by Michael dEstries
Categories: Animals.

We now have video of the latest clash between the Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whalers.

From what I can tell, it appears that the Bob Barker stays on course, tailing the factory ship Nisshin Maru, while the Yushin Maru 3 changes course to intercept. At the last minute, its stern appears to fishtail into the Barker. Check it:

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • ddpalmer

    The Japanese vessel was approaching from the Bob Barker’s starboard side. That means, from the short clip available, the Japanese had the right of way, just like the Ady Gil did in that collision. It appears when the Japanese realized the Bob Barker was not going to yield, as the maritime laws required them to, the Japanese tried to avoid the collision, as the maritime laws required them to. They just didn’t react soon enough to completely avoid the collision.

    Amazing how in two such similar situations the SSCS can spin both of them to be the fault of the Japanese. Sounds hypocritical to me.

    If the Japanese were wrong for not yielding to the Ady Gil when the Ady Gil was approaching from the Japanese starboard side, then the Bob Barker HAS to be wrong for not yielding when the Japanese were approaching from the Bob Barker’s starboard side.

    • piermario

      I think that it’s not actually a matter of starboard sides and right of way, but rather it’s all about the presence itself of whalers in a whale sanctuary. As simple as that.

      Sea Shepherd methods are aggressive and direct, but the key factor here is that Japanese shouldn’t be there and this is the main issue that should be solved at a higher level, otherwise we’ll continue to endlessly argue and discuss the matter, and support whoever we want.

      • Dave Flanagan

        The Sea Shepherd is enforcing maritime law. When actively engaged in enforcing the law against the whaling vessels it really doesn’t matter what side they approached the whale poachers.

        Do we ask the U.S. Navy Seals if they approached the pirates or enemy from the correct side when they enforce the law?

        Do you think that because the Sea Shepherd is funded privately and is not a military vessel that they do not have the right to enforce international law? They do have the right to enforce and protect their interest in their environmental cause.

        The Japanese Whaling Fleet is not a “RESEARCH” organization. They are liars and criminals; Looting, poaching, and profiting in the name of “RESEARCH.

        I cannot believe the countries that signed the Antarctic Treaty allow this! The treaty specifically states:” All Treaty Nations will try to ensure that no one carries out any activity in Antarctica that is against the Treaty.”

        Whaling for profit has been banned. Whaling is not research. Shame on the 42 countries that are allowing Japan to violate our environment this way. Admiral Paul Watson should be proud that he and his crew have exposed the activities of the Japanese Whaling Fleet.

        Dave Flanagan
        Virginia Beach, Virginia

      • David

        Sorry Dave but law enforcement (real law enforcement not vigilantes) and military groups that are carrying out their jobs are exempt from certain laws so the collision regulations wouldn’t apply in those situations.

        Yes I know that because Sea Shepherd is not military or law enforcement that they specifically DON’T have a right to enforce international law.

        The Japanese whalers may be liars (although in general that is not illegal) but what proof do you have of their criminal activity, real proof not opinions. And they don’t and haven’t ever made profit. They get paid by the government to carry out research, their pay is set by contract and remains the same whether they get 100 whales or 1000.

        ‘The treaty specifically states:” All Treaty Nations will try to ensure that no one carries out any activity in Antarctica that is against the Treaty.” ‘ You are right but whaling isn’t against the treaty, so what is your point?

        You may want to educate yourself. Try reading the actual Antarctic Treaty and see what it really says. The IWC charter, CITES, UN Law of the Sea and UN World Charter for Nature also may be good reading.

    • chipkin

      Note that they rammed the side and stern of the Barker, instead of “nosing” into it. The Japanese ships are very manueverable and are staffed by extremely experienced crews, so the chances that this was a miscalculation on their part are very unlikely.

      In actuality, this proves that the collision was intentional, since the Japanese knew that the Bob Barker’s hull is reinforced with concrete and has “hull-rippers” installed, which would have made a forward collision more likely to sink the Japanese vessel. The harpoon ships outnumber the Sea Shepherds, so the risk of causing non-catastrophic damage to one of them in order to disable the only SS ship capable of totally stopping their operations was a worthwhile risk. Paul Watson is correct in stating that since nothing happened after the Ady Gil attack, they were assured that they could operate with impunity.

    • ddpalmer

      The whale sanctuary doesn’t apply to the Japanese, no matter which one you mean.

      The IWC Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary doesn’t apply to the Japanese because they filed an objection to it when it was established, as allowed by the IWC charter. Also the IWC charter ‘requires’ a finding by the scientific committee before a whale santuary is established. This was never done and even the IWC Scientific Committee complained. So really this sanctuary doesn’t legally exist.

      The Australian Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica isn’t recognized by the world and isn’t a legal reality, not even quasi-legal like the IWC sanctuary. So it doesn’t apply to anybody (except maybe Australians).

    • ddpalmer


      If the Bob Barker is reinforced with concrete and has hull-rippers then the SSCS is in violation of even more international maritime laws.

      Paul Watson contends that his ships are manned by experienced crews also.

      No, ship would intentionally ram with its stern. If you were to intentionally ram it would definitely be with the bow. The stern is where your propulsion and steering are. No way you risk losing steerage. Also you risk damaging the seals around the propeller shafts, this leads to flooding that you can’t stop which leads to sinking your ship. No, if they meant to ram the Bob Barker it would have been with the bow. Try watching a demolition derby, they ram with the rear of the cars because the engine and steering are in front and that is what they need to protect. On a ship the engine and steering are in the stern.

      • chipkin

        That’s very silly. Find me ANY part of ANY maritime law that the Japanese actually care about (or anywhere else, for that matter) that makes modifications like this to a ship illegal. Reinforcing the bow is and employing projecting steel plating is simply prudent protection against the Arctic ice conditions and as defensive measure for the situations in which it operates. IF the Sea Shepherds actually rammed a Japanese ship with the intent to sink(not a side or stern collision, regardless of intent) by ramming it’s prow into the side of one of the whaling vessels, I would feel that they were justified, but they would still be in violation of the same maritime laws that should have the Australian Navy down there right now. These defensive measures are no secret, and I would do the same, if I were him.

      • chipkin

        Yes, that’s what I said… The Japanese don’t care if their propulsion and steerage were endangered, if they were likely to cause similar damage to the Barker. They aren’t stupid, it was a calculated attack… IF they had attempted a bow to side ramming attack, the Barker would have been able to “turn in” enough, aided by the momentum of the impact, to bring its reinforced bow into contact with the softer bow of the Japanese ship. The Japanese are willing to destroy their own equipment, but they aren’t willing to intentionally kill their own crew, and in those conditions, a bow to bow or attempted bow to side (which would not have been very effective, since they had roughly the same forward speed) attack would have almost certainly killed Japanese sailors, which would have provoked a backlash by the Japanese populace.

