# Sea Shepherd crew using green lasers as weapons



## Bronco (Jan 7, 2010)

In the wake (no pun intended) of the destruction of the high tech speedboat Ady Gil, raw footage of the collision between it and the Shonan Maru has begun surfacing on YouTube. In certain of the clips you can see the Ady Gil crewmembers using green lasers to shine in the eyes of the Japanese sailors. They appear to be fairly powerful units as the beam can be seen in the daylight. Wherever you come out on the politics of whaling, I find this latest tactic of the Sea Shepherd crew to be particularly irresponsible and disturbing.


----------



## funkymonkey1111 (Jan 7, 2010)

doesn't disturb me, but thanks for weighing in.


----------



## liketotallyrandom (Jan 7, 2010)

Wake me up if the whales start using the lasers.


----------



## John_Galt (Jan 7, 2010)

terrorists... Under a "greener" name. hope the Japanese navy does something about these @sshats...


----------



## DUQ (Jan 7, 2010)

I watched a few videos but did not see any green lasers. It does appear the the Ady Gil lunged forward in the path of the whaler ship :shrug:


----------



## Linger (Jan 7, 2010)

I feel the OP was bang on for bringing this too the forum.
But how can it be discussed w/o raising personal opinions, and some of the fantastically biased and objectionable opinions expressed.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 7, 2010)

Could you please link the video with the lasers, I can't find it.


----------



## mossyoak (Jan 7, 2010)

the ______s associated with sea shepherd are some of the most unorganized, untrained idiots to ever take to the high seas, did anyone see them trying to do an emergency drill launch of their smaller rescue boat? they flipped it and damn near lost a crew member. they damaged their own helicopter due to sheer negligence, and they are breaking more maritime laws in one day than i can type.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 7, 2010)

You are not wrong!
However, I think we should try to keep this about the use of lasers so that this thread does not get locked :thumbsup:


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 7, 2010)

DimeRazorback said:


> Could you please link the video with the lasers, I can't find it.


 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MymqeXhl0&feature=related


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 7, 2010)

By golly!

That is ridiculous!

:thumbsdow

Thank you Beamhead :thumbsup:


----------



## mossyoak (Jan 7, 2010)

Those ______s, where did they get the cash for that boat? those arent cheap.


----------



## John_Galt (Jan 7, 2010)

I think Bob Barker donated them some cash... ~5million US, IIRC.


----------



## kelmo (Jan 7, 2010)

Bob Barker donated 5 million dollars to their cause. Ady Gil bought them the speed boat thats why it is named as such.

Now the truth comes out! The Shonan Maru's pilot was blinded by laser light and went Kamikaze!

BANZAI-BANZAI-BANZAI!!!


----------



## s14kev (Jan 7, 2010)

http://hypebeast.com/blog/frankliew/2010/01/rip-ady-gil/

nice pic with a green laser. although i'm against vehemently against whaling the use of lasers in this fashion is incredibly irresponsible and diminishes the Sea Shepherds plight to save these creatures.


----------



## ckc (Jan 7, 2010)

I think the important issue here is not "why" but the how.. eg. the use of a laser as a weapon.. if the potential is there to cause harm to the person you are shining it at, does it give that person the right to defend themselves, (and in this case, remove the threat by ramming the other boat).. 

I don't know the stats around laser use, and at what range & power it's considered "harmful" but it does raise in interesting question in what level of response someone could take against such an attack..


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jan 7, 2010)

Fancy spending all that money on lasers and expensive marine equipment, better to just donate it to facilities for sick children instead where it can do some real good for the world.


----------



## fhenixlynx (Jan 7, 2010)

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> Fancy spending all that money on lasers and expensive marine equipment, better to just donate it to facilities for sick children instead where it can do some real good for the world.


:twothumbsAGREED!!!!!!!


----------



## mossyoak (Jan 7, 2010)

ckc said:


> I think the important issue here is not "why" but the how.. eg. the use of a laser as a weapon.. if the potential is there to cause harm to the person you are shining it at, does it give that person the right to defend themselves, (and in this case, remove the threat by ramming the other boat)..
> 
> I don't know the stats around laser use, and at what range & power it's considered "harmful" but it does raise in interesting question in what level of response someone could take against such an attack..


 
They didnt exactly ram the sea shepherds boat, the japanese are in a much larger (less maneuverable) boat, the ______s clearly were trying to get in front of the japanese, like a bird getting hit my a airplane.


