# R.I.P. Ady Gil \[Sea Shepherd boat\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987 "2010-07-17T02:43:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/61 "2010-07-18T21:37:33Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Since the _Ady Gil_ was to starboard, it should have the right of way regardless of its speed. You are correct. In the intererst of trying to give the whaler the benefit of the doubt, I confused myself on the rules of the road. In fact, the whaler was completely in the wrong on this issue and its first turn to starboard, regardless of subsequent actions, was in violation of maritime law. And it is true that unenforced law is pretty useless, but that does not change the fact that according to all maritime rules, the whaler was at fault and that the actions cannot be characterized as “an accident.” (Unless someone provides evidence that the wheelsman suffered a heart attack and lost control–something even the Japanese are not pretending.) The actions of the whaler were clearly deliberate, regardless how nasty and stupid the Shepherds folks are. As to why an investigation returned a decision of “we can’t assign blame,” the best answer would appear to be politics with a second possibility that the videos were not released to the public until after the commission’s decision. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/62 "2010-07-18T22:57:41Z")
Actually, both vessels were obligated to try to avoid a collision. Shouting “starboard” doesn’t cut it as a legal justification if you are in a dog-fight. The rule is used to control traffic, and is not an excuse when deliberately ramming another craft. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/63 "2010-07-18T23:14:44Z")
The [COLREGS](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea#PART_A-_GENERAL) set out the traffic rules, but note that right up top are the clauses that put all the particulars into perspective: > [@](#): > > Rule 2 : Responsibility > > (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. > (b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. Good seamanship obviously means that one should not try to interfere with another craft by forcing it to change course to avoid a collision, and one should not try to retaliate if a change in course could make a collision possible. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/64 "2010-07-18T23:18:39Z")
I really don’t see that the Shonan Maru is trying to run the Ady Gil down. Aims very badly if this were the case. I think she was trying to pass by on as near a miss as possible in order to scare the crap out of the Ady Gil’s crew. Whether it would have been a near miss or not if the Ady Gil hadn’t moved forward at the last second I don’t know. Either way, it’s reckless driving by the Shonan Maru’s skipper and lots enough to lay the responsibility of the collision there. Still no sympathy for the Sea Shepherds from me, though. They’re constantly engaged in exactly the same sort of reckless behaviour aimed at the Japanese, and for them to whine that the Japanese came at them after they’d decided to quit for the day is just pathetic. If you’re going to engage in those sorts of antics with your million dollar speedboat, then it’s on you to keep a watch on the “enemy” and not be caught dead in the water like that. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/65 "2010-07-18T23:41:15Z")
I think the crux of the matter is whether the whaler considered itself to be under attack, as opposed to being harassed. Bethune had been trying to foul the Shonan’s propellors, among other acts of violence. Fouling a ship’s propellors is an extremely hazardous thing to do to a ship. I think it could reasonably be considered to be piracy under [UNCLOS](http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm): > [@](#): > > Article101 > > Definition of piracy > > Piracy consists of any of the following acts: > > (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: > > (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; > > (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; > > (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; > > (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). What then is a reasonable and justifiable response to piracy that was intended to disable a ship that was underway? Stop and let the pirates do what they wish? Turn away and run from the pirates? Keep course and risk running the pirates down? Turn and deliberately run the pirates down? As much as I despise whaling, and as much as I have not sympathy for the Japanese whalers, I also do not have any sympathy for the eco-terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/66 "2010-07-19T00:20:50Z")
> [@happyslappy](#): > > Fuck that, what the Japanese are doing is immoral and illegal. Saying they are killing whales for scientific research is complete bullshit and we all know it. Species of endangered whales (some severely endangered) have been found in canned whale meat for sale in the country. > > Sure the Sea Sheperds are dumbasses half the time, but at least they are doing something about this issue. I find it slightly amazing how many people are against them, as if what the Japanese are doing is acceptable. I support their crazy ass antics because for gods sakes at least they are getting off their asses and doing something to stop the madness that is our world. Whether the Japanese are doing something “immoral” is a personal value judgement; we just disagree on that. Whether they are doing something illegal is a matter of fact. Their whaling operations are in accord with the mandates of the International Whaling Commission, therefore it is not illegal. You and the Sea Shepherds are just wrong on that point. If the Japanese are exploiting a loophole in the IWC’s rules, then the proper course of action is to work to plug that loophole. As I said above, if the really and truly wanted to stop the Japanese from whaiing, they would pursue the fight in the legal arena and try to get the IWC to change the rules. But that requires actual work. It’s far more fun to go out and play pirate, so that’s what they do. For you to support their “crazy ass antics” is for you to support absolutely clear violations of accepted international maritime rules. How do you justify reckless endangerment of humans, of people on a ship of another sovereign nation, in the attempt to force them to abide by your moral standards, which they clearly do not share? ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/67 "2010-07-19T00:36:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I do not know whether the court had access to the two tapes ([one from the Shepherds’ _Bob Barker_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU) and [one from the rail of the _Shonan Maru No. 2_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaEpLsff4HI&feature=related)), or whether they were even interested in seeing either tape, but both videos show the whaler changing course to hit the idling _Ady Gil_ which was not “running at the whaling ship.” > > The Shepherds are idiots with a long history of stupid stunts, but there was no “accident” in this particular instance. I think that the US military should start teaching this same tactic. Say I’m a soldier on the ground. I see an enemy soldier. I charge at him, we’re both firing and missing. Suddenly I stop, sit down, hold up my hand and say, “TIme out!” Then when the enemy soldier shoots and kills me, the US government can protest that it was unfair, because I had clearly stopped. This idea that the it was no accident, or that the Japanese captain was 100% at fault misses one extremely important point: The Ady Gil had been driving around at full speed, harassing the whaling ships and trying to foul their props. The Ady Gil only stopped because it was almost out of fuel. But after what had happened before, how could the captain of the Shonan know that? From his perspective, this asshole in this fast boat was running around trying to disable his ship. Then it stopped. How could the Shonan captain know what was going on? Maybe the Adi crew were readying another prop fouler. Maybe they were readying other weapons. They – the Sea Shepherds and the Ady Gill – had taken the first step of clearly breaking maritime rules for the safe operation of a ship at sea. So we apply a double standard here, do we? The Ady Gil can do anything it wants, no matter how unsafe or how much in violation of maritime rules it is, but the Japanese are supposed to adhere to the strict safety rules? Bullshit. The Ady Gil started the fight, then said “Time out” and expected the Japanese to play by their fucked up rules. The Japanese captain saw an opportunity to scare the shit out of those assholes, and a collision resulted. Whether it was due to a miscalculation on the part of the Japanese captain or an attempted run on the part of the Ady Gil is completely irrelevant. The point is that the Ady Gil started it. They started the game and lost. Crying “no fair” just doesn’t cut it. Like I’ve been saying: damned hypocrites who deserve everything they got. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/68 "2010-07-19T01:57:03Z")
Anyone know what has become of the Sea Shepherd’s request for a criminal prosecution in the Netherlands on the grounds of piracy committed by the Japanese? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/69 "2010-07-19T03:12:39Z")
> [@Roadfood](#): > > This idea that the it was no accident, or that the Japanese captain was 100% at fault misses one extremely important point: The Ady Gil had been driving around at full speed, harassing the whaling ships and trying to foul their props. The Ady Gil only stopped because it was almost out of fuel. But after what had happened before, how could the captain of the Shonan know that? From his perspective, this asshole in this fast boat was running around trying to disable his ship. Then it stopped. How could the Shonan captain know what was going on? Maybe the Adi crew were readying another prop fouler. Maybe they were readying other weapons. My only point has been that the incident was not an accident. I have no intention of defending the Shepherds’ general activities, but any claim that the whaler’s actions were inadvertant or accidental are simply wrong. He might have felt he had good cause to do what he did, but the video shows him violating maritime law. (As to the notion that the _Ady Gil_ was only stopped because it was low on fuel, that might be the case, but it seems rather improbable that a boat that was designed to circumnavigate the world at high speed would go out on the seas to engage in a particular action and would not carry enough fuel to get home.) I also have no problem with a vessel taking steps to ensure that criminals do not foul its screws, (and that information may have played a role in the inquiry commission deciding to be unable to reaqch a conclusion), but the facts of this event are that one ship either deliberately rammed another or that it, at the least, violated maritime law by deliberately directing its course toward another vessel. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/70 "2010-07-19T03:18:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > (As to the notion that the _Ady Gil_ was only stopped because it was low on fuel, that might be the case, but it seems rather improbable that a boat that was designed to circumnavigate the world at high speed would go out on the seas to engage in a particular action and would not carry enough fuel to get home.) IIRC, _Ady Gil_ was low on fuel and planned to take on fuel from _Bob Barker_. Only, _Bob Barker_ was barely hanging onto _Yushin Maru_ and couldn’t stop to refuel _Ady Gil_. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/71 "2010-07-19T03:19:43Z")
OK. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/72 "2010-07-19T04:37:26Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > IIRC, _Ady Gil_ was low on fuel and planned to take on fuel from _Bob Barker_. Only, _Bob Barker_ was barely hanging onto _Yushin Maru_ and couldn’t stop to refuel _Ady Gil_. If this is true (not disputing it myself) does that change the assessment of what happened? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/73 "2010-07-19T04:39:54Z")
