The story here.
They came to my community to “educate” us, using their usual half-truths and outright lies.
Kiss my ass professional environmentalists.
I’d rant more but I have to work.
Yeah, but its Greenpeace. Do as they say and obviously not as they do. :smack:
Feel free to add this ’ to my previous post.
Hmmm. As a long-time donator (albeit a skeptic one, I know they shoot themselves in the foot from time to time, but it’s a protest group, not Reuters), allow me to say that this was one collossally stupid mistake from the (Dutch, from the sound of it, anyway?) captain. Not only showing disregard for the Alaskan environment, but completely failing to see the negative PR associated with it. Dumbass.
You don’t understand - they’ve got good intentions, so everything they do is ok.
Man, that is one rusting hulk of a boat. Money’s obviously down from their heyday in the eighties.
Linky no worky
Well, they had to lay out all that scratch to replace the one the French bombed.
I guess I can see how failing to file the proper documents might be an oversight – unlikey, but possible – but I don’t see how it could possibly be an oversight to resume your passage after being ordered to heave to and remain.
Thanks Tony and Larry. Those both work for me 
The guy who founded Greenpeace was a convicted criminal from Vancouver, Canada. He swindled investors on the Vancouver stock exchange…and did some jail time.
The way Greenpeace solicits funds is pretty dishonest…they capture idealistic college kids, who bang on doors and beg for donations…they promise the kids a percentage of the take…however, Greenpeace screws its own collectors! They take most of the cash.
Here’s a little story showing why the State of Alaska takes its paperwork so seriously: Look out for those rocks!
Your self-restraint is very impressive. 
Note that they haven’t been charged with actually failing to have spill protection in place, but only not having the required bit of paper. Despite what that story says, its as technical a violation as you could have.
No serious contradiction of basic principles seen so far.
What picture are you working from? The one I’ve seen doesn’t show a rusting hulk of a boat.
This is too funny. Why is spilling 700 gallons of diesel fuel in what amounts to 70% of the Earth’s surface worse than spilling the same on land (30%)? No, seriously, where is Greenpeace on that one? Couldn’t be because they have a financial interest in it?
Look, nature takes care of this shit. Nothing humans can do will destroy the planet. It’s fun to bandy about and use to scare people into writing a check. But we will never have the power over natural law to end everything the natural law has determined.
What we’re worried about is saving the human race.. If we aren’t here, does anyone really give a shit about a mouse in California? A beetle in South America or a spider in Australia?
For over 5 billion years, nature has taken life forms as they’ve come, and set it up where the dominant can thrive. When one screwed up, or didn’t adapt, it became extinct. I have yet to see proof (other than hunting) where nature didn’t balance it out. (Notice I’m leaving religious issues out of this). You want to exploit a resource in a new land? Well, here’s a new disease for you. You want to ignore the new resource? Well, here’s a new resourse to treat the disease you’ll never find.
I love whales and dolphins and otters and all the other cute animals. But to limit the dominant animal to “save the planet” is bullshit. The planet will only be in danger when the Sun begins to expand. (Talk about Global Warming!)
I might get behind a “People Day”. Untill then, keep the “Eath Day” pablum to your own bank account.
I do.
Get pissed about the millions of species that became extinct long before humans evolved and I’ll take you seriously.