----------



## Bronco (Jan 7, 2010)

s14kev said:


> http://hypebeast.com/blog/frankliew/2010/01/rip-ady-gil/
> 
> nice pic with a green laser. although i'm against vehemently against whaling the use of lasers in this fashion is incredibly irresponsible and diminishes the Sea Shepherds plight to save these creatures.



This comes close enough to describing my feelings that it's not worth quibbling over the minor differences. As a forum that discusses and stresses the ethical and responsible use of these devices on a daily basis, I see nothing occurring down there that could begin to justify possibly blinding another human being.


----------



## ckc (Jan 7, 2010)

mossyoak said:


> They didnt exactly ram the sea shepherds boat, the japanese are in a much larger (less maneuverable) boat, the retards clearly were trying to get in front of the japanese, like a bird getting hit my a airplane.



hate to disagree with you, but the other videos clearly show the larger boat directing left towards the smaller boat (and than hard right after the collision).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU

Don't get me wrong.. I think the Sea Sheppard is at fault for the whole larger situation.. I just don't think the collision was an "accident"


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 7, 2010)

Bronco said:


> I find this latest tactic of the Sea Shepherd crew to be particularly irresponsible and disturbing.


I very much agree. The end may be well intentioned but it does not justify the means.

The gallery at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_cid=698&gallery_id=108764 has an image of them using a green laser. 

On the page s14kev linked to:



> “As expected, Watson made it clear that he intends to place the Gil in harms way — particularly as an “intercept and blocking” weapon against the Japanese fleet. Sounds like a risky game of “chicken” — but Ady Gil Captain Pete Bethune is ready for the challenge.”If they ever hit us with an explosive harpoon it’ll be massive damage,” he told Ecorazzi during the summer. “But certainly we’ll do our best to get in their way. If they hit us it will always be their guy that pulled the trigger — but hopefully things won’t come to that.”



The captain sounds like he has either a death wish or a martyr complex; it sounds like he's looking forward to being hit with an explosive harpoon, and he was going to try to make it happen.

Another article at http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3193212/Kiwi-sailor-in-hi-tech-sea-battle claims it's not a laser.



> "The Ady Gil came in to help us, and yes, they did use photonic disrupters. They're not lasers, they're not harmful: we use them to confuse the harpooners, we fire these at them and they can't see."
> 
> According to the manufacturer's website, photonic disrupters "will temporarily overwhelm a threat's visual senses without causing permanent eye damage".



Sorry, but if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 7, 2010)

The whole situation is a mess, IMHO and I too have seen some indication of really poor seamanship but then these are volunteers willing to put themselves in harms way to protect whales of all things! Seamanship is optional it would appear or learned on the job. 

To date, I don't believe there have been any mortal injuries but I suspect it may just be a matter of time. There have been physical injuries on the Shepard's side and I wouldn't be surprised if there hasn't been some injuries on the whaler's side as well. Those water cannons can do some real harm and I don't know if the green lasers are targeting the cannon shooters or not. 



> terrorists... Under a "greener" name. hope the Japanese navy does something about these @sshats...


Terrorists? They seek to keep the "research" vessels from killing whales and the only way they have come up with is to try to disable the vessels and foul the decks to taint the whale meat so it would not be desirable to eat.

Whether one agrees with their program and activities or not, I see them as no more terrorists than I consider the Japanese whalers as "researchers".

Not that two wrongs make a right but last season, the Japanese introduced those directional hi decibel devices to disorient and impede the Sea Shepard folks. The green laser seems like an additional step in the escalation of confrontation devices between the two groups. The users may be "shooting over the bow" and not holding the laser steady or attempting to blind someone. 



> They didnt exactly ram the sea shepherds boat, the japanese are in a much larger (less maneuverable) boat, the retards clearly were trying to get in front of the japanese, like a bird getting hit my a airplane.


I believe the retards were trying to get in front of the Japanese vessel so they could drop a line in the water in its course. The hoped outcome would be that of a fouled prop and inability to propel the vessel; end to whaling activities. A disabled vessel in those waters could easily put the whole crew at risk. 

To date, I believe the Sea Shepherd group has been more exposed and in harms way than the whalers, er, researchers. Last year the whalers took to throwing large bolts and nuts at the shepherd crews. 

