I haven't see the sea shepherds video. Daren, I recognize that you have a hell of a lot more expertise in these matters than me. But this video, as I said above, is choppy and edited. No question, the Greenpeace ship being there in the first place is a big problem. But isn't it possible that, as Greenpeace claims, the Japanese ship made a big turn to make this collision inevitable? Seems hard to tell from the vantagepoint of the video who's at fault.
I figured you were opposed to whaling in the first place. And I certainly don't agree with everything Greenpeace does; I think they have hurt their cause at times. But I think they're being demonized in this thread.
There's enough evidence in this video, despite the obvious edits. The Greenpeace ship is controlling the collision. You can tell because they're trying to trim their speed with reverse pulses in their engines. The captain wants a collision, but is trying to control the speed at which occurs. Even the speed that he allows is wreckless. I've responsed to slow impact collisions that have resulted in millions of dollars in damage and sunken ships. All within the safe haven of a harbor. The amount of danger this creates in these cold waters, hundreds of miles and hours from a rescue response (if people go in the water or a ship starts sinking), is so negligent that we're entering into the territory of murderous.
Let's explore the claims made by Greenpeace. First let's look at motive. Out of the two ships there, who would want to avoid a collision the most, a ship that is operating to make a profit and is holding precious cargo (the source of said profit), or a ship that is out to interfere with a ship from making its profit? If the Japanese ship wanted to create a collision, it has A LOT more to lose in a worse case scenario than the Greenpeace ship.
Second, a vessel pretty much steers stern first (kind of like a forklift). The larger the vessel, slower it is to respond. Slow ops and slow speed turns are actually achieved by alternating the reverse/forward thrusts on the port and starboard engines. It's kind of like driving a tank. No rudder involvement at all. Because the vessel is so slow turning (in comparison to the Greenpeace vessel) a Captain, in order to avoid collision would probably throw the engines into neutral, then hit full reverse on the starboard (perhaps full throttle forward on the port engine too), and the Captain would probably crank the wheel TOWARD the vessel. This would change the trajectory of the bow toward the vessel, but would actually move the stern of the ship (and the starboard flank) away from the incoming vessel, so the hull of the Japanese boat, and the bow of the Greenpeace boat are moving the same direction which would lessen the blow of a collision if it was unavoidable.
Now to the lay person's eyes (who is more used to driving a car) this would indeed look like the Japanese boat is turning into a collision (and the Greenpeace captain - also a boat operator - would know what the other captain was doing) and they spin these videos this way on purpose, so they can demonize the whaling/fishing boats as these ruthless captains running over peaceful protestors. It's quite an effective fund raiser.
To become a Captain, and to get into a position where you are operating vessels of this size (that Greenpeace boat is not a small vessel either BTW), it takes years of coursework, and years of time behind the wheel operating boats. There's a lot on the line for these guys. If one of these guys is tried and convicted of attempted murder on the high seas, or even if they lose their Captain's license, it's the equivalent of a lawyer being disbarred. It's a big deal. Also every single person aboard is the responsibility of the Captain. To operate a vessel in this manner is jeopardizing their safety as well.
On a philosophical level, I used to support Greenpeace. I've even donated in the past. I really think that our oceans need to be fished smarter, but when I see them behaving this recklessly and going out of their way to create these highly dangerous situations where people could die, I can't sit back and support this. Bottom line, I value human life more than animal life. This is why I don't support Greenpeace anymore.
