Sea Shepherd, the owners of the Ady Gil, call themselves conservationists and it makes me blind with anger because I am a conservationist. “Conservationists advocate for the protection of all the species in an ecosystem with a strong focus on the natural environment.” I’m a rational conservationist who values the variety of species on this planet and has a deep and abiding respect for nature. I also recognize that we humans are a part of the environment, quite natural too, and that an appropriate balance must be struck. I know there are many out here like me. The conservation and eco movements of the 1970’s left us behind when they veered off course to become vigilantes. “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have been dubbed vigilantes by multiple news agencies.” The flag they fly, a modified skull and cross bones, says it all except, unlike pirates, their focus is purely destructive.
After the Ady Gil was damaged, I would have expected REAL conservationists with the resources the Sea Shepherds obviously have to recover the ship and at least reduce the damage to the environment. Of course they aren’t conservationists so here goes. They towed the ship and then left it to sink on its own without scuttling, leaving it a hazard on the water to resume chasing the whalers after virtually ensuring damage to Antarctic breeding grounds. Ain't THAT cute!
“Hammarsedt said Sea Shepherd's attempt to salvage the Ady Gil had been responsible and blamed the Japanese for any environmental risk.” Oh, no, no, no. The ship owner is responsible for dealing with the wreckage. Debate who’s responsible for the wreck but it does not reduce the owner's responsibility to tend its wreckage properly, especially when they had 2 other ships in the vicinity! Sea Shepherd says it removed potentially damaging materials before abandonment. I don’t believe that for one second AND I think they towed it to a location where environmental damage would be maximized. In my opinion they are vigilantes and NUTS, hell bent on damage and destruction and they've long past the point of limiting damage to their alleged targets to go on to just general damage and destruction.
How much better off would the environment be without the "footprint" caused by Sea Shepherd's activities AND those of the whalers in fending off these vigilantes? I suspect that footprint is enormous; probably far bigger than if the whalers were left to over hunt the oceans. There simply has to be a better and more conservationist and legal way of dealing with this whole issue.
“The whaling is conducted in international waters, but usually within the huge patch of ocean that is designated Australia's maritime rescue zone and that Canberra considers a whale sanctuary.” It is important to understand that this took place in “international waters” because that means no individual country owns those waters or has control of them, they must seek consensus of nations and/or proceed in international courts. They point out that this is also within Australia’s search and rescue zone and we are to read that as though it provides Australia with some rights and authority to “police” the area but it does NOT. Rescue zones extend beyond territorial waters. Basically, the worlds oceans have been split up and responsibilities (not RIGHTS) have been imposed by the International Maritime Organization. If you’re interested, start on page 36 here. That Canberra "considers" it a whale sanctuary is nice but the key word is "considers". Woop de do. So what. Utterly irrelevant to the whole issue involved.
“Australia says it could argue that Japan's whaling is illegal before the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.” And Environment Minister Peter Garrett is considering legal action. Fine and dandy but that rather implies that it hasn’t been determined to be illegal so get off your duff and get to work on that legal action. In the meantime, maybe you should at least acknowledge the threat of the Sea Shepherd vigilantes!!!
I know that being a conservationist can be incredibly frustrating but that simply isn't an excuse to cross the line to vigilantism. The Sea Shepherd vigilantes should be condemned for the criminals they admittedly are when they clearly state their intent to cause harm to people and property on the high seas.
What I wouldn't give for some conservation and eco groups that work within the law so I could rejoin the movement! For many of us, there is no choice but to continue to defend our rights against these vigilantes until they become anathema.