I have watched a few hours of these "whale wars" and in terms of terror, there was one segment of clear terror involving a couple of minke whales that a harpoon ship had running for their lives. Ultimately, they did spear one of the whales and its cries that could be heard from the helicopter sure sounded like terror to me. But then again, it was just a whale that has no right to life as far as we are concerned.



> ...I see nothing occurring down there that could begin to justify possibly blinding another human being.


This is your opinion and you are entitled to it and I can't say that I disagree. On the other hand, there are those willing to put their lives on the line that feel that the intentional killing of perhaps 1000 whales this season is justification for the potential of bodily harm to a person. Again, they realize this harm may be to themselves and not their foe.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 7, 2010)

ckc said:


> the other videos clearly show the larger boat directing left towards the smaller boat (and than hard right after the collision).


Perhaps you should use starboard and port, respectively.

For all we know the captain of the SM thought he would be able to go behind the AG - unlikely, but what has Sea Shephard said officially? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10619034



> Sea Shepherd leader Peter Watson, captain of anti-whaling vessel the Steve Irwin, said video footage clearly showed that the Japanese vessel rammed the Ady Gil.
> 
> "The Ady Gil was stationary at the time, they were waiting for the Shonan Maru to pass. And the Shonan Maru turned and rammed into them."


In this video the AG clearly has a wake. So if it was stationary when the collision occurred it stopped at the worst possible time, when the SM captain would have expected it to have passed in front. As the captain had his vision affected by a green laser  of course he wouldn't have seen that the AG hadn't continued on its way.

More on the legal situation and a mention that the AG _was_ varying its course and speed: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10618944.

Whatever. Use green lasers responsibly, I say.


----------



## Bronco (Jan 7, 2010)

Photonic disruptors? I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on that one. 

I'm not saying that such a thing couldn't exist, but in the clips I've seen, the device being used certainly doesn't appear to be anything more sophisticated than a high powered green laser. Maybe I'm wrong. But, if such a thing did exist, don't you think we would have heard about it somewhere on this forum before now. And it's absolutely clear from the video that the beam was being swept across the deck directly at eye level.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 7, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> The green laser seems like an additional step in the escalation of confrontation devices between the two groups. The users may be "shooting over the bow" and not holding the laser steady or attempting to blind someone.


On the high seas it's probably pretty hard to hold a laser steady, but the photo I linked to in my first post is a head shot.


----------



## s14kev (Jan 7, 2010)

http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Photonic_Disruptor-65-3.html

Its a 100mW green laser. focused to a tight beam it will still do permanent eye damage. someone must have been watching too many power rangers cartoons when they decided to name that one. pretty much sums up the mature stereotype of the typical high power laser buyer (not people on this board of course :shakehead)


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 7, 2010)

Bronco said:


> I'm not saying that such a thing couldn't exist, ... But, if such a thing did exist, don't you think we would have heard about it somewhere on this forum before now.


It seems we have - they're commonly known as green lasers. Photonic Disruptor is a trademark. http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Photonic_Disruptor-65-3.html


> Laze a non-lethal focused or unfocused beam towards potential threats at a distance. *Used properly*, the Photonic Disruptor™ will temporarily overwhelm a threat's visual senses without causing *permanent* eye damage.


Emphasis added. So Sea Shepherd is lying again* when they say they're not lasers.

*They weren't stationary when hit.

Edit: OK, I type slow.


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 7, 2010)

Bronco said:


> Photonic disruptors? I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on that one. .....



I realize this is the laser forum and we have many experts here but for the heck of it, I did a google on Photonic disruptor and found a number of hits. from one linked article, here, I quote:



> the Photonic Disruptor is said to be designed for use by the military and law enforcement only. The Photonic Disruptor is a waterproof high powered green laser which has been featured on Discovery Channel’s “Future Weapons” and it is designated as TALI which stands for Threat Assessment Laser Eliminator. The laser has the ability to overwhelm a target’s visual senses, but is said to not cause permenant eye injury.
> The Photonic Distruptor is powered by two AAA batteries which will offer up to 90 minutes of power, has an output power of 100mW and comes with a three month warranty. It is available online for US$599.99.
> Read more from the Wicked Lasers website.


Is it possible that the users of these devices, believe the manufacturer's claims and is it possible there is some truth to these claims? I followed the link to the mfg's site and it clearly makes a case for the use of this device and would seem an appropriate counter measure to deploy against someone trying to knock you sensless with a water cannon.

