Japanese ship sinks whale protest boat Ady Gil – The Age — Another salvo in the war on the yearly Japanese ‘scientific research’ whale cull. The link contains some video. Another video report here.

UPDATE : This video more clearly shows the Japanese ship closing on the Ady Gil. It was shot from another SS vessel.

The high-tech stealth boat Ady Gil was cut in half and sunk by a Japanese security vessel in Antarctic waters today, dramatically upping the stakes in the annual struggle between whalers and protesters.

Sea Shepherd group leader Paul Watson told Fairfax Media the $1.5 million Ady Gil was sinking, but its six-man crew had been rescued and was uninjured.

Earlier today, the fleet was contacted for the first time by the Ady Gil and Sea Shepherd’s “secret” third vessel, the Bob Barker.

Captain Watson, aboard the Steve Irwin, said he was still 500 nautical miles from the scene.

“This seriously escalates the whole situation,” Captain Watson said of the collision.

The ICR said the Ady Gil came “within collision distance” directly in front of the Nisshin Maru bow and repeatedly deployed a rope from its stern “to entangle the Japanese vessel’s rudder and propeller”.

The statement accused the activists of shining a laser device at the Nisshin Maru crew and launching acid-filled projectiles, one of which landed on the vessel’s deck.




  1. Mark T. says:

    scadragon, Wikipedia says the boat originally cost $2.5 million. I read somewhere that SS bought it for $1.5 million but I can’t find the source.

    Anyway, I figure that getting that boat destroyed was worth a bunch of free advertising. I don’t know if it will be good press, though. It will be hard to spin this so that they don’t look like retards.

  2. muthaerth says:

    I see this site has, after rejecting my criticism of “wallywhalewatcher’, added the more telling clip taken from SS’s “Bob Barker”. The same youtube clip which I linked in my rejected comment!

    [A couple of comments got auto spam captured – I have restored them – ed.]

  3. wallywhalewatcher says:

    -The Nisshin Maru clearly changes course with the intention of ramming the Ady Gil, then veers to port at the last minute to avoid totally running over the vessel.-

    First it wasn’t the Nisshin Maru, that’s the mothership. This was the Shonan Maru.

    Second, there is no significant difference between “ramming” and “running over” a boat of that size with a ship so much bigger. You can’t finely calculate the damage or force of impact in seas that rough. At that speed, a sideswipe would have likely done just as much damage. Again, the Japanese knew they were on camera, and have nothing to gain from being seen as trying to kill people on camera.

    SS on the other hand are using very powerful laser to try and blind the whaler’s crew…and those are not your average boardroom pointers, they can permanently blind people.

  4. farbauti says:

    Why do the SS need a Stealth Craft anyways?
    What were the future plans for this thing?
    Sabotage comes to mind.
    I don’t condone whaling I think it’s morally wrong,but I totally hate Radicals of any kind.
    They better be care full who they piss off
    out there.
    Russian whaling vessel still operating?

  5. alphgeek says:

    Wallywhalewatcher do you have a link where I can get some info regarding the laser weapon? I’ve seen video of it in use but I’m interested in seeing where you found info that it is capable of permanently blinding people.

    Would you agree that the Japanese ship made a course correction that increased the risk to its own crew and to the crew of the SS vessel?

    It would seem more sensible for them to have either maintained their course (which likely would have avoided a collision) or turned to port (again, likely to avoid a collision).

    Turning to starboard would seem to be the worst action in that situation?

  6. wallywhalewatcher says:

    -And how many homeless starving people could that money have helped??-

    I don’t think groups like SS or Greenpeace feel that starving humans is a bad thing.

  7. wallywhalewatcher says:

    Green lasers are far more dangerous than the usual ones you see. Search for “wickedlasers”.

    They were trying to keep the SS away from the mother ship with its cables. Risky? Far less than the SS idiots for screwing around that close to other ships in the first place.

    With the delays in a ship’s helm-answering speeds, it’s hard to know, but deliberately trying to ram would have been quite counterproductive as they were being filmed. No way they hit the BatBoat on purpose.

  8. alphgeek says:

    Farbauti please check your facts. It is not a “stealth craft”, it was designed specifically to break the world powerboat circumnavigation record (which it did).

    Sea Shepherd purchased the vessel with the intent to use it to intervene between whales and harpoon shots, a task for which the vessel’s long range, high speed and manoeverability are obviously well suited.

    Let me turn your game back on you:

    Did you know that many American citizens own weapons that can fire the same rounds used in military assault rifles? Why would they want to do that unless they wanted to shoot people?