      • Rolf Larsen

        Neither the BB or the SI has its hull reinforced with concrete, SSCS hasn’t done this for years.

        Also, the “Hull Rippers” are anti boarding spikes, if they were to be hit by another ship they would bend like straws of grass, they are only meant to deter boarding attempts.

    • chipkin

      I also kinda doubt that the Japanese ship politely asked for the right of way, signalled the Barker, or made any other at reasonably communicating their reason to occupy the same path as the the Barker was following. Bear in mind… The Barker was on a constant course (the factory ship could not have been manuevering in any significant way if it was preparing to receive whale corpses). The Japanese “violated maritime law” (we should probably all stop using that term… it doesn’t have any meaning any more). They approached to an unsafe distance, which hardly gave them the right to continue the collision course that THEY chose. You have to stay in your own lane when you pass on the highway. If you fail to signal, change lanes, and sideswipe another car, it doesn’t matter if you are passing on the left or right, you’re still at fault for the collision.

      • ddpalmer

        The ship with the right of way doesn’t have to give any kind of signal.

        The SSCS says they were on a constant course, although that doesn’t affect who has the right of way. The ship to starboard has the right of way.

        The rules at sea are different than on the highway because ships handle differently than cars and trucks.

    • enola gay

      ddpalmer, you jumo right onto this dont you and start posting your ICR propanda.

      Do you have anything better to do?

      The scum bag japanese are at it against. Mega agressive and way out of line. Perhaps they need a few more men to fall over board to realise they shouldn’t be down there taking whales from a sancturay. Ruthless, arrogant killers.

      • ddpalmer

        There is no sanctuary. Australia has no claim to international waters and the IWC violated their charter when the attempted to establish a sanctuary. So no sanctuary. Whaling is legal. Simple facts, no propaganda.

      • Abe

        “Arrogant” is the term the mediocre use to describe people better than themselves.

    • Lynda

      Actually, watching this and other videos of both of the Sea Shepherd incidents, as a former Royal Navy trained watchkeeping and Navigation officer, I would say that the Japanese vessels involved were the burdened vessel in an overtaking situation. As such, Colregs states the following:

      13. Overtaking
      An overtaking vessel must keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. ‘Overtaking’ means approaching another vessel at more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, i.e. so that at night, the overtaking vessel would see only the stern light and neither of the sidelights of the vessel being overtaken.

      Of course, I wasn’t actually there and camera angles can be deceptive, but more than 15 years of sea going experience leads me to this conclusion.

  • Mike

    The Japanese ship is turning to its right to avoid a collision it is the Bob Barker that did the ramming.

    • sidewinder

      Well look, are we surpised the Japanese whalers did this? They have a had a problem ever since their humiliating surrender back in ’45.

      They are ramming and killing whales and they don’t care. They would kill the very last whale on earth too…if it came down to it.

      • ddpalmer

        Yeah and Australians are still all criminals, convicts and murderers because countries and their people never change. Oh and all Germans are Nazis, the Maori are all cannibals, etc.

      • come si come sa

        DDPalmer? WTF? Do you mind posting useful comments instead of traying to incite violence.

  • From MN, with hope…

    Either the whalers think they can manipulate the system, its an intentional ramming, or they just intended to get close and intimidate the Bob Barker. But it always seems when Sea Shepherd boats ram/ get rammed that Sea Shepherd ends up with more damage. Either way, I think the whalers are a bit more aggressive this year. This solidified that feeling. Wonder what will happen to the Steve Irwin. Every Sea Shepherd ship except the Steve Irwin has been rammed.

    … and the Ady Gil was coasting. It didnt approach the Shonan Maru 2, the Shonan Maru 2 approached it.

  • j

    Don’t know if stern can “fish-tail”, agree with attempt by Japanese to get in front, then to avoid collision.

    Sea Shepherd holds course.

    Don’t agree with parsing maritime law in these incidents, that book is out the window as they fight it out down there.

    • chipkin

      Yes, it can definitely “fish-tail”, but it was intentional. These ships are designed with that much maneuverability. Notice how far these ships “heel-over” when they turn, which should give you some idea of the angles at which they can operate. No “normal” merchant vessel could or would be handled that way.

      • ddpalmer

        And you say you have navy experience?

        What ship in waters like that would ‘ram’ with their stern and risk damaging their prop, shaft and/or rudder? They would risk damaging their shaft seals with a resulting flooding? The whalers are ice-rated, they have bulked up bows, so the bow is the only logical thing to ram with.

  • Toonjee

    Hold On There.

    By admission, the Reason the Bob Barker was there IN THE FIRST PLACE, is to physically block the path of the Japanese ship as it steams toward its sister ship.

    What I saw in the Video was both the BB and the Whaler racing toward a Japanese Vessel ahead of them.

    The Bob Barker should have stayed away from both Japanese ships instead it was deliberately putting itself between them.

    This is YET another reckless action by Sea Shepherd that could have lost lives on both sides

    • Toonjee

      BTW. What the Japanese are doing may be undesirable, but it isn’t illegal. The law allows them to take a certain amount of whales yearly.

      The Video Caption “Illegal Whaler” is False and prejudicial.

      • chipkin

        Yes, it is illegal, for so many reasons that movies could be made and books could be written detailing them… From the Japanese racketeering laws that they violate by paying the Yakuza bribes through whaling to the miriad of times Japanese ships have done things like transfer fuel below the 60th parallel, to the firearms that they carry on their ships, to the total disregard for Australian Supreme Court rulings to their own livestock culling regulations. The list of laws, rules, and regulations they are violating is enough to occupy the entire legal school at Harvard for the next 20 years. The “we don’t agree with your laws, so they don’t apply to us” rule only applies when you are planning on declaring war against that country. As a US Navy veteran that has worked with both the Australian and Japanese navies, and have no gripe with the population or culture of either nation, I would LOVE to see the Australian Navy face off against the Japanese Defense Forces. I’m sure that some “covert” help from the US (selective GPS obfuscation, satellite recon, and signals information, as well as the remote deactivation of the AEGIS systems we have sold to the Japanese and certainly contain hidden “defeat” features).

      • paulbee

        I don’t wan’t to sound disagreeable, but:

        1) If there is a case versus the Japanese Fleets, the place to resolve them is th World Court.

        2) Australia can’t just declare a Sanctuary out of what used to be International Waters, and expect everyone to respect that.

        3) The Most important thing is for the Minke Whales to continue being NOT an endangered species. That is the case.

        4) ) If the Sea Shepherd people continue being reckless, Lives WILL be lost, and they will go to jail.

        5) The actions of Sea Shepherd might sell TV shows, but in the long run, it will only Taint ral environmentalists as Eco-Terrorists, which is a bad thing to do.

