it did not create a wake.
2) the beginning of the film (taken from the SM) shows both boats roughly parallel; there is no wake behind the AG.
3) the film taken from the BB shows the SM then veering sharply to starboard leaning out as it turns.
4) they are hosing the AG obscuring their vision.
5) As the AG gets underway presumeably to get steerage, the SM which had turned to starboard and was lined up midships begins to turn again to port, following the AG's advance.
6) The SM is a converted whaler. I would expect it to be very manouvrable to follow a whale's movements and therefore capable of tight turns; anyway this was evident from the BB film.
7) While I appreciate your qualifications and your experience I feel entitled to have an opinion. After all you don't have to be a taxi-driver to be a good driver.
8) Which was the stand on vessel when it appears that the AG was stationery or as near to stationery as would make no difference? Similarly if you are motionless in the water you cannot take evasive action.
9) I believe that the AG was only saved by the fact that the SM first hit the port floater and deflected the AG avoiding thus what would otherwise have been an intentional amidships ram.
John
Sybarite
Well-known member
Just to correct another misconception: the 1986 IWC treaty on the moratorium on whale hunting does not have force of law unless the participant nations incorporate it into their domestic legislation.
• Japan originally voted against the 1982 IWC moratorium (which was to come into effect as from 1986) on whale hunting for commercial purposes. Nations not agreeing to it were not bound by it. However Reagan, in 1988, excluded Japan from fishing in American waters and especially the very rich waters of Alaska. Therefore they signed. As signatories each nation was obligated to introduce the provisions into national legislation. Nevertheless Japan continues to pay third world countries to join the IWC to upset the balance.
• The UK voted for on the grounds of the unacceptable cruelty involved in killing whales.
Article 8 allowed an exemption for whales caught for scientific purposes.
However :-
• Japan rarely if ever provided the results of its research to the Scientific Committee of the IWC as they were required to. In fact in 1997, the IWC specifically rejected the scope of Japan’s proposed research programme. In the 18 years of the programme involving the killing of a minimum of 6800 whales, Japan only produced 55 peer reviewed scientific papers. Of these only 14 were deemed relevant to the stated research objectives and, in the opinion of the Committee, only 4 required lethal methods to obtain the results.
• Much of the so-called research was supposedly related to the sustainability of whale stocks but as the majority of whales caught by Japan are in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (voted for by the IWC in 1994), the findings are irrelevant.
• The sample sizes would not support a statistically valid conclusion.
• Many of their so-called findings were already known.
• The IWC specifically voted against Japan’s lethal research methods in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007
Whereas this dicussion is centered on the Japanese it should be remembered that the Norwegians take nearly as many whales each year.
John
• Japan originally voted against the 1982 IWC moratorium (which was to come into effect as from 1986) on whale hunting for commercial purposes. Nations not agreeing to it were not bound by it. However Reagan, in 1988, excluded Japan from fishing in American waters and especially the very rich waters of Alaska. Therefore they signed. As signatories each nation was obligated to introduce the provisions into national legislation. Nevertheless Japan continues to pay third world countries to join the IWC to upset the balance.
• The UK voted for on the grounds of the unacceptable cruelty involved in killing whales.
Article 8 allowed an exemption for whales caught for scientific purposes.
However :-
• Japan rarely if ever provided the results of its research to the Scientific Committee of the IWC as they were required to. In fact in 1997, the IWC specifically rejected the scope of Japan’s proposed research programme. In the 18 years of the programme involving the killing of a minimum of 6800 whales, Japan only produced 55 peer reviewed scientific papers. Of these only 14 were deemed relevant to the stated research objectives and, in the opinion of the Committee, only 4 required lethal methods to obtain the results.
• Much of the so-called research was supposedly related to the sustainability of whale stocks but as the majority of whales caught by Japan are in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (voted for by the IWC in 1994), the findings are irrelevant.
• The sample sizes would not support a statistically valid conclusion.
• Many of their so-called findings were already known.
• The IWC specifically voted against Japan’s lethal research methods in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007
Whereas this dicussion is centered on the Japanese it should be remembered that the Norwegians take nearly as many whales each year.
John
Major Catastrophe
New member
An interesting thread with interesting and diverse views. But the one point missed by the majority is that Paul Watson, for a few hundred thousand dollars worth of boat, has brought whale hunting to the forefront of international news and the loss off the Ady Gil is being discussed on hundreds of forums, newspapers TV programmes and magazines worldwide.
I suspect that Paul Watson and his crew, rather than regretting the loss of Ady Gil, are totting up the PR coup they have achieved.
I don't agree with whale hunting, even though I am not adverse to shooting a kangaroo/rabbit/game bird/fox or two, and I tip my hat to the madman for making the Japanese play into his hands.
I suspect that Paul Watson and his crew, rather than regretting the loss of Ady Gil, are totting up the PR coup they have achieved.
I don't agree with whale hunting, even though I am not adverse to shooting a kangaroo/rabbit/game bird/fox or two, and I tip my hat to the madman for making the Japanese play into his hands.
Cruiser2B
Active member
To be clear, IWC is the International Whaling Commission. Their role is to manage the conservation of whale stocks so that whaling may continue.