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.
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.
What Eric Wilson actually said is NOT the same as how it was reported see,
http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/001108.html .
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: https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001106.html .
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.
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?
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?