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.
mike come on now. the nisshin maru is like a 18 wheeler towing 3 trailers and the arctic sunrise a porsche in comparison. are you really willing to give the japenese captain credit for having that much skill to be able to anticipate exactly where the arctic sunrise would be and spin his behemoth ship 360 degrees and causing the arctic sunrise to hit the nisshin maru in the side. ships that size dont just power slide around a corner. they take forever to turn, slow down or speed up.
Maritime law expert Dr Eric Wilson, of Monash University, Melbourne, said the Arctic Sunrise was set up for the collision by the clever skipper of the Nisshin Maru. "By executing a 360-degree turn at exactly the moment he did, he created a situation where the Greenpeace vessel could not but strike the Japanese vessel."
The Japanese are like the clever insurance scammers who cut in front of you then slam on the breaks.
They are making every effort to sidetrack public attention and lie about their practices - everybody see the "science based lethal research" signs they hold up while packaging whale meat for sale?
Japan has the right to engage in cultural practices the rest of the world finds abhorrent, but only within their borders.
They are floating between Australian Waters and International Waters - in either case, all of their actions in the Antarctic are illegal.
T. O. wrote "whales eat plankton, phytoplankton produces a lot of the oxygen you breath in. Plankton and whales have evolved together. Scientists are concerned with drops in plankton populatons" this would indicate to me that perhaps the whales are in danger of "over grazing" their range. which could lead to them starving to death. which i would imagine is a slow and painful way to die. proper game management would allow for a reasonable harvest to reduce the pressure on the plankton. this harvest would in no way endanger the survival of the species.
i also agree with T.O. that whales are graceful, beautiful, intelligent and playfull. yet so are many other animals which are part of my diet. (no i dont eat whale. although i have tried muktuk. found it to be a bit chewy for my liking.)
i think the fault is with the liberal media machine in place throughout the world. they seem to pull at the heart strings of the population. always looking for the next crisis they can take advantage of.
if greenpeas and sea shephard wasn't able to get any play from the liberal media they would be sorely hurting for funding.
im sorry if maybe i have gone off track a bit here. the point that i was trying to make in my original post was that the captain of the greenpeas ship did not do the prudent and safe thing by trying to avoid a collision instead of maintaining speed and course just because he had the right of way. just because you have the right of way doesn't mean you should contest it. simply put, if he had done the safe and prudent thing it wouldn't have made for good t.v.
oh yea one more thing concerning right of way. i think that the vessel least restricted in its ability to manuver has the right of way whather its on the left or right. who is more manuverable? the japenese ship or the greenpeas ship. it looked to me like the greenpeas ship would have been the more manueverable of the two ships giving the japenese vessel the right of way. again the captain of the greenpeas vessel appears to have been derelict of duty.
Laura O'Connell, (if that is your real name) aka think objectively, 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.
A Greenpeace member responds
To my post Sunday about the collision between the Nisshin Maru and the Artic Sunrise. Andrew Davies, stationed aboard the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, posted the following comment: Thanks for trying to tell both sides of the story, but there is...
Veneration, and other attitudes, is important when developing international policies. Why else don't we condone cannibalism? Because people venerate people (some so much they want to eat them, but we dont' allow that).
If public policy shoots too wide of public opinion and mainstream attitudes, then policy changes or there is a revolt. The importance of veneration is such that some corporations fund lobby organisations such as IPA to sway public opinions.
You say that greenpeace campaign led to people venerating cetaceans. No-one venerated them before GP? You ignore the possibility that a fledling, poorly funded greenpeace won support from the significant numbers or people because the people already recognised the beauty, gracefulness, intelligence and playfullness of these creatures.
Les,
My thoughts on your sacred cow question here:
Greenpeace is the largest environmental organisation in Australia and made its name by opposing commercial whaling. In an insightful review (pdf file 46KB) of Greenpeace's early years, Fred Pearce has written, "Greenpeace was far from being the first green group to oppose whaling. But it was the first green group to ignore the scientific arguments about whale reproduction rates, population dynamics, and how large a sustainable cull might be, in favour of an undiluted ethical argument: save the whale." The media war was effectively reduced to the simple issue of whether or not "whales are good".
As a consequence of this campaigning have many Westerners, to quote Ron Brunton writing in The Courier-Mail in 2001, “come to venerate cetaceans, the zoological order which comprises the 80 or so species of whales, dolphins and porpoises”? It is not unusual for cultures to venerate particular animals. Orthodox Hindus venerate cows, believing them to possess divine qualities. But is this a useful basis from which to develop national and international environmental policies for the conservation of species?"
Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3634
with link to piece by Fred Pearce.
Cheers,
les: Whales perform an important ecosystem role in complex global dynamics which humans are just starting to comprehend (computer modelling and modern research is helping). Our lives depend on interlinked ecosystems. Eg: whales eat plankton, phytoplankton produces a lot of the oxygen you breath in. Plankton and whales have evolved together. Scientists are concerned with drops in plankton populatons. If you eradict a key predator, you can disturb the balance of an ecosystem. This view has widespread scientific consensus.
Further, whales have a 4th lobe of the brain. Humans only have 3 lobes. Whale brains are larger than humans (human scientists regularly claim the large size of human brains helps explain our higher intelligence). Some whales sing songs that last a day and that gradually change over their lifetime. Humpback songs have distinct individual patterns and use rhymes. Why endanger the survival of a species, particularly an intelligent one, just because you have the technology and the appetite to do so?
just because i have the right of way at a crosswalk and i see a big truck coming at me not slowing down, am i going to just go ahead and step out? i dont think so!! im going to alter my course which is exactly what the captain of the greenpeas ship should have done.
and by the way why is it that whales have become some sort of sacred cow?
i gather that their risk mngt plan is focused on what they perceive as a greater risk than their individual lives: that of ocean and planetary ecology if populations of the world's largest key predators collapse, possibly with negative long-term effects on the reproductive behaviours and population regulation of plankton, with flow-on effects on global oxygen production and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems. Or perhaps they're just in love with whales and can't see anything beyond their senseless slaughter.
it's worth remembering that laws and regulations are fluid. they change over time according to societal pressures.