dancing on ice

I found your comment engaging and wished to reply. In response, these were my thoughts.

"Their whaling is actually perfectly legal."

I believe this is not true for commercial purposes. They have chosen to ignore the legitimacy of Australia's claim in the area, that is a different matter altogether. They are whaling under the pretense of a scientific research programme- which is a questionable claim (even if it were their true purpose) given it is not necessary. (Apart from my personal opinion of the necessity of this scientific research, which I'd be happy to go into if asked, I have read statements released by Japanese scientists as to how this is not needed anymore which I can try and find to show you, please let me know). And in even if it were still necessary do they need 1000 whales per year quota for that? We are not talking about a species that is overabundant anymore (who would we be to judge anyway). The detriment this is causing goes further than whale's numbers, further than the negative effect this will cause to other wildlife due to the interdependence that exists between animals and the food chain.

I found this article very fascinating; New Scientist: Vital giants: Why living seas need whales-12 July 2011 by Marine Biologist Steve Nicol.
In it Steve Nicol starts by saying "whales dont just eat fish, they make the oceans far richer". In brief one point made was that the reduction in whale numbers has reduced the numbers of other marine wildlife even ones they eat. Killing large predators such as seals and whales does not increase fish numbers as thought.This is because they play a more critical role in maintaining and enhancing the productivity of the sea. The amount of life the oceans can support ultimately depends on how much food plants make. Photosynthesis can only occur on the top sunlit levels of the sea. A problem here is that due to gravity plants cells sink. Strong winds can churn up the waters, however so do large animals. They mix ocean waters through swimming (not drifting) and rising to the surface to breathe and then diving to the bottom to feed. Another way is by feeding at depth and defecating at the surface. I recommend reading the article.

Whether he asked Greenpeace representatives for drama or with the real hope of receiving help would this make their refusal the less real? To assume a result doesn't mean you should not bother with asking to see the result. This has a purpose has it not? Sea Shepherd has an ultimate goal. I do not find this action dishonest, it has ulterior motives that are not concealed. Why not also discuss the honesty of for example the Japaneses government? This article wasn't meant as an analysis piece though. I was merely quoting him.

This article here is meant to provide the coverage of events from a pro direct action perspective that adheres to animal rights. Truthfully and factually, without editorial influences, external control and political affiliations yet with the writer's perspective. How could it not? On this newsheet, stories will always be written by the hand of one who supports environmental, animal, anti-capitalist values, that is not hidden.

Ultimately I wrote this to cover Sea Shepherd's perspective.

Interestingly, the video shows the Adi Gale dead in the water, with the Shonan Muru heading on a coruse that would easily clear the smaller vessel. The reason for the collision was not ignorance of the physics, but the rapid coruse change by the Shonan towards the smaller boat which again is DIW at the time.I spent 13 years at sea as a US Navy surface warfare officer, and any court that does not find the Shonan's captain guilty of reckless endangerment is clearly being paid off by the whaling industry. Previous harassment by the Sea Sheppard vessel nothwithstanding, the Shonan appears to have intentionally destroyed a vessel with 6 crew members in the Antarctic. This was a malicious and irresponsible act on the part of the Japanese, that could have easily resulted in the death of that crew.