  • truthseeker

    ddpalmer posts frequently on the whaler’s side. He must have a relative on there or somehow involved.
    You can tell the Japanese Vessel is the one that turns away and the stern kicks out to the bb. watch the nisshin maru in the background. it does not move.

    • ddpalmer

      Why do the anti-whalers not believe that someone can be as against the SSCS as they are in support of the SSCS without some ulterior motive? I believe that the SSCS is breaking the law and acting as vigilantes. I know they are breaking international maritime law and that is enough reason for me to oppose them.

      Yes the Japanese vessel turns away in an attempt to prevent a collision AFTER the Bob Barker refuses to yield the right of way to the vessel in front of them and to their starboard side, as is required by international maritime law. So when the SSCS violated the law the Japanese did as they should and tried to prevent a collision.

      You know the SSCS. The ones who have 4 Japanese flags painted on the side of the Steve Irwin with the Japanese vessels names and the word “RAMMED”.

    • animal.lover

      I am anti-whaling for personal reasons so I wouldn’t defend whalers but what does it matter if ddpalmer is working for the whalers? I have no idea who he or she is so I am just throwing this out there. Everyone here who supports SSCS, PETA, or whatever organization seems to defend them no matter what they do so what’s the issue? As they see it, the Japanese are always at fault.

      I used to support organizations like this as well until I realized that their supporters have given them carte blanche to do whatever they want as long as it is in the name of saving animals or saving whales. Faking being shot and faking hostage attempts is ok because someone is saving whales? Sure it garnered publicity but it also used valuable resources (and time) of both the Australian and Japanese government to negotiate. Great values to teach your kids. As is using pictures of naked women or racism to promote saving animals?

      Those of us who believe in animal rights are in the minority and if we want to convince the majority then we need to be smart about it. All these actions by these groups definitely deepen the commitment of those who already support them but do nothing but alienate the masses who could be swayed in their direction and moreover further harden the resolve of their opponents. Rational people respond to activism when presented in the manner as it is in the Food Inc. or The Cove.

      I believe that if you really care about conservation or the preservation of certain species then you will learn to separate your emotion to a certain extent to present your argument in a manner that will reach as many people as possible and will have a lasting effect. You may not be able to die saying you ended whaling or whatever but it isn’t about you. It may not be as glamorous but that is what scientists and researchers do every day. I support what SSCS and PETA are fighting for on many of the campaigns but emotion and/or the desire for glory seems to have overcome rationality and logic. Block the Japanese whalers if your stated goal is to lose them money. Stop dragging governments who clearly are not taking action into the fray. Stop taking actions that I can’t justify to my kids.

      For anyone who took the time to read my diatribe, I’m sorry for the rant. I fear we are sometimes winning the battle but losing the war.

      • gordon duguay

        By the time governments decide to get off thier collective asses and stop this killing of defenseless whales by the Japanese under the disguise of ”research ” ( btw..the size of a whale should justify one whale only for so called research purposes ) it won`t matter anymore because there will be no more whales to protect !

      • gun0runner

        Well said. I see this as doing more harm than good for animal rights. There are better ways to get the message out.

      • ddpalmer

        Try learning about statistics. To properly sample a population of over 600,000 whales requires close to 1,000 samples.

      • Paul Obembe

        @gordon duguay, February 6, 2010 at 11:48 pm


        By the time governments decide to get off thier collective asses and stop this killing of defenseless whales by the Japanese under the disguise of ”research ” ( btw..the size of a whale should justify one whale only for so called research purposes ) it won`t matter anymore because there will be no more whales to protect !

        End Quote:

        It is hard to take you seriously if you resort to hyperbole or speak from lack of knowledge.

        The Minke Whales being Sampled/taken/hunted..etc, ARE NOT, repeat NOT, an endangered species of whales. Furthermore, the numbers the Japanese hunt are monitored and regulated.

        Lets speak truthfully here, (give the Devil his due).

    • chipkin

      Yes, “ddpalmer” is either a “troll”, a paid whaling industry advocate (my guess), someone with lots and lots of free time, or is just desperate for attention. ddpalmer does a lot of cutting and pasting, and does not appear to have any actual nautical or military experience. While this isn’t a military thread, it is impossible to comment on situations like this without real experience.

      I am willing to admit and defend my background and political views, and that they color my observations, but also make me more qualified than him/her/it.

      • ddpalmer

        Gee chipkin you psychic abilities have failed you.

        10 years US Navy and almost 20 years with various shipping firms, currently freighters on the Great Lakes.

        And ad hominem attacks just show that you don’t even believe your own arguments can win the debate.

  • B. Chaudri

    Sorry to say, the BB veers to the right as can be proven by watching the ship in the distance as a reference point. The BB veers into the whaler which tries to veer away. These people are giving the Japanese a PR victory again. I want them the stop and go away since they are only hurting the cause.

  • Claire

    If the whalers aren’t at fault, then why has the ICR not posted their video of the event? They are always recording video when SSCS is in the area. They usually post things faster than the Sea Shepherds when it comes to rammings, etc. but yet they delayed before they released their statement and photos, and no video. And it’s hard to tell at the end of the video if the BB actually veers to the right as the camera person moves back and the NM is no longer in view. And as for the laughing, SSCS made a deal with Animal Planet that AP would do all the video recording and SSCS do the photographs, therefore, it isn’t a Sea Shepherd laughing in the video. Also, don’t forget about the suction caused when the two ships get close like that, it’s the same as when the Steve Irwin and Kaiko Maru collided last year as the suction pulled the 2 ships together. Oh and watch the video closely, you can see the YM3 move closer to the BB, so how is this the BB’s fault?

  • Claire

    And it’s also suspicious that the YM3 didn’t have her water cannons and LRAD going…

  • ddpalmer

    Claire, there is no suction between two ships that are close together. That is a lie that Paul Watson used to try and explain his ramming of the Japanese last year. Did you see where they now have a Japanese flag painted on the side of the Steve Irwin like a WWII fighter where they claim responsibility for ramming the Japanese?

    It is at least partly the SSCS’s fault because the whaler was ahead of them and to their starboard side meaning the whaler had the right of way and the Bob Barker was required to yield to the whaler which they didn’t.

    • chipkin

      You are technically correct, there is no “suction”, but the wake of the overtaking Japanese vessel at high speeds, especially while manuevering, would have certainly made it difficult for the BB to control their vessel while their rudders were in the cavitation zone, while the YM3 (which would have only had to either slow down, speed up, or maintain speed and heading to avoid ramming the BB would have had their rudders in comparatively calmer water ahead of the cavitation zone of the BB’s shaft(s) (I’m assuming that ships like this would have two rather large and highly-responsive rudders or possibly even shrouded thrusters [unlikely for either], two screws, and shaft guards of some sort). Cut it out, ddpalmer, just admit that you like to eat whale meat (I love Fois Gras, but I’m willing to admit my hypocracy), order some of the already-frozen and unwanted whale meat sitting in Japanese freezer warehouses that would otherwise end up as livestock feed, and quit the silly, uninformed defense of a dying industry. There’s enough frozen whale meat lying around to keep you fed for the rest of your life.