*EDIT* I see am slow too and the device has already been linked a couple times.


----------



## Bronco (Jan 7, 2010)

Yes, I'd say it's pretty much a given that the crew of the Sea Shepherd is categorically incapable of using any piece of gear "properly".


----------



## Josey (Jan 7, 2010)

The Sea Shepherd crew are environmental heros, defending the oceans from the destruction of corporate fishing and whaling fleets. The French murdered a member of the Greenpeace crew of Rainbow Warrior, but people with anti-environmental beliefs never find any problem with that. Murder is OK, but bright lights and stink bombs, oh yeah, that's over the top.

When the law does not stand for truth and justice, people are justified in taking more extreme, but limited action. Environmentalists are not killing people; corporations are. 

It's sad to see so many people advocate for the destruction of the earth's ecosystems and environment.


----------



## Bronco (Jan 7, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> Is it possible that the users of these devices, believe the manufacturer's claims and is it possible there is some truth to these claims?



I would have to concede that this is, in fact, a legitimate possibility that deserves consideration. Having repeatedly witnessed the utter and gross incompetence of every individual associated with the Sea Shepherd, however, I have no faith that any member of this crew would either take the initiative to learn how to use it properly, or possess the integrity to use it in a safe manner if they did know how.


----------



## blasterman (Jan 8, 2010)

A 100mw green laser can't do a whole lot of damage in daylight unless it's held stationary on a target with a tracking device, and even then the target has to stare into it. Soviet pilots used to do this a lot near the end of the cold war to American F-14 pilots who intercepted them when they got too close to U.S. carrier battlegroups. The result was not much more than annoyance. I have a 200mw and it's hardly a weapon.

I've watched most of whale wars, and at most the Sea Shephards do nothing more than annoy the Japanese whalers and give them a moving target to throw nuts and bolts at. Pretty much a waste of time.

The 5-million dollars should have been spent of publich relations or something constructive rather than a 'carbon fiber' ski boat. The Japanese whaling industry is heavily subsidized, so if enough money is thrown againt them it might be shut down.


----------



## Bronco (Jan 8, 2010)

Josey said:


> The Sea Shepherd crew are environmental heros...Environmentalists are not killing people; corporations are.



While your highly refined sense of humor is greatly appreciated, this is intended to be a discussion on the ethical use of lasers.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 8, 2010)

Ethical...use of lasers.....ethical...hmm...

So, back on-topic, how many mW does one need to incapacitate the retinas of someone standing (floating) a couple hundred feet away in a half-second or so, without leaving burn marks?


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 8, 2010)

I have no idea, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end I will tell you that much!

:shakehead


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

Forgive my ignorance on the matter but isn't/wasn't there a global moratorium on commercial whaling?
If not are the Russians still whaling? Is there any regulation of whaling?

BOT, are there any laws on the use of lasers on the open sea?


----------



## Josey (Jan 8, 2010)

There are two relevant facts:


1) No crew member of the criminal Japanese whaling fleet has been harmed by environmentalists.

2) Environmentalists defending the law that is supposed to protect whales have been murdered and their boats destroyed.


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

Josey said:


> There are two relevant facts:
> 
> 
> 1) No crew member of the criminal Japanese whaling fleet has been harmed by environmentalists.
> ...


 So it is illegal to whale?
Links to those murdered by whalers please.


----------



## fiftycalibre (Jan 8, 2010)

So, anybody eat beef or pork or chicken, or any other meat?


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 8, 2010)

fiftycalibre said:


> So, anybody eat beef or pork or chicken, or any other meat?



That is a bit of a low blow... you understand whaling was actually diminishing their populations dramatically, and chickens, cows, pigs etc are *bred* by humans for food.

No, I'm not a vegetarian.


----------



## Josey (Jan 8, 2010)

fiftycalibre said:


> So, anybody eat beef or pork or chicken, or any other meat?



Not me.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (Jan 8, 2010)

fiftycalibre said:


> So, anybody eat beef or pork or chicken, or any other meat?


Oh crikey yeah, in fact I like that stuff so much that I wouldn't even care if the population of vegetables was endangered and in decline.

Never tried whale meat but given my distaste for the other Japanese food I've tried I think I'll leave eating that to them.


