Sea Shepherd vessel Ady Gil has bow sheared off after being struck by Japanese whaling ship

The clash between the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Japanese whalers turned ugly today after one of the conservation group's vessels was struck by a whaling ship and severely damaged.

The Sea Shepherd's new trimaran Ady Gil had its bow sheared off and was taking on water after it was rammed by the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru 2, which has been tailing the Sea Shepherd flagship boat Steve Irwin since it left port en route to Antarctic waters to try to disrupt Japan's annual whale hunt.

Sea Shepherd reports on its website that six crew members on the Ady Gil -- five from New Zealand and one from the Netherlands -- were immediately rescued by the crew of another Sea Shepherd ship, Bob Barker, which arrived on scene Tuesday.

They added that while none of those aboard Ady Gil were injured, the damage to the vessel is catastrophic and that it's unlikely that it can be salvaged.

The conservation group states that this "unprovoked attack" has been captured on film -- Animal Planet has a film crew onboard the Steve Irwin, shooting footage for the third season of the popular "Whale Wars" series.

Thankfully, nobody was killed, but this serious clash may be a portent. This was the most severe encounter between the two interests, and they have not yet even reached Japan's fleet of harpoon and processing vessels.

--Kelly Burgess

Photo: Sea Shepherd's trimaraan Ady Gil after it was rammed by the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru 2, in the background, in Antarctic waters. Credit: JoAnn McArthur / Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Note: To follow this blog on Twitter please visit @latimesoutposts

Comments

[Chris Waller]

You guys need to look at both videos. From front on the Shonan Maru II turned hard starboard and rammed the stationary Adi Gil. The whole time the crew of the Shonan Maru II were using water cannon on the Adi Gil even after they had split it in two and it's crew were hanging on for dear life. From the Shonan Maru II video it looks like the Adi Gil accelerates in front of it. When you see the video from front on it is clear the whaler makes a hard turn to ram the smaller vessel. Disgusting....

[Shamu Steak]

Ok, according to Merriam-Webster.com, there are two definitions for ecoterrorism:

Main Entry: eco·ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: \ˌē-kō-ˈter-ər-i-zəm, ˌe-kō-\
Function: noun
Date: 1987
1 : sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment
2 : political terrorism intended to damage an enemy's natural environment

— eco·ter·ror·ist \-ər-ist\ noun or adjective

Sea Shepherd memebers are ecoterrorists under the first definition. They are attempting to sabotage the Japanese ships in order to hinder their activities, which SSCS considers damaging to the environment.

The Japanese have been hunting whales for thousands of years; it would seem to me that it is part of their culture.

The only way they can still practice their hunt is under the guise of Research, due to the IWC. Their research is tied to determining the validity and acceptability of a limited cull. Per IWC rules, any whales culled for research must be used, not left to rot.

What I have read points to the fact that the Sanctuary was set up by the IWC, not the Australian government. If that is the case, then it is up to the IWC to do something. But since, according to the charter, the Japanese are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing to enforce.

Anyway, you might not like to admit that Sea Shepards are ecoterrorists, but you have to admit that they are at least vigilanties. Regardless, their activites are illegal, not the whalers.

[An Adult]

shamu steak- Making a false summary of my statement and then arguing against that false statement doesn't advance the argument for either of us. Using the word eco-terrorist to define eco-terrorist is a circular argument. It is true that words enter the lexicon because of common usage. However, that does not mean that they are related to the actual meaning of the word before the common usage took hold. Eco-terrorism is one of those words.

After rereading my post, I see no "big" words.

The problem with your argument is that the Japanese are not practicing a cultural right within their own nation but are imposing their industrial whaling on a maritime reserve set aside by the nation that is in the region. It is true that there is a dispute over where Australia has the right to call an Exclusive Economic Zone. However, that is a very different argument than the Japanese have the right to do industry in maritime reserves in the Southern Hemisphere because their culture allows them to do that.

I accept your argument, even though I disagree with it, that there is no moral difference between cows and whales. But you are fooling yourself if you believe that the Japanese are conducting research and only sell the meat for industry in order that it should not go to waste. In fact, it is the other way around. The Japanese do industrial whaling in a protected region and use the research loophole in order to justify it. You can't have it both ways. It's either okay for Japan to whale for industry because there is no ethical problem with it according to their culture OR they have the right to whale because they are doing research and they don't want the meat to go to waste. There are two very different arguments there. The first argument means that there is no need to claim research because it is a cultural right for Japan to continue industrial whaling anywhere they see fit. The second argument means that Japan is allowed to do what some see as illegal because scientific research is at stake. If you say that they do research so that they might advance their cultural right under the law why do no scientists agree with their position?

I agree with you and others that the ends do not justify the means. There are a lot of reasons to dislike Paul Watson and question his organization. To call them terrorists and to say the Japanese have the right to do whatever they like because the Sea Shepherd, in your opinion, is in the wrong is absurd.

[VG2009]

Preventing the death of an endangered species by endangering the human lives (of the crews of both boats in freezing cold Antarctic Ocean) is ridiculous. The end does NOT justify the means.

[a63]

Hey Adult...The Japanese Whaling fleet are keeping us safe. I lost 3 brothers on the Pequod. Damn viscious Whales.

[a63]

Rumor has it that the Japanese fleet will soon be armed with Torpedos that can lock on to the noxious fumes emitted by Paul Watson.

[Shamu Steak]

To "An Adult":

So what you are saying is that the definition of a word in a dictionary is meaningless, and the only definition that matters is what people think?

Puh-lease

By definition they are terrorists. They are using violence to coerce a group of people or government to change their ways, for ideological reasons.

Trying to foul the screws and rudder, shooting stink-bombs at the ships, firing rockets at the ships, attempting to and succeeding to ram the ships are all practiced by the eco-terrorists, and all the actions are forms of violence. (examples of these actions can be seen on the show Whale Wars) They are trying to hurt the whalers, if not physically, then financially. They are terrorists, plain and simple. There is no effort on my part to link them to OBL, people draw their own conclusions, but they are ecoterrorists, and should be identified as such. They are using sabotage for ecological reasons. No matter how you cut it, by definition they are terrorists.

It does not take killing someone to be a terrorist, that just makes them a murderer.

I went to the library, and used their computers, and wikipedia still provided the same information. I visited the IWC website, and it provided the same information as well. The original goal of the IWC was to limit catches in order to provide resources for future generations, it was never to instill a moratorium on whaling. That is the path they have gone down though, which is why seveal whaling countries started their own organization in order to regulate their catches. By their own rules, whaling can be performed for scientific puropses.

-------

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

In addition to reviewing the research carried out by member nations and other research groups, The Commission sponsors and promotes international research. A major undertaking has been a series of ship surveys of the Antarctic minke whale stocks that began over 25 years ago. This has now been expanded into a new Southern Hemisphere research programme called SOWER. Other funded research includes work on developing and improving new techniques such as photo-identification studies, acoustic and satellite/radio tracking of whales and genetic analysis of populations.

The Scientific Committee has been concentrating on a 'Comprehensive Assessment' of whale stocks, defined as an in-depth evaluation of the status of the stocks in the light of management objectives. It was this latter emphasis that led to the development of the Revised Management Procedure. The Committee is also working to assess the effects on cetaceans of environmental change such as global warming and pollution, and whalewatching activities. A summary of recent activities of the Scientific Committee is given in the Editorial of the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management.

As part of their response to the decision for a pause in commercial whaling, some member governments have implemented major research programmes which may include the sampling of whales caught under special permits which the Convention allows them to grant. (For more information on Scientific Permit catches click HERE).

--------

By their own rules if a member country does not agree with a ruling they can file a an objection, and thus do not have to follow the decision.

--------

THE OBJECTION PROCEDURE (Convention Article 5 (3))

Any government can 'object' to any decision which it considers to seriously affect its national interest, provided it is done within 90 days of notification of the decision. Should this happen, further time is allowed for other governments to object. The government or governments that object are not then bound by that particular decision. This mechanism has been strongly criticised as rendering the Commission 'toothless', but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right (common to many international agreements), a government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not be bound by any of the regulations.

---------

Btw, my research was done months ago when Whale Wars first came out, but I stated the time-frame incorrectly. But does that make my argument less valid? I think not, at least I am willing to research a topic, unlike some who spew nonsense with out providing facts to support their argument.

Sure the japanese make some money from this venture, the IWC states that if whales are culled for scientific purposes, then the meat is not to go to waste. In order to comply, they sell the meat as food for people and dogs. If they didn't sell the meat, then what should they do with it, let it rot? They are conducting their research to study the viability of limited culls. Some data cannot be obtained without killing the whale.

Oh, and by the way, using big words, and signing your post as "An Adult" does not make you so. I was originally going to dismiss your post, but it gave me ammunition for my opinion.

To seanb12

I want to know what is so immoral about their whaling activities? If someone states that killing whales is immoral, then so is killing cows, or pigs or even chickens. Some countries kill and eat cats and dogs, is that immoral too? Where do we draw the line? If an animal is cute, then it is immoral to kill it, but ok to kill ugly animals for food? If an animal apears smart, then it is immoral to kill it, we should only kill stupid animals? They are all resources to be harvested for food and other materials. Just because your ideals do not agree with what their culture does, does not make their actions immoral. Comparing legal culling to illegal dumping (dumping in international waters is contrary to international law) is comparing apples to oranges. If a government sanctions an activity, regardless of morality, the participants are allowed to do so by law. Also, just because you do not agree with the law does not make it immoral.

Anyway, Sea Shepherd is a group of terrorists, so far out there that even Greenpeace will not sanction their actions.

[a63]

Protecting any species should be handled through the courts and international treaty. Organizations and individuals who advocate violence in order to achieve an environmental goal, wheter it is save the forest, pets or whales, are terrorists and should be treated as such.

[a63]

Big fight on the high seas. Japanese whalers allegedly rammed their vessel into an anti-whaling activists' high-tech speedboat during a confrontation in the Southern Ocean. To be fair, the whalers did have their blinker on.

[a63]

Go Sea Shepherds!!!!!!!

Save the whales!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Watson should organize the whales into an elite fighting force and wipe out the Human Race.

[seanb12]

"The end does NOT justify the means. They are eco-terrorists."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that anybody posting on this blog made the statement that the ends always justify the means. I know that, at least, I never said such a thing.

However, that does not mean that the ends NEVER justify the means. If interfering with the commercial activity whaling vessels prevents the death of an endangered species, I believe that in this case, the ends DO justify the means.

Also, the first statement is not logically connected to the second statement. You made a general assertion (ends don't justify means) and then an accusation (they are eco-terrorists). Neither statement supports the other. If your going to lay out an argument, then by all means, please MAKE an argument.

[Jim R]

Regardless of the Japanese claim that whaling is a "scientific endeavor" or the claim that The Sea Shephard Conservancy is an eco-terrorist group, it's obvious from the video that the Shonan Maru intentionally steered into the Ady Gil with a high probability of causing a collision.

Analysis of the video clearly shows the Shonan Maru turning hard port until the collision and then the camera turns aft to show the damaged vessel being spraying with high pressure water to inflict more damage and risking lives at sea.

The wake of the Shonan Maru in the final seconds of the clip is further evidence of the turn.

At minimum, the crew members of the Shonan Maru should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

More realistic is John M's suggestion that SPLC style legal tactics are in order to put these disingenuous barbarians out of business and a boycott of Japanese seafood products.

[John]

Hunting whales is an inhumane and unnecessary practice that is done for one reason, greed. The horrible death that these beautiful and intelligent animals endure is a disgrace. I will never buy another Japanese car or product while this atrocity continues. Support a ban on all Japanese products.

[Lou]

Just another side of the story as food for thought, our Alaskan Eskimos depend on the bowhead whale for food as they've done for over 1,000 years. They feed their entire communities on whale meat and without, many would starve to death. Rather than apply for food stamps or public assistance, the Eskimos choose to feed their own by the meat from this particular species of whale. Unfortunately for them, too many bleeding-heart liberals against harvesting any living creature without understanding the dire consequences, have made numerous attempts to stop whaling all over the globe. Any action to prevent whale harvesting would result in deliberate extermination of our Alaskan Natives by starvation. They don't sell the precious whale meats in specialized stores or present fancy sushi wraps for discriminating diners for profit...it is solely used for sustinence and their very lives depend upon it.

[VG2009]

The end does NOT justify the means. They are eco-terrorists.
We shouldn't allow Sea Shepherd to link pro/against whaling issue to justify their "show".

[seanb12]

Shamu Steak:

Is what the Japanese are doing technically illegal? No. BUT...legality does not imply morality.

There are many behaviors that people do which are technically legal but morally reprehensible. Logging in national forests-legal. Dumping in international waters-legal. Hell, segregation was legal at one point in time. Yet, nobody can argue that segregation is moral (or Constitutional) in any sense of the word. I believe that it is also so with whale poaching.

[cal77]

While some may disagree with their tactics, the Sea Shepherds are doing what no one else has the political will to do - enforce the international ban on whaling in the Antarctic. This incident ultimately will lead to more political and financial support for the Sea Shepherds. I cannot wait until the Japanese whaling fleet retires, or sinks.

[J.C.E.]

I agree the crew of the Ady Gil put themselves in harm's way, and their grandstanding is sick, but there's no excuse for killing whales with what we now know of these beings.

There is a higher cause.

And anyone that uses the non-word 'eco-terrorist' is Fox-news-watching MORON.

[Sherri]

I'm torn on the subject, but I definitely agree that we should be condemning the Japanese for this inhumane behavior. But, no point in just singling them out -- we should all remember that the United States is technically a whaling country (mostly in Alaska and Washington state), too. So, the practice should be condemned here as well.

[Mike]

If you have seen both videos the one from the third ship manily then it looks clear that Ady Gil was stopped and the japs turned towards them at high speed. someone here likened it to running in front of a bus but in reality what actually hapened here is Ady Gil was sitting on a "park bench" the "Bus" (aka Japs) where doing 100km/hr mounted the kerb ran accross the sidwalk took out the Ady Gil sitting on the park bench vered back onto the road and someone in the back of the bus threw a beer bottle (aka Water cannon) at the Ady Gil while it was recovering and then failed to stop. all because Ady Gil was poking his tounge at the bus driver... Get real the Japs should be draged over the coals for this

[griff]

Find extended uncut video of the crash on the internet.

The video starts with the vessels fairly far apart.
You'll see the Ady Gil at rest, waiting for the Shonan Maru.
As the ships come along side, you see the Ady Gil go full ahead, not astern as claimed, into the Shonan Maru.

Its a deliberate act meant to either damage the whaling ship or put the crew of the Ady Gil in harms way. A very cynical attempt to manipulate the press and world opinion on the part of the Sea Shepherd organization.

I am not a supporter of whaling but Sea Shepherd has lost my support. They're acting like terrorists and its shameful.

[yes]

By the way, the Japanese are whaling in the Australian Antarctic Economic Exclusion Zone, a maritime reserve. Australian judges have found that Japan is violating Australian sovereignty by whaling in the Antarctic territory.

What kind of scientific research requires 950 whales a year? The Japanese lying about their whaling industry's purpose is very telling.

[An Adult]

Dear Shamu Steak,

Although your dictionary sites terrorism as related to ecology, I think that many people would argue that the etymology of that definition is in relation to the common usage of the word (which has an entire area of history related to it too long to go into here) and not the actual definition. Secondly, when people call the people of the Sea Shepherd terrorists it is not to link them to the definition that your dictionary supplied. You are not referring to them simply as "defined as terrorists" but are making a larger connection to people like Osama bin Laden and that ilk. You do this to enlarge your argument and draw false analogies. However, clearly, it is hyperbole to compare the people of Sea Shepherd with terrorists that commit evil against innocent civilians. Again, I often disagree with the tactics of the Sea Shepherd but calling them terrorists does nothing to prove your argument. Lastly, I think the people of Sea Shepherd are trying to stop an illegal activity. They are not trying to hurt the Japanese whalers and they never have. This is a very different thing from terrrorism.

I appreciate that you have done some research on the whaling laws except that wikipedia is not a research site. It is a good place to start to find sources, but an unreliable way to prove your argument. The library is a really good source of free information.

You are right in that it is a diplomatic nightmare in trying to enforce whaling agreements. However, if Japan is within their "rights" why do they hunt whales for profit but call it "research". Why do they lie if they are in the right?

You don't have to agree with their goals but try to be genuine in your argument against it. Otherwise you just look like an idealogue who is spewing platitudes with nothing to back you up. The fact that you had to do research AFTER you extensively posted your opinion suggests that you don't base your opinions on information but from an ideological platform. I actually dismissed you at first but your effort to inform yourself could go far for you if you wanted it to. Remember to inform yourself before coming to a conclusion and opinion.

[echoparkjt]

a remote control dingy packed with explosives, ala uss cole, that should take care of the japanese

[RS]

I have no love for Japan, but as long as they are killing non-endangered whale species (which as far as I know, is the case), then I don't think one can really complain. Ethically its not any worse than hunting deer with a crossbow. Then again I'm not a vegetarian.

Also, if you are going to make a TV show called Whale WARS, then perhaps you should be prepared for an "attack." LOL! I find it hard to believe that Sea Shepherd would be surprised for the whaling ships to start fighting back. Did you really think they would give up their livelihoods and go home, just like that? Give me a break, all you do is piss them off!