    Let’s keep the silly rhetorical games in the drawer and stay in the real world please.

    As a parting note, it’s ironic that you “hate radicals of any kind”. You realise that your position makes YOU a radical, don’t you?

  9. honeyman says:

    #74 alphgeek

    I read somewhere that the Ady was painted with the black ‘stealth paint’ to reduce its radar exposure. Might have been BS.

    Actually, here it is.

  10. alphgeek says:

    Thanks, I know about Wickedlasers. In fact I have a 10 mw green laser myself which can certainly damage one’s vision although it will not cause blindness.

    As an aside, normal red laser pointers can actually cause significant damage. I have permanent damage to my right eye (astigmatism caused by lens damage) resulting from momentary direct exposure – less than one second – to a 1 mw red laser bought from Ebay for $1.50. Just like the common or garden variety laser pointer. So please everybody, learn from my mistake!

    But what I was actually asking was where you got your information specific to the laser used by Sea Shepherd, since you claim that SS are deliberately trying to blind the whalers.

    You say that the whalers “have nothing to gain from being seen as trying to kill people” but you claim that the SS people were “using very powerful laser to try and blind the whaler’s crew”. You seem to have a strong views as to the motives of the parties involved.

    I’m just trying to determine which of your statements are factual and which are speculation.

    Quite frankly I smell a rat where your comments are concerned as you seem determined to make apologies and explanations for the whaling ship, even though it seems obvious that its actions increased the risk of a collision.

  11. alphgeek says:

    Thanks honeyman! Farbauti I withdraw my challenge to your stealth claim – sounds like radar avoidance was their specific intent – but I maintain my challenge to your speculation regarding their motives. That tactic is often called poisoning the well.

  12. Tooki says:

    #8

    Shark finning is primarily a Chinese practice–get your facts straight. And most Japanese don’t eat whale, only a relatively small minority do. Most Japanese are indifferent to the issue, just like most Americans.

  13. Mark T. says:

    farbauti, this boat has zero stealth attributes. It was originally called the EarthRace and was designed for speed, not stealth. It was designed to power through waves instead of riding up and over them. This makes it very fast in rough seas.

    I think that SS must have hoped of using it to outmaneuver the big whaling ships and tangle their props and rudders with cables and/or ropes. With that boat, they could cut in front of a whaler and drag a line directly under the keel and snare the props.

    Interesting tactic but obviously flawed if your skipper is an idiot.

    And there is nothing “stealth” about that boat. I think they wanted a cool name to get some press. The only thing “stealthy” about that boat is that it would be hard to see at night due to the flat black paint scheme.

    I am sure they wanted to give the impression that they are Batman-esque vigilantes protecting the oceans wildlife. Well, they got it and they look like idiots. I bet they have more in common with the Simpson’s “comic book guy” dressed in an Adam West Batman outfit.

  14. Mark T. says:

    honeyman, I just read your link about the stealth paint. I don’t know if “carbon flecked” black paint can absorb radar or not. I understand that the paint on the F-117 and B-2 are supposedly made with tiny iron spheres that actually absorb radar. As a result, all of these aircraft are kept in hangars at all times, unlike conventional bombers like B-1’s and B-52’s.

    If you painted a boat with iron pellet filled paint and dropped into salt water, I be it would corrode horribly. Also, I have heard that true “stealth paint” cost something like $25,000 a gallon.

    [Yeah it could be BS – h.]

  15. wallywhalewatcher says:

    The videos show them using green lasers, which are more dangerous to eyesight than red, as they are usually more powerful. As the light pressure from a laser cannot push a ship away, it seems elementary that they are being used against the crew’s eyes. But unlike you and others, with your intimate knowledge of the intentions of the whaler helmsman, I admit that I cannot provide proof that they were trying to blind people. Maybe they were just shining green lasers in people’s eyes to psychically imprint “Green” thoughts on their minds. And maybe they have special weaker than usual green lasers specially bought to be harmless. Maybe.

    The whalers may indeed DESIRE to deliberately run these people over and drown them (emotionally), but doing so would draw enforcement actions from governments which would limit their access to whales. If Australia decided to keep the whalers out, they could. Killing an SS person would probably bring that about. So they are not going to do that.

    You probably “smell a rat” when someone does not conform to exactly what you expect. I don’t like whaling (as I’ve said over and over again.), but I am utterly against taking actions that put others at risk, especially when that action is likely to have a backlash that causes more govt support for the whaling.

    I am far more incensed by the actions of the SS than the whalers. Having made my living at sea for a few years, I know how dangerous SS’s actions are to themselves and the crews of these ships. Fouling a prop or rudder at speed can do internal damage that can injure people, and cause collisions and loss of control. Constantly running under a ship’s bows is a guarantee of an eventual collision. The SS idiots got what they deserved for such foolhardy actions.

    If I run my motorcycle up against and in front of your car as you drive to KFC because you don’t like me eating chicken, whose fault is it when I eventually go down? By your logic, yours. You should meekly pull over and accede to whatever my demands are.

    If they want to stop whaling, pressure the Australian and New Zealand governments to enforce the rules and keep them out.

  16. wallywhalewatcher says:

    and Alphageek, you’re the one constantly questioning others’ motives.

  17. wallywhalewatcher says:

    –because you don’t like me eating chicken–
    should be
    –because I don’t like you eating chicken—

    typing too fast.

  18. chudez says:

    a lot has been said about how the Ady Gil was stationary and that the Japanese ship should have turned away. well, a lot of cars have been caught stationary at rail road crossings and trains can’t stop on a dime to avoid them. neither can large thousand ton ships.

    the Ady Gil sought out these Japanese ships and made every effort to be within a spitting distance of the larger ship. i’m sure the Japanese ship would much rather have had the sea all to herself so the large part of the responsibility for this collision is due to the flagrant harassment of the Ady Gil.

  19. jaywontdart says:

    I hope this will be talked about on No Agenda.

    I like some aspects of SS, such as that they run a Vegan ship, very consistent with their ideals of protecting animals. I’ve heard that the Japanese whalers often mention “but you eat cows, chickens…” arguments before when asked to defend hunting whales.

    I could support Sea Shepherd for going down there and protesting, staying close to the whaling ships with signs etc, but I cannot agree with how they throw smelly substances at the whalers themselves, shine lasers at them, RAM WHALING SHIPS… and when the beautiful Earth Race (now called Ady Gil) gets hit…they scream murder? “they were trying to kill us…”

    Look on the SS Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#Controversial_direct-action_tactics )

    Notice the picture of the tally of ships SUNK BY SEA SHEPHERD.

    I’m the “No Agenda Vegan In Residence” and proud that SS are at least “trying to save sea animals”, but I cannot support their immature actions, that risk both their lives and the whalers.

    I am very sad that Ady Gil MIGHT be written off. I dont see why it cannot be repaired? Do you think that SS are just saying “well, thats $2 million gone…” for PR?

    I wonder if the whole plan was for the Ady Gil to be destroyed in the first place. On my podcast covering SS, Im going to play radio interviews, and in all the interviews with the skipper, he mentions “we dont want a harpoon through the boat” etc. Rather odd listening to it now, after the boat has been “destroyed”, regardless of whose fault it is.

    If it is the whalers fault, I’d argue SS shouldnt get so close to the whalers ships.

  20. alphgeek says:

    wallywhalewatcher:

    I agree that green lasers are hazardous, more so than red even milliwatt for milliwatt due to the retina’s greater sensitivity to 530 nm light – perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in my earlier post – but as I said I was interested to understand whether you had any definitive information regarding SS’s motives in using them. Was it explicitly to blind the Japanese sailors or to dazzle them? Perhaps I misunderstood your initial message and you originally meant temporarily blind them (dazzle) rather than permanently blind them? Whichever, I’m clear now as a result of your last post. Thanks.

    I’ve made no claim to any special knowledge of either the SS motivations or the whalers. I’ve carefully used terms like “seemed” and “appeared” to indicate that it is merely my interpretation or opinion, rather than a definitive statement of fact. I’ve actually said in a couple of posts that I doubt the whalers were deliberately trying to collide with the SS vessel. Again my opinion only.

    I’ve taken issue with some of your statements that have appeared to be more definitive than mere opinion, for example “SS on the other hand are using very powerful laser to try and blind the whaler’s crew”. Again, perhaps it is simply a question of wording rather than intent. In such cases I’ve asked for clarification as to whether they were statements of fact or opinion which you have kindly provided. Again, thanks.

    My maritime experience is limited to recreational sailing but I can imagine the dangers posed by fouled props or rudders on large vessels. We’ve fouled both at different times and it is hazardous and unpleasant, not to mention difficult to repair. I believe (but do not know for a fact) that SS have used such tactics in the past but I can’t see any evidence that they are doing so here. Although I acknowledge that the video is short and gives no real info regarding actions immediately prior to the collision.

    I believe that the SS understand that they put themselves at risk. Anyone going to sea is at risk and presumably more so in the circumstances of chasing whalers. But the whalers are hardly innocent in this regard – they presumably know that what they are doing is controversial and may result in this type of confrontation.