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

Can we please attempt to keep this thread open? I can't find anything definitive on the legality of whaling, can someone please point me in the right direction?
I have found the IWC that regulates/ed whaling in the 40's, but beyond that its just noise about whaling being illegal with no info on what treaty/agreement/international organization actually prohibits it and prosecutes those who violate it.


----------



## carbine15 (Jan 8, 2010)

If everyone would just take the time to watch *Southpark S13E11* we could all come to a better understanding.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 8, 2010)

Here is a link from 06.

A small extract:

"_Japan is allowed to conduct "scientific whaling" under the International Whaling Commission rules and carries out part of this whaling in Antarctic waters over which Australia claims sovereignty. Under Australian domestic law (the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or EPBC Act), whaling is prohibited in any Australian waters. So as a matter of Australian law, Japan’s whaling in Australian Antarctic waters is illegal._"


----------



## jzmtl (Jan 8, 2010)

Josey said:


> The Sea Shepherd crew are environmental heros, defending the oceans from the destruction of corporate fishing and whaling fleets.



Somewhere somebody is saying the same thing about the guy who just tried to blow up a plane.

Sea shepherd is definitely doing a good job of turning moderate people against environmental causes.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 8, 2010)

DimeRazorback said:


> chickens, cows, pigs etc are *bread* by humans for food.


Actually, *bread* comes from wheat and other grains, which are normally quite safe even for vegans. Chickens etc on the other hand are bred for food. :twothumbs

But let's please stay on topic.

To give an idea of the power we're talking about, I got a local university to measure the power output of a 5 mW red laser pointer, and it turned out to be 4 mW. I worked out that was the same intensity of full sunlight. A 100 mW green laser will be 20-25 times the power of full sunlight. It will not be much dimmer over the distances we're talking about, and it's being wielded by people who seem to not have a clue about what it is, let alone the damage it can do.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 8, 2010)

TorchBoy said:


> Actually, *bread* comes from wheat and other grains, which are normally quite safe even for vegans. Chickens etc on the other hand are bred for food. :twothumbs







What can I say?
I was thinking about a chicken sandwich at the time.


----------



## Vesper (Jan 8, 2010)

By the looks of that boat and the frigging lasers I think the Sea Shepherd club desperately wants to be Klingons ala Star Trek 4.

The whaling ship gunner should grab his eyes, scream, and 'accidentally' fire a harpoon into the side of that thing. Now THAT would be great reality TV.


----------



## MCFLYFYTER (Jan 8, 2010)

This whole situation is hilarious. This reminds me of the time I failed to run a semi off the road with my moped. I don't know why that captain was not scared.


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

DimeRazorback said:


> Here is a link from 06.
> 
> A small extract:
> 
> "_Japan is allowed to conduct "scientific whaling" under the International Whaling Commission rules and carries out part of this whaling in Antarctic waters over which Australia claims sovereignty. Under Australian domestic law (the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or EPBC Act), whaling is prohibited in any Australian waters. So as a matter of Australian law, Japan’s whaling in Australian Antarctic waters is illegal._"


 
Thanks DimeRazorback, was the ship actively whaling in Aussie waters? If so the Aussies should pursue justice IMHO.

Although it appears there is some question over Australia's claiming of Antarctic waters?

From the link..."However, a number of countries – including Japan – do not recognize Australia’s claim to Antarctica and Antarctic waters and so the position at international law is unclear. This does not mean Australia can’t attempt to enforce it’s own laws against nationals of other countries, however the federal government has declined to enforce the EPBC Act against Japanese whalers. ...."


----------



## Josey (Jan 8, 2010)

Japan's claim to kill whales for scientific purposes is an obvious and blatant lie. If you choose to believe that lie, fine, but then please tell us what scientific advance has Japan's commercial whaling, which does little but direct whale flesh into commercial markets, discovered? 

The facts remain: Environmentalists have not harmed any of the cruel, brutal and illegal Japanese whalers, but the environmentalists have been murdered and their ships destroyed by the pro-whaling community.


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

Josey said:


> The facts remain: Environmentalists have not harmed any of the cruel, brutal and illegal Japanese whalers, but the environmentalists have been murdered and their ships destroyed by the pro-whaling community.


Please link me to where whalers murdered them, second request.