Will Bob Barker be flung at a Japanese whaler when he dies? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/74 "2010-07-19T04:41:44Z")
I agree with **tomndebb**. It was no accident, as seen on the videos. Again IIRC, the skipper of _Ady Gil_ was reclining on one of the wings and other crew were just hanging out. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/75 "2010-07-19T05:58:08Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Will Bob Barker be flung at a Japanese whaler when he dies? Why wait until he dies. If nothing else he can ride along with them and throw his money over the side in the hope that the whales put it to better use. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/76 "2010-07-19T06:26:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > My only point has been that the incident was not an accident. > > I have no intention of defending the Shepherds’ general activities, but any claim that the whaler’s actions were inadvertant or accidental are simply wrong. He might have felt he had good cause to do what he did, but the video shows him violating maritime law. > > (As to the notion that the _Ady Gil_ was only stopped because it was low on fuel, that might be the case, but it seems rather improbable that a boat that was designed to circumnavigate the world at high speed would go out on the seas to engage in a particular action and would not carry enough fuel to get home.) > > I also have no problem with a vessel taking steps to ensure that criminals do not foul its screws, (and that information may have played a role in the inquiry commission deciding to be unable to reaqch a conclusion), but the facts of this event are that one ship either deliberately rammed another or that it, at the least, violated maritime law by deliberately directing its course toward another vessel. As **Johnny L.A.** said, if you had watched the show you would have seen quite clearly that the Ady Gil was almost completely out of fuel at the time, improbable or not. They had driven all the way from Australia, and then ran at full speed (i.e. gas guzzling mode) trying to deploy their prop fouler more than once. I really don’t understand your point in that last sentence, it seems like a bizarre double standard. Prior to the actual collision, the Ady Gil had repeatedly violated maritime law by not only “directing its course toward another vessel”, but also doing so while dragging a device with the express purpose of doing harm to that other vessel. That they failed to inflict any harm speaks only to their ineptitude, not their intentions. I mean, you shoot at me a bunch of times and miss, and then I fire back and hit you. So I’m at fault, how exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/77 "2010-07-19T06:39:40Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > I agree with **tomndebb**. It was no accident, as seen on the videos. Again IIRC, the skipper of _Ady Gil_ was reclining on one of the wings and other crew were just hanging out. _After_ they had repeatedly attacked the Japanese ship. Yes, I use the word “attack”. Deliberately trying to cause damage is an attack; in this case it was an unsuccessful attack, but still an attack. So: “I’m gong to try to wreck your ship! Oops, I missed. I’m going to try to wreck your ship again!. Oops, I missed again. Ok, I’m done for now, I’ll just hang out here. Hey, you’re attacking me back, no FAIR!” Pete Bethune attacked first. Pete Bethune broke maritime law first. He made the decision to risk his boat playing a dangerous game, then bitches because the Japanese don’t play by his rules and stop when he stops. It’s just nonsensical to put any blame on the Shodan Maru’s captain. ---
**Author:** ![Roadfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@Roadfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roadfood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/78 "2010-07-19T06:51:08Z")
> [@TreacherousCretin](#): > > I’ve seen only the last two episodes of WW. What’s all this about how many “ships the Sea Shepherds have sunk”?? > > Literally? Figuratively? Quite Literally. One reason why their complaints about being rammed are so hypocritical. They _proudly_ display, on the side of their ship, the names and flags of ships that they have sunk. One example, taken from their own [website](http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/sea-shepherd-history.html): > [@](#): > > Paul Watson decided to hunt the Sierra down and put an end to her career. In June of 1979, he departed from Boston, Massachusetts, to do just that. > > On July 16th, 1979, the Sea Shepherd found the Sierra and chased it into the port of Leixoes. Captain Watson rammed the Sierra twice in harbor, tearing the hull open to the waterline and forcing the ship into port for repairs. After a million dollars of uninsured repairs, the Sierra was sunk by Sea Shepherd operatives in Lisbon harbor in Portugal on February 6, 1980. Sea Shepherd permanently retired the pirate whaler Sierra and prevented anymore whales from being taken by her. Note especially that Mr. Watson **rammed** the Sierra. And now he’s bitterly complaining that a Japanese ship rammed one of his boats. The depths of that man’s hypocrisy is unbelievable. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/79 "2010-07-19T09:38:29Z")
> [@happyslappy](#): > > Fuck that, what the Japanese are doing is immoral It’s immoral like you eating pigs, cows, and chickens? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987/80 "2010-07-19T09:44:48Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > It’s immoral like you eating pigs, cows, and chickens? While you’re at it why not include humans in your list? Meat is meat regardless of the source right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/r-i-p-ady-gil-sea-shepherd-boat/546987.md?page=5)