      • ddpalmer

        I at whale meat once in Norway while on a NATO exercise in the late 1980’s. The level of whale meat in storage is relatively constant, increasing during the season and decreasing throughout the year until the next season.

        And what difference does it make if it ends up as livestock feed? Which is just another SSCS lie. If that is where it went it would then free up other food for the people of Japan. The result would be the same thing.

      • Mick


        I can assure you that whale meat is not just sitting around, unwanted, in freezers. You can buy whale meat at the local grocery store. When they get some in it sells out the same day. You can buy canned whale meat at the local SAPPORO DRUG store year ’round. In fact, I bought some yesterday. It doesn’t sit on the shelf collecting dust either. From what I have personally seen there is a large and steady demand for whale meat in Japan.

    • chipkin

      They have been painting “war trophies” on all of their vessels since Watson founded the group. Hardly news… Did you really just notice? That would be like my pointing out that the Japanese paint “RESEARCH” on their commercial whaling vessels. Give it up, you’ve got nothing new or worthwhile to say.

      • ddpalmer

        Yes they have painted war trophies on their vessel before. But they weren’t on the Steve Irwin when the left Hobart in January and they were there when they pulled into Fremantle. Why the sudden decision to add the ‘trophies’?

      • From MN, with hope…

        ddp, the Japanese flags WERE there, and so were the other flags, such as Sierra & company. This photo proves it. It was taken 10 days after disembarking from Fremantle.

        I sure dont like ‘em, but they take awesome photos.

      • ddpalmer

        Thank you for agree with me that they were there after Fremantle. Just like I said. But they weren’t there when they left Hobart in January.

        Why did they add them? After claiming for years that they never rammed the whalers, that it was always the whalers that rammed them, why do they now claim responsibility?

      • From MN, with hope…

        Check the date on the photo. It was taken December 17, 2009. Now why would they be there then if they werent there in January? That contradicts what you say. Certainly now they cant say they rammed them, because obviously the whalers are responsible for the rammings this season. Maybe they constitute getting hit as “rammed”.

    • Abe

      Does the Shonan Maru No.2 get to paint a a little Ady Gil on their house?

    • Abe

      Does the Shonan Maru No. 2 get to paint a little Ady Gil on it’s house?

      • From MN, with hope…

        No need. They took parts off the corpse of the Ady Gil before it fully went under.

  • Claire

    BTW, it isn’t until right before the ramming that the YM3 is ahead of the BB. Before that they are about even. Watch the video closely. And I’ll be waiting for the ICR to release their video, and if they don’t then they’re hiding something.

    • From MN, with hope…

      Usually the whalers are the first to throw their evidence up, but in this case they have no video of the incident, just video of the activists using a slingshot to hurl rotten butter at the Shonan Maru 2. I find it humorous to read the whalers many press release against Sea Shepherd. If they ever say what happened (most of the time its just senseless rambling) it is an obvious lie! They never explained the Ady Gil incident, but went into false detail about this one.

      I just keep wondering, first the Ady Gil was sunk by them, now the Bob Barker had been rammed. What will they do to the Steve Irwin? Or maybe what will Sea Shepherd do to retaliate?

    • chipkin

      That’s a great point. I was thinking like a sailor, and not like a journalist/activist and just talking about the technical stuff. The Japanese ALWAYS come out with some ridiculous statement and some video shot from a favorable angle right after the incident. Where is their response? Is it possible that the damaged ship was actually doing something SO bad that the Japanese decided to avoid bringing attention to the incident. For example, what if the ship was actually crewed by military personnel, had military equipment onboard, was using some sort of secret/dangerous equipment, or a myriad of other things I can think of. Why no Mayday or S.O.S. if they were damaged or there were injuries? Are they waiting for something “sensitive” to be offloaded first? Is it possible that they were under surveillance by some other navy’s patrol aircraft, and are worried that their communications were interecepted (and are damning)?

      I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but this doesn’t “smell” right.

      • gun0runner

        Did anyone actually see any Japanese sailors on the ship? Is it possible that this ship is remote controlled, or even possibly guided by the mother ship in space? I’m just sayin’…..!

      • ddpalmer

        “I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but this doesn’t “smell” right.”

        That’s a joke right?

      • From MN, with hope…

        ddp, I think what he’s trying to refer to is the lack of video evidence from the whalers of the accident. Sure that defense of sensitive material or such is… odd, but the whalers always have a video of an incident. Even when something simple as the Steve Irwin turning on their water cannon happens, they have a video of it. Yet, somehow, they dont have a video of the Bob Barker collision. This really is weird. If it was their fault, why did they throw up a video of the Ady Gil incident, which was their fault? I think the whalers wanted to get close, and intimidate the Bob Barker, but they either underestimated the manueverability of their ship, or they got too close and hit them by accident. Or maybe they just did do it intentionally, and didnt get video from an angle that supports their story.

        And the bow isnt the only part of the ship that is at risk of getting hit by ice. Sometimes boats need to back up through ice, so the stern is at risk. Or maybe its reinforced in case they get surrounded by ice.

  • Hart Ryan Noecker

    Enough bumper boats! Time to sink these criminals and let THEM swim for their lives for a change!

  • Ecocht Wills

    GOOOOOO Sea Shepherd! Let there be no more hideous, agonizing deaths suffered by those magnificent mammals in those frigid seas at the hands of the truly despicable Japanese killers.

  • gun0runner

    Rule #1 Never play “chicken” with a larger boat!
    Rule #2 Never have the smallest boat in a demolition derby.
    Rule #3 If you’re a boat bully. Don’t cry when someone fights back!
    Rule #4 If you to act like a pirate. ACT LIKE A PIRATE!

  • Zenhen

    From the ICR Photo, they have the biased advantage of the YM3 being infront of the BB at the time of collision. But as Claire says, there is no video footage from the Japanese side, so something must be hidden, so to speak. Also from the ICR photo, it is clearly visable that another harpoon vessel is behind the BB and YM3, turning in to the BB’s Starboard side. So it is likely that the YM3, at full speed took the same course as the harpoon vessel behind, proving that they are the ones that came into collision course with the BB, and not the BB ‘veering in’. If the BB did slightly veer in, it is still the Japanese that set out on that course to come dangerously close to the Barker, proved by the other vessel which seems to be following the same course. The BB cannot be to blame when the japanese are attacking so aggressively… just look at the angle of that harpoon ship behind!

    Well i’d like to hear other oppinions on this!

    This is the Photo in question:


    • ddpalmer

      The Bob Barker was to the port side of the YM3. Therefore the YM3 had the right of way. It is simple. Read the Collision Regs, the vessel to starboard has the right of way, unless you want to try and say the Bob barker was either dead in the water or a sailboat.