----------



## McGizmo (Jan 8, 2010)

Beam,
If you could stomach watching some Green Peace videos on line, I believe they have the real scoop on the IWC and Japan's "research". As I understand it, there is still a moratorium on whaling but Japan uses a loophole stating that they are taking the whales for research. I saw some translated footage of some Japanese discussing their position and and they claim they are studying these whales they kill to get an idea of the antartic's ecosystem in hopes of understanding sustainable whaling potential. In an interview with someone on the street in Japan, the person stated that they had eaten whale meat in school but it was a long time ago and they doubt they would eat it again because it is a delicacy (presumably too expensive?).

Some of you clearly consider whales as a source of food and nothing more. This is an understandable position. Some cultures would look at your pet dog and consider it a great and viable meal. This is also understandable. It may not be acceptable to you but it is understandable.

For those who have no feeling or compassion for animals or pets, I doubt I can get you to consider the fact that some people love and respect certain animals on this planet, edible or not, with the same feelings as many of us have towards our pets. For those of you with a pet cat or dog, would you be willing to go in harms way or perhaps inflict some harm on someone intent on killing your pet? Don't hide behind laws here because laws are brought to be in order to establish rules agreed upon and reflect our reason and feelings but where do these feelings come from and are we justified in having them?

The SeaShepherd group may be incompetent as seafarers and they may be acting beyond what many consider reasonable but they are down there attempting to save whales from being killed. They are down there knowing that they do not have much support but realizing that the whales have even less. These people care about whales and are willing to put their lives on the line. Call them what you will.

*EDIT:* I have suggested this elsewhere but for any of you interested in Japan and whaling and any of you who can relate to viewing an animal beyond how it might taste, I highly recommend a film called The Cove. It illustrates a whole bunch of interesting aspects of present day governments, international agencies, lack of full disclosure and basically how civilized some of us are.


----------



## B737Driver (Jan 8, 2010)

I thought this thread was about laser use?


----------



## mossyoak (Jan 8, 2010)

jzmtl said:


> Somewhere somebody is saying the same thing about the guy who just tried to blow up a plane.
> 
> Sea shepherd is definitely doing a good job of turning moderate people against environmental causes.


 
Yep, I consider myself a conservationist, and participate in trail cleanup days, and catch and release fly fishing using barbless hooks, I hunt, and kill deer to help regulate the population which is actually overpopulated in the area I live in. and when I kill an animal, I do my best to use all of it I can. 

These ______s are doing more to hurt the cause then they ever do to help.


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

Thanks McGizmo, I might not consider greenpeace a solid source for what laws/treaties/etc ban whaling.
I find the idea of wholesale commercial whaling horrible.
The Japanese have been whaling for centuries IIRC and perhaps much like salmon fishing restrictions and the cultural/historical reasons why native Americans do not have to abide by them, could the Japanese be arguing the same reasoning?
It should be regulated at a minimum IMHO.

I can respect someone who risks their life for an animal if they are using real law and common sense, but I respect with greater fervor those who risk life and limb for people/freedom.

Can someone tell me if whalers murdering these environmentalists is true?


----------



## IMSabbel (Jan 8, 2010)

Ah, the japanese and their "research" whaling.

I found it really funny that they are not even able to sell the meat because it tastes so bad, thus ending up forcing children to eat it in school cantinas which get it for free...


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 8, 2010)

B737Driver said:


> I thought this thread was about laser use?


 
Lasers used on a Japanese whaler by those who oppose whaling, that is why I would like to further discuss the legalities and morality of it.

McGizmo is an excellent Ambassador for our mammal friends under the see, I remember discussing some of his experiences face to face and seeing the pure joy and reverence he felt for them, it was quite riveting so I respect his views on this matter, hell I envy the guy for living in a paradise that allows him to not only swim up close and personal with these majestic creatures but also for the awesome pictures he gets.


----------



## RyanA (Jan 8, 2010)

Josey said:


> Not me.



Not sure if you like soy, but here's some fresh irony.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/soy121903.cfm

Seeing the show, Watson does not seem to be the sort of person who should be in charge of anyone. Narcissistic personality disorder comes to mind.
As far as the ramming, it is not really possible for a ship to remain "stationary" as it will drift. Larger ships have the right of way. Saying that they were going to foul another ships prop is not really a valid defense. That kind of idiocy could get a lot of people killed.
All in all this kind of behavior is the kind of thing that winds up getting lasers banned for import and possession, just like the people shining them at planes and cars.
The money spent on the sea shepherds' campaigns would likely be more effectively spent in different avenues such as legal or political.