    With your KFC example the motorcyclist would be at fault if they ran into the path of the car in such a way that the car was physically unable to avoid a collision. But if the car turned towards the motorcycle, who would be at fault then?

    The second video seems to show the whaling vessel turning about 30 degrees to starboard from 0 seconds to 9 seconds. Perhaps they didn’t see the SS vessel (even though they were using water cannons on it at the time). Who knows, perhaps they were trying to avoid a collision and taking evasive action. We don’t see any video prior – perhaps the SS vessel was charging them prior to the start of the video and the whaler was intending to cut behind the stern of the SS vessel.

    Yes I question people’s motives and I encourage others to question also, even mine. My motivation is that, like you, I do not support whaling. I don’t support illegal action of SS but there is no evidence in these videos that SS were engaged in illegal action. Perhaps they were 10 seconds prior to the video but we cannot know without further information, can we? I see a ship make an apparent course correction that results in a collision and I try to speculate as to who is responsible. Nothing more.

  21. ceti at home says:

    Attempted suicide by the skipper of Batman’s boat. The propeller “wash” being kicked up in the water to his rear clearly shows he is giving forward thrust.

    And maybe the research is how many dogs does it take to eat a whale? I didn’t say it was GOOD research.

    Next time they will use the harpoon guns and say “Hey, it looked more like a whale then a boat to me.”

    And lastly, how can anyone _fish_ for a mammal?

  22. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    Wally the whale,

    I too am interested in where you got the information that SS was shining lasers at the whalers. I’d also like some confirmation that SS tried to foul the props on this or any whaler. Mere accusations are not a defense to an otherwise perfectly legal action by the SS and Ady Gil. They are quite a common defensive tactic though by those who can’t come up with a legitimate defense.

    The videos clearly show the Ady Gil to be stationary. The one video shows the whaler changing course at the stationary Ady Gil.

    The whaler is attacking the Ady Gil with water hoses. Besides blocking the view of the whaler’s Captain, this shows intent to harm and interference with the Ady Gil’s navigation. That negates your innocent collision complaint.

    If the Japanese want to protest by eating whale meat then let them find whales in their own back yard.

  23. honeyman says:

    #87 Ralph

    A video of the Ady Gil apparently aiming green laser at a Japanese vessel. IDK what the point of it is.

  24. EricD says:

    Something doesn’t add up here. People keep saying this was in Australian Territorial waters, but I don’t see how that can be true.
    Territorial waters by convention extend 12 nautical miles from the coast (22 Km). Do whales really hang out that close to land? Is the water really dangerously cold so close to Australia. In some clips I’ve seen the Japs are using ice breakers! And doesn’t the Australian coast guard get involved if Japanese coast guard ships are cruising their coast line?

    [Australian Antarctic Territory I believe – h.]

  25. RBG says:

    In the end, both vessels have a legal duty to avoid collision regardless of who might have the official right of way.

    RBG

  26. alphgeek says:

    EricD:

    It is in Australian territorial waters in proximity to the Australian Antarctic territory, not mainland Australia. The 12 mile limit is also clouded by things like exclusive economic zones which extend out to 200 nm, governed by other treaties.

    This is all complicated by the fact that antarctic claims are not universally recognized around the world and are somewhat ‘de facto’ in nature. That’s one of the reasons that Australia does not take legal action against Japan for whaling inside Australia’s Antartctic EEZ. Like most international law, it is a finely balanced house of cards.

    By the way, there is no Australian coast guard. The Australian Navy carries out the same duties as the US coast guard.

    Notwithstanding all of the above, yes whales do frequent the mainland Australian coast. Humpbacks migrate to Australia to breed and can be seen from the coast during winter.

  27. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    #88,

    You are close. It’s a “Photon Disrupter”.

    (snicker)

  28. deowll says:

    Somebody is going to get killed.

  29. whalenuggets says:

    The whaling boat sprayed them with water AFTER they got hit!! That is funny.

    Hey pass the tartar sauce these whale nuggets and hushpuppies are delicious!!

  30. carpilynn says:

    #1
    First off, no the Jap… ship was not moving out of the way at the last second. Also, the steady stream of water that the whaling ship was directing at the anti-whaling ship at and right after impact show’s that these creep’s did not give a damn. I hope someone blow’s their whale ship(s)out of the water for the torture they inflict on the whales. I made the mistake of watching a video(of a whale being murdered) and it is so disturbing and cruel….it is right up there with “the cove”, check that one out if you havent googled that one..what is wrong with the Jap’s?


3

Bad Behavior has blocked 5605 access attempts in the last 7 days.