      • From MN, with hope…

        The YM3 wasnt overtaking. The YM3 has enough speed to pass the Bob Barker. They approached dangerously close at a higher speed, and its obvious that they werent overtaking, nor had the intention of overtaking. Its also possible that on the port side of the Bob Barker is another ship, just judgine by placement of the ship to the Bob Barkers stern. I think that the “rules of the ocean” are almost out the window for this case. Obviously, like I said, they werent overtaking.

      • ddpalmer

        I didn’t say anything about overtaking. I said the Collision Regs say the boat to starboard has the right of way.

  • Mr Philips

    Obviousely the Japanese ship deliberately rammed the SSCS. If you beg to differ and come out with rubbish such as the Japanese ship having the right of way, or ‘suction,’ or ‘I ate whales on a NATO exercise and I’m a real man,’ then you are either mentally impaired or on a Japanese payroll.

    If you want to talk about rights, the whales have the right to live their lives in peace, especially in what’s called a WHALE SANCTUARY. Futhermore, by law individuals or groups have the legal right to uphold and enforce environmental law at sea.

    And just to remind those of you in Australia who support the Japanese whalers, you are in support of a foreign power entering Australian territory and breaking Australian law, against the wishes of the Australain government.

    Slaughtering whales in a whale sanctuary, or anywhere for that matter, is DISGUSTING. So take your ‘right of way,’ and any other pathetic pro whaling justification, and stuff it.

    • ddpalmer

      Gee lots of anger there Mr Philips.

      The Japanese did have the right of way. Look at something called the Collision Regulations, the vessel on the starboard side has right of way.

      I debunked the SSCS lie about ‘suction’ that an anti-whaler brought up.

      Someone accused me of eating whale an a regular basis I was explaining to them that they were wrong.

      Whales don’t have any rights. Humans have rights.

      The whale ‘sanctuary’ is a legal non entity. The Austarlians are barred from claiming that stretch of ocean by the ATS and the IWC ‘sanctuary’ was set up against the applicable IWC regulations, so it legally doesn’t exist. And if the IWC ‘sanctuary’ did exist the Japanese filed an objection which means by the same IWC regulations that it doesn’t apply to them.

      Emotions and uninformed opinions do not win in international disputes or international politics. That is why the SSCS will not stop whaling. And that is why the Japanese will continue their legal whaling.

    • Mick

      Mr. Phillips,

      “Futhermore, by law individuals or groups have the legal right to uphold and enforce environmental law at sea.”

      Really, and what “environmental law” is SS “enforcing”? Scientific whaling in the SO is perfectly legal and carried out under the rules and regulations set by the IWC. Also where exactly does the “law” you are refering to give people the right to attempt to foul ships props at sea, throw acid onto other ships and board other ships at sea without permission?

      “Slaughtering whales in a whale sanctuary, or anywhere for that matter, is DISGUSTING”

      Is that right? The U.S. “slaughters” an average of 50 Bowhead whales a year.

      • billy jean is my lover

        Mick and DDpalmer:

        You guys are propaganda trolls. Posting filth and lies everywhere. Nice one pandas.

      • Mick

        billy jean,

        What lies? What propaganda? The U.S. does hunt Bowhead whales. That’s a fact. Scientific whaling in the SO is legal and allowed under IWC regulations. That is also a fact. No lies. No propaganda. Just the truth.

  • CBDunkerson

    In both incidents it is very clear that the Sea Shepherd vessels had a fixed objective (not moving at all / staying behind the NM) and the whaling vessels then put themselves on an intercepting course. When you maneuver onto a collision course and a collision then in fact occurs it is more than a bit absurd to say it was the other guy’s fault. In both cases the whalers were faster and more maneuverable (though in the first only because the Ady Gil was stopped) and thus SHOULD have been able to avoid a collision UNLESS they were not trying to or were so reckless that a slight miscalculation was sufficient to cause the impacts.

    There can thus be no question that the whalers ’caused’ both of these crashes… had they not aimed their boats at the Sea Shepherd boats there would have been no collisions. As to ‘legal responsibility’, I find it truly difficult to believe that, ‘failure to get out of the way’ trumps ‘deliberately aimed at the other ship’.

    • ddpalmer

      Nope sorry. The rules involving the movement of ships are different. If you are on a steady course and a ship approaches the your starboard after it changes course, they gain the right of way and you are required to yield. Also the BB was already in violation of international maritime law by blocking the stern of the NM. It is illegal to interfere with a vessel legally involved in the catching of marine animals.

      • CBDunkerson

        ddpalmer, of course that claim of ‘legality’ is disputed and thus your argument boils down to one of preference.

        It is just as valid to claim that since the Japanese whaling is clearly commercial rather than scientific in nature it violates the IWC ban… OR that even if it WERE scientific research it would still be in violation of the IWC establishment of that area as a whale sanctuary… OR that even if the Japanese were free to ignore the IWC despite being signatories to its charter that the area is off Antarctic land claimed by Australia and thus within their ‘exclusive economic zone’ and illegal for other countries to perform whale hunts in.

        AT BEST the claim of ‘legal catching of marine animals’ is a cynical fiction. By any reasonable standard it is simply a lie.

        As to ‘rules’ of maritime traffic. I wasn’t talking about rules. I was talking about causes. The YM3 put itself on a collision course with the BB. A collision occurred. Ergo, the YM3 caused that collision. After all, we aren’t talking about busy shipping lanes here where two boats are accidentally on intercepting courses due to the high traffic through a narrow area… it’s the bloody Antarctic ocean. No other ships around for hundreds of miles. There was no accidental overlap of courses… and I simply do not believe any claim that it is all fine and dandy proper maritime conduct for one ship to go out of its way to deliberately aim at another ship. That’s inherently absurd.

  • mjadnreg

    Arguing over who violated maritime rules is completely pointless, especially when context and given information is considered. Lets face it, this is no Sunday cruise! In this situation NOBODY will be charged with anything just as NOBODY was/is following maritime rules and just as NOBODY is telling the truth here. Both sides will spin this, previous, and future situations to their advantage, plain and simple. Will anything result from this or the Ady Gill incident? There will be posturing but is most likely no.

    I like the rule # 3 mentioned above: If you’re a boat bully. Don’t cry when someone fights back!

    As was said on Whale Wars last season…
    Below 50 degrees there is no law, below 60 degrees there is no hope, below 70 degrees there is no God

  • ddpalmer

    Are we trolls or pandas?

    But no lies, that is Paul Watson and the SSCS. I have been posting facts with references to back them up. The fact that you don’t like it is not my fault.

    Whaling is legal and will continue for the foreseeable future.

    • billy jean is my lover

      Yeah Mick, if you keep saying its legal then i guess it is. Just like if you keep killing humans and purporting that it is legal, then we eventually will believe you right?

      You sure are echoeing traits of Hitler pal…

      ddpalmer, trolls pandas whatever, who cares. Your comments are typical of ICR puppets. No matter what goes down – the Japanese are always the ones being attacked right? Man, talk about brainwashed narrow minded puppet.

      • Mick

        billy jean,

        I’m not just “saying” that scientific whaling in the SO is legal. It IS legal. That’s a fact. But don’t take my word for it. Go to the IWC’s website and verify it for yourself. The U.S. kills whales too. That is also a fact. You can get the exact number of whales that the U.S. has killed from the IWC’s website, too.

        “You sure are echoeing traits of Hitler pal…”

        What does Hitler have to do with whaling? Was he conducting research whaling in the SO?????

      • enola gay

        Hey Micko,

        Who says it legal?

        We all know the IWC is dysfunctional as it is foolish. What does it achieve? A bunch of people from around the world sit around and have a stale mate with Japan who harps on about Scientific whaling and the permits it issues itself for this bogus research. It’s a case of Japan doing whatever it wants really. Whether it is legal or not. sure, IWC should close this loophole – but that wont stop the mass slaughter.

        Natives Taking a few whales a year is a different matter Mick compared with an armada of high tech commerical whaling vessels complete with security escort.

      • billy jean is my lover


        If you say so. Does that make it OK? Does that make it right to harvest whales inside a Whale Sanctuary?

        What if Japan declared a Dolphin sanctuary off the coast of its islands in order to allow dolphins to have good life, breed etc and generally be left alone. The USA comes along or Australia and starts butchering them for food or research…they bring a fleet of killer ships and take thousands of them…

        What happens next? Is that right? Whether or not it is legal matters not? Should that be allowed? Should Japan defend them?

      • animal.lover

        Enola Gay, billy jean:

        Aren’t you on a slippery slope now? Some native killings are ok but how many? SSCS protested the Makah as well (I believe). Also, legality obviously no longer matters because what the Japanese whalers are doing is legal. Endangered or not doesn’t matter because the Minke are not endangered. If we use morality, where does that take us? Factory farming is pretty brutal, even arguably more so than whaling in that the whales get to live freely until they die. Factory farm animals suffer from birth until death. Also, are the Norwegian methods of killing whale more humane? Isn’t their killing purely commercial? Is that better than maybe questionable research?

        I don’t have answers to all these questions. I would like all whaling to end but I’m not going to be a hypocrite or disingenuous about it. What makes whalers and whaling (Japanese in particular) so heinous that we are willing to support behavior that we would never support with respect to other activities we find morally repugnant? If you go down that slope, then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences and the foundation you have set in place.

      • animal.lover

        Enola Gay, billy jean:

        Aren’t you on a slippery slope now? Some native killings are ok but how many? SSCS protested the Makah as well (I believe). Also, legality obviously no longer matters because what the Japanese whalers are doing is legal. Endangered or not doesn’t matter because the Minke are not endangered. If we use morality, where does that take us? Factory farming is pretty brutal, even arguably more so than whaling in that the whales get to live freely until they die. Factory farm animals suffer from birth until death.

        I would like all whaling to end but I’m not going to be a hypocrite or disingenuous about it. What makes whalers and whaling (Japanese in particular) so heinous that we are willing to support behavior that we would never support with respect to other activities we find morally repugnant? If you go down that slope, then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences and the foundation you have set in place.

      • animal.lover

        Sorry for the double post. My computer froze.

      • Mick

        Enola gay,

        The IWC says it’s legal. Scientific whaling is allowed under IWC regulations and the ICR is following those regulations. Therefore the ICR is not doing anything illegal. That’s a fact.
        In regards to the American whale hunt.
        Mr. Phillips said: “Slaughtering whales in a whale sanctuary, or anywhere for that matter, is DISGUSTING.” He said “anywhere”. So, he finds America’s “slaughter” of whales to be “disgusting”.

        “Natives Taking a few whales a year is a different matter..”

        I see you’re using the “It’s different when WE do it!” argument. I’d hardly call 50 whales a “few”. What’s different about it? America is slaughtering whales. And they take a higher percentage of the total Bowhead population than the ICR takes of Minke whales.

      • Mick

        billy jean,

        I already told you. I don’t “say” so. The IWC regulations “say” scientific whaling is legal.

        “Does that make it OK? Does that make it right to harvest whales inside a Whale Sanctuary?”

        Yes, that makes it legal. As for whaling being “okay” or “right” is totally subjective. I and others do not see whaling as “wrong”. You and others do not see whaling as “right”. This is a simple difference of opinion. That’s WHY there are laws.

      • ddpalmer

        Billy, why should people even read your posts if you can’t even understand them yourself.

        Whether Japan declares a dolphin sanctuary or not any other country would be breaking the law if they were fishing inside Japans EEZ. But since the Southern Ocean is international waters and not in any countries EEZ your analogy doesn’t work.

        Enola, the IWC may be dysfunctional but it is still the International group responsible for regulating whaling.

  • Whoever…

    Once again both sides are wasting time discussing laws, ‘research’, who’s right or wrong, who rammed who, but the bottom line is: people who think humans are the superior species (and therefore are entitled to do whatever they want – just like the nazis regarded Jews) defend whaling, and those people who truly love animals (and thus are veg*ans) believe we are just another species on the planet and have no right whatsoever to murder animals (and that includes torturing whales to death), thus being against whaling.

    This is as simple as that, so there’s no point in arguing anymore because we’re (at least I am) just wasting time.

    Regarding those who say animal rights activists should instead go to court, try to explain to people what we’re all about or show them the footage of whales being killed… what the f*** do you think we’re doing here? Why the f*** do you think we show images of whales being murdered? What do you think NGOs have been trying to do all these years – appealing to people, governments, to the industry itself, to stop this brutal activity?

    Now tell me – did it work? HELL NO!!! So, what are we supposed to do? Cross our arms and wait for people to reach a higher level of consciousness and evolution in order for whaling to end? Well, if we do that nothing will ever change and probably whales will become extinct. Just look back at what has happened (and is still happening) to so many species – I’m thinking right now about the American Buffalo… weren’t there tens of millions of them? How many are left now?

    What I’m trying to say is that we can’t wait anymore!
    Tell me something, if you and your family were attacked by criminals, you’d probably call the police or call for some kind of help, right? What if help didn’t come and nobody would listen to you? Would you cross your arms and let your family be slaughtered? NO! You’d fight back! Therefore why should we, the animal rights activists, let animals (in this case whales) be slaughtered? Real animal rights activists regard all life as equally important but if we have to take harder measures in order to protect one particular species against the cruelty and ignorance of humans, then we will do it.

    I don’t understand why people don’t get it.
    Either you think humans are the superior species and defend eating animals (no matter how they are killed) or you believe we’re just one more species and that we’re all entitled to live in peace on this planet.

    Oh, and from my experience with animals I am firmly convinced that we’re not superior in any way to them.
    In fact, what I have sadly concluded in ‘real life’ is that our ‘ability’ to be cruel and sadistic has no limits…

    • ddpalmer

      The American Bison is a perfect animal to discuss in this situation.

      At the end of the 19th century there were less than 800 alive. Through the action of conservationists that number is now over 500,000 with a sustainable 35,000 harvested each year for food. That shows with proper management and standard conservation practices a species can be brought back from the brink of extinction to the point where it can be used as a food resource.

      • animal.lover

        I am guessing what you said will fall on deaf ears. People like him/her don’t care as much about animal rights or conservation so much as they do about being right. Plus I suspect you will be accused of working for the bison killers or the ICR for bison.

      • Whoever…

        “500,000 with a sustainable 35,000 harvested each year for food.”

        Considering there were tens of millions, I don’t see that 500,000 is an acceptable number, and even less that 35,000 harvested (what a curious choice of words!) each year for food is a sustainable practice.

        “That shows with proper management and standard conservation practices a species can be brought back from the brink of extinction to the point where it can be used as a food resource.”

        That’s the problem – most people only see animals as resources and not as sentient beings!
        So, as long as ‘we’ can eat them it’s okay to protect them…

      • ddpalmer

        The bald eagle is protected and we don’t eat them. The snail darter is protected and we don’t eat them.

        Yes many animals are a resource to be managed. Don’t like it? Too bad. It is a fact and will be the way it is for the foreseeable future. Learn to live with it.

    • animal.lover

      Fine but how far are you willing to take this? You think whaling is bad so it is obviously fair enough to attack whaling vessels. I assume you oppose the eating of meat so should we attack all meat eaters and all farmers? I am opposed to all that too but I understand that people are passionate about all sorts of stuff and if they take things they believe in and apply your logic, it will we anarchy of sorts. Rational people understand and respect that people have different opinions and passions. Heck, there are folks who think that my having pets is wrong. They may have a point and based on your statements then I would assume you are one of them too. I don’t want to be attacked because I may do something that someone else may see as morally wrong. And I suspect that I do things that people oppose as do you (unless as a militant vegan you believe that you must be perfect in every regard?). If you want to live in a world of moral absolutes, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

      Your type of extremism never works and turns off the people who aren’t already in your camp. If you really cared about the cause and not just about being right, you would understand that while SSCS’s actions will stop some whales being killed this year, it won’t end whaling. There are people who are not on tv or the news all the time who have devoted their lives to the study of animals and conservation and promote their cause in a way that is logical and scientific. (unlike you who has just decided that the killing of Minkes will inevitably lead to all whales dying and just decided it was illegal). Luckily SSCS don’t seem as extreme in their view of the world as you. I’m not a supporter of them but, whether legit or not, they supposedly do believe they have the law on their side.

      • Whoever…

        You both failed to see my point… which I thought was very clear!

        What I meant was that (and this is not about me being right or wrong – I couldn’t care less about that) people like you actually believe humans are superior to animals and that’s why you don’t see anything ‘wrong’ in killing and eating them.

        Obviously you don’t think it’s ‘right’ to eat humans do you?
        Well, in case you don’t know, there are places in china where they force women in hospitals to abort (keep in mind that china is not a democracy) so that their fetuses can be sold and then cooked and eaten in ‘special’ places. This was confirmed to me by a person whose family member was actually invited to one of those places. Never again that person went back to china…
        Do you think you’re right and that they are wrong? Why?

        “Fine but how far are you willing to take this? You think whaling is bad so it is obviously fair enough to attack whaling vessels. I assume you oppose the eating of meat so should we attack all meat eaters and all farmers?”
        Don’t put different things into the same ‘basket’. I know convincing everyone to become veg*an will never happen, but we can start by enlighten them regarding how their food is killed – that’s what made most people become veg*ans in the first place.
        However, whales are not part of the diet of most people on the planet so why not take the opportunity to ‘free’ this species once and for all? What’s wrong with wanting that?
        I’m willing to go as far as nobody gets hurt but results are achieved in the process.

        “if they take things they believe in and apply your logic, it will we anarchy of sorts. ”
        Take a good look around… Do you think there’s any kind of order in our world? It’s chaotic! People deceive each other, we bust our asses in jobs we hate to make some money (damaging our health in the process), we work all our lives to have a nice house, car and stuff we’re told we need, we are destroying our planet, we kill in the name of gods, we kill people because the color of their skin is different, we torture and enslave people, we rape, we abuse animals, and I could go on…

        “Heck, there are folks who think that my having pets is wrong. They may have a point and based on your statements then I would assume you are one of them too.”
        No, I think it’s perfectly okay to have pets as long as they are cats or dogs. I don’t believe birds were meant to be in cages, fish in tiny bowls or exotic species inside people’s homes.

        “Your type of extremism never works and turns off the people who aren’t already in your camp. If you really cared about the cause and not just about being right,”
        I’m not extremist, I just want every species on the planet to be left alone, that’s all. Unfortunately we still need to eat plants but we don’t need meat, therefore why should we sacrifice animals?

        “There are people who are not on tv or the news all the time who have devoted their lives to the study of animals and conservation and promote their cause in a way that is logical and scientific.”
        And I do appreciate and admire their work.

        “(unlike you who has just decided that the killing of Minkes will inevitably lead to all whales dying and just decided it was illegal)”
        Please do not twist what I wrote. I meant that we don’t know how to control ourselves and that’s why so many species are endangered! What makes you think that with whales it will be any different now? Didn’t History teach us anything? Haven’t you realized yet how greedy humans are?

        For a person who writes animal.lover as a nickname you sure defend those who believe animals are mere objects we can use as we see fit!

      • ddpalmer

        “…people like you actually believe humans are superior to animals…”

        Don’t try and tell me what I believe. That is pretty arrogant of you.

        I believe the humans are animals just like all the rest of the animals. And what do many animals do? They eat other animals. And many animals use tools to assist them in obtaining and eating other animals. Humans just happen to have very good tools.

      • animal.lover


        Sorry if I misunderstood your post. It sounded like you were advocating something else. I guess what you want and what you are willing to do to get it are two different things. I don’t defend the people who think they can do what they want to animals but I also don’t support attacking them by “direct action” or making up lies to stop them from doing what they have a legal right to do. I don’t judge them either. I just try to be realistic. As an example, I don’t think people will become vegan so rather than pushing an all or nothing approach, I support companies that make vegan food that appeals to more people.

  • whiplash

    @animal.lover: You’re warped and very odd.
    @ddpalmer: Mr facts? confused and lonely
    @mick: Tool academeny awaits my friend.

  • billy jean is my lover


    DDpalmer, Mick and Animal lover…are you all sitting in the same room? eating the same tripe? Lets stick with one issue at a time instead of blurring multiple issues together in an attempt to discredit and what not.

    I’ll repeat it:

    The Japanese should not be slaughtering whales in the Southern ocean whale sanctuary. They dont need the meat, they arent relying on it to avoid starvation. It is just a case of selfish national pride at work here.

    • ddpalmer

      Not these stupid argument again.

      Legally there is no Southern Ocean Whale sanctuary. Australia doesn’t own/control the area and the IWC violated their own regulations. Therefore neither one could have established a sanctuary.

      The same thing can be said about any food you care to name. Nobody needs to eat broccoli and nobody is eating it to avoid starvation. So no one should be allowed to grow or harvest broccoli. Does that make any sense? No. So why do you think it suddenly makes sense for whale meat?

    • Mick

      billy jean,

      “The Japanese should not be slaughtering whales in the Southern ocean whale sanctuary.”

      Why not? Because you say so? It’s legal, they’re following the IWC’s regulations and it’s their choice to do so.

      “They dont need the meat….”

      Who are you to determine what another country does and does not need?

      “It is just a case of selfish national pride at work here.”

      That’s your opinion. What are you basing your opinion on, anyway? Are you Japanese? If not, how long have you lived in Japan? How many times have you visited Japan? How many Japanese people do you know? What special insight do you have that qualifies you to determine what Japanese people think?

      You oppose whaling. That’s fine. That’s your right. No one is trying to force you to agree with whaling. What gives you the right to try and force your views on whaling on others? What gives SS the right to use violence to force their views on others?

    • animal.lover

      As to what you thinks bears repeating, how do those facts (even if true) justify taking direct action? I just can’t get there. I see the same as true with respect to people who eat meat/dairy/eggs.

      I would love to see whaling end everywhere but I accept that what I want doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things in that if everyone did what they wanted, we’d be screwed. My point is that there are better ways of effecting change. Presuming things about groups of people doesn’t help. Calling something illegal and/or endangered is dishonest. Why not do something productive? Why not try something along the lines of those who made Food Inc and The Cove? Those guys knew that their message would be lost if they took the approach of “direct action.” And in understanding what is right and wrong and in understanding how the masses think, they made a movie that resonates with everyone who sees it. They will hopefully be successful in showing it to the Japanese public and then maybe convincing them to lobby their government to end the slaughter. Even the director has said that he doesn’t agree with SSCS methodology vis a vis Japanese whaling. Ric O’Barry comes off as likable and he sent a team that is trained. That works. Food Inc. does too. They educate and do so in such a great way that they are nominated for Oscars.

      I hate to say this but I am assuming/presuming many of you are very young and also probably aren’t parents.

  • sidewinder

    Putting aside the fact that humans probably shouldn’t eat meat since our teeth and digestive system is obviously not meant for it…it amazes me at your gaping ignorance/arrogance on so many levels.

    It’s late, you obviously should be in bed pal. Have fun with Mrs Palmer.

    • ddpalmer

      Sorry. Hominids evolved eating meat. Anyone who claims otherwise is grossly ill informed.

    • toonjee

      Our closest cousins the Chimpanzees Hunt and Eat Kalibus Monkeys. Baboons will eat antelope fawns.

      We are apes, we are omnivorous, we have Canine teeth, we eat meat, and digest meat, and have been doing so for Eons.


      Chimps Make Spears and Hunt Bushbabies:

      Chimps Hunting Monkeys:

      • toonjee

        It just beats me how many comments and Assertions are actually based on nothing more than Urban Legend, and Fairy Tales.

  • Ed

    I have absolutely no naval experience, but even I know that ships are supposed to stay way the hell away from each other on the open sea. After googling and briefly looking at the COLREGS referenced earlier, it appears that in a collision, *both* captains are at fault to some degree, regardless of who had the right of way. Both ships are expected to take action to avoid a collision (Rules 16 and 17). The audio on the clip shows that the people on the BB knew there was an imminent collision when they said “huh-oh, here we go” several seconds before the bump, but the BB took no evasive action.

    I highly respect the SSCS’s strength of conviction and their determination to go protest in the Southern Ocean, but I am disgusted with the methods they use to accomplish their goals. I believe all people have the right to peacefully protest, but not the right to physically attack another person. You can’t throw things at people from a picket line, so you shouldn’t be able to do it in the Southern Ocean.

    If you’re going to call yourselves pirates, then be pirates. If the whalers sideswipe you, then don’t cry about it – get even. Ram the bejeezus out of the whalers and be proud of it – don’t they call it “Whale Wars”? Certainly don’t go crying to the media every time you take a bump from the whalers that you could have easily avoided; it makes you look as lame as a player taking a blatant dive at the World Cup.

  • Sage

    I thought this was the funniest thing when I saw it! The world is catching on to anti-whaler terrorists and the fact this “encounters” bring them big bucks from ignorant supporters.

    My educated guess is the United States is going to put a better leash around these goof ball anti-whalers VERY SOON!

    I also enjoy reading many, many large media outlets making a mockery of the anti-whalers protecting the minke whales “which is not on the verge of extinction”.

    Seriously, I don’t argue with these anti-whaler nut jobs due to their brainwashed responses and oh, a very important fact; their leader Paul Watson is a crook! Too funny.

    Anti-whalers, enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, the government is about to shut your ridiculous antics down!

    Though, I’ll reiterate, anti-whaler followers are sheep of a criminal, raking in the dough due to their attention mongering ways. If they really wanted to save near extinct creature they’d pull a lot more respect, but as they are now, they simply look like fools in the majorities eyes…sheep. Anyone with any kind of intellect sees straight through these sheep. I mean, hating on a race due to their meat preference on an animal that is not close to extinction is simply simple minded foolery.

  • Sage

    Oh and by the way, the January 6th incident with the A. G. was a birthday present for me…yup that was the best birthday present yet!! Thanks Japanese whalers, please keep up the good work!

    Not all Americans are inbreed crinial loser’s like the anti-whaler terrorists!

    • chalk

      “Not all Americans are inbreed crinial loser’s like the anti-whaler terrorists!”

      Oh dear.

      I am not sure I can take your word anymore.

  • Orca

    ddpalmer; I live in the San Juan’s, WA, where SSCS has its headquarters coincidentally. There are pods of Orcas resident here which swim within meters of the shore at the right times of the year.

    If you have ever seen these magnificent creatures in their natural habitat I would have to think even you would find it abhorrent witnessing them harpooned, drown in their own blood and dragged onto a slaughter ship; all to produce meat that no one really wants to buy anyway.

    The time for this brutality is over.

    Or do you get off on it?

  • Stephen

    I hate those whalers. Wish they would all sink. Wish the bob barker had damaged it.