----------



## CajunJosh (Jan 8, 2010)

I'll keep my personal opinions about whaling and the Sea Shepherds out of this post since it's supposed to be about the use of lasers. 

Is the use of the laser pointer or protonic disruption device moral, ethical, or appropriate? 

Well you can't start this thread expecting to discuss morals or ethics without expecting to hear personal opinions. The laser is just a piece of equipment, how someone chooses to use it is going to be based on their own morals or ethics and obviously there are two different sides to this issue which are going to be discussed. 

You really can't even go into the realm of legality because obviously no major power wants to touch the issue with a ten foot pole, hence the fact that no countries navy has stepped in and taken sides.

So is the use of the laser appropriate? I don't see a problem with their use of the laser, again regardless of my opinions of whaling. The group is using less than lethal force to try and stop whaling (proper fowlers, chemicals, flare guns, and now lasers). I would rather be hit in the face by a laser than shot by a bullet.

I only know of what I've watched on Whale Wars but just from that knowledge I know that the Sea Shepherds made the first aggressive actions by throwing chemicals on the whaling ships and trying to disable their propulsion. The whalers responded with the use of acoustic weapons and throwing blunt objects, now the Sea Shepherds respond by using lasers. 

All forces used up until this point have been less than lethal including the laser. If they were using some 1000 gigawatt laser to incinerate the whaling ships and crew that would be different.


----------



## fyrstormer (Jan 8, 2010)

McGizmo said:


> For those who have no feeling or compassion for animals or pets, I doubt I can get you to consider the fact that some people love and respect certain animals on this planet, edible or not, with the same feelings as many of us have towards our pets. For those of you with a pet cat or dog, would you be willing to go in harms way or perhaps inflict some harm on someone intent on killing your pet? Don't hide behind laws here because laws are brought to be in order to establish rules agreed upon and reflect our reason and feelings but where do these feelings come from and are we justified in having them?


If someone were trying to kill one of my cats, I'd kill them as soon as look at them. Cats aren't humans, but they are people. They possess all the same basic behaviors and personality traits as humans, just not all as developed or pronounced as they are in humans. Then again, any cat in the world can be dumped off in a field and not starve to death, so they have their own evolutionary priorities. I have never had a cat that I couldn't relate to the same as a human (not counting abstract reasoning skills, obviously), from the cat when I was an infant who guarded me like I was his own offspring, to the siamese cats I had a few years ago who'd come running down the stairs when I got home every day and demand to be picked up and hugged and who would bring me squirrels when I was sick so I wouldn't starve. It is not at all difficult to divine the basic outline of any animal's personality if you just pay attention to its behavior -- and to your own, which is what the animal is reacting to.

One of the most fundamental problems with human society is the sheer number of people who don't bother trying to relate to anything in the world that is different than them. I have to seriously question who the Japanese think they are fooling with the idea that they are killing whales for research purposes. We already know what the insides of a whale look like; what else are they supposedly "learning" from them that they can't learn while the whales are alive?

(don't say "whether they still taste good".)


----------



## brucec (Jan 8, 2010)

Non-LEOs purchasing and using "photonic disruptors" to pick a fight with other mariners in the Antarctic ocean is ridiculous. Deliberately setting lines to entangle the props of other ships should be financially and/or criminally penalized. Intentionally positioning a small boat in front of a large moving ship is just plain stupid. Regardless of Sea Shephard's motives, none of these tactics bring them any legitimacy in my book. If the Japanese are illegally fishing in Australian waters, then it should be up to Australia's navy or coast guard to enforce it (even using green lasers if they see fit), not a bunch of vigilantes on the Discovery Channel. I'm surprised that the crew of the Sea Shephard hasn't already been hauled in by police for orchestrating the intentional ramming of ships at sea, and on film no less!

Regarding whaling, I am against it, but at the same time I always find it interesting that the same people that protest these activities are the same people espousing things like partial birth abortions, which I also find to be a rather nasty practice. What can I say, I like whales and I like babies. I don't like Sea Shephard.


----------



## TorchBoy (Jan 8, 2010)

Josey said:


> The facts remain: Environmentalists have not harmed any of the cruel, brutal and illegal Japanese whalers,


Shining a 100 mW laser at them does not equate to not harming them, even if no permanent harm was done by that irresponsible and dangerous act.

And please, all, stay on topic, second request. The end still does not justify the means; take the whale saving, cat eating, whatever, to the Café where it deserves to be discussed. Thanks.


----------



## baterija (Jan 8, 2010)

Beam - Think there's some confusion because Josey spoke more generally about actions taken against environmentalists engaged in direct action campaigns like the Sea Shepherd. The Greenpeace boat Rainbow Warrior was sunk by French agents of the DGSE. That case is well documented. Two French agents even pled guilty to manslaughter and served time in New Zealand. It also has nothing to do with whaling. The French sank it to prevent interference with their nuclear tests.




CajunJosh said:


> The group is using less than lethal force to try and stop whaling (proper fowlers, chemicals, flare guns, and now lasers). I would rather be hit in the face by a laser than shot by a bullet.


 
Lasers of sufficient power are pushing close to if not into the territory of what's generally considered to be deadly force in the US. Deadly force being that which is likely to cause death or *serious injury*. Potential for long term loss or impairment of sight is a serious injury. (I've even seen references to handcuffs used by police if improperly applied being potentially "deadly" force because of the chance of permanent nerve damage in the hands.) From there its just a matter of how strong the beam is and how likely long term damage is if they shine it in your eye.

To me this seems like a step up the continuum of force - a definite escalation. No matter what any of our opinions are on whether it's justified versus the alternative, it's an escalation. It may not be a bullet but it certainly presents greater likelihood of serious injury than anything they used to date. From a strictly practical standpoint I see no benefit to the Sea Shepherd in using them unless they are hoping for an escalation they can use for PR against the whalers. That's the kind of PR that gets paid for in the blood of their own crew though. I'd bet the decision to purchase and use them was less cold calculation and more ignorant. Something along the lines of "Dude...cool...let's get some!"


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 8, 2010)

baterija said:


> I'd bet the decision to purchase and use them was less cold calculation and more ignorant. Something along the lines of "Dude...cool...let's get some!"


Based on everything else I've seen on the show, this is probably correct. While I support their cause, and feel the Japanese "research" is just a cover for commercial whaling, I abhor Sea Shepherd's tactics, and especially their general incompetence. I know they're all volunteers, but if you're going to go on the open ocean in one of the most inhospitable areas on the planet, at least take the time to acquire decent seamanship. From what I've seen, I wouldn't even trust most of the crew to take me on a cruise around Manhattan, never mind the middle of the Antarctic Ocean. They're no good to anybody, including the whales, at their current level of training. Perhaps if used properly, the lasers do indeed cause no long term damage. Problem is this crew doesn't seem to know how to do anything properly. I still remember the episode where they nearly lost their skiff while trying to launch it. :shakehead


----------



## Josey (Jan 8, 2010)

The use of lasers does push the limits, although I suspect -- but don't know -- the lasers they are using would not cause harm in those kinds of conditions.

But I do support Sea Shepherd. They are using civil disobedience as a tactic; and that tactic has been used in an honorable fashion for a long time. It used to be illegal for blacks to sit in certain parts of public buses or in restaurants. But activists challenged those laws by breaking the law. Opponents of civil rights said the same things about the activists then as people here are saying about Sea Shepherd: They have no right to break the law.

Our society is better for the efforts and sacrifice of principled people who engage in civil disobedience. But I still don't like the lasers.


----------



## s14kev (Jan 8, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> Based on everything else I've seen on the show, this is probably correct. While I support their cause, and feel the Japanese "research" is just a cover for commercial whaling, I abhor Sea Shepherd's tactics, and especially their general incompetence. I know they're all volunteers, but if you're going to go on the open ocean in one of the most inhospitable areas on the planet, at least take the time to acquire decent seamanship. From what I've seen, I wouldn't even trust most of the crew to take me on a cruise around Manhattan, never mind the middle of the Antarctic Ocean. They're no good to anybody, including the whales, at their current level of training. Perhaps if used properly, the lasers do indeed cause no long term damage. Problem is this crew doesn't seem to know how to do anything properly. I still remember the episode where they nearly lost their skiff while trying to launch it. :shakehead


 
Haha! thats the most hilarious thing i've seen all week. I can only say that since on one was hurt. Different matter if the outcome were different.

While I applaud their aims and intentions and strongly support the fight to stop whaling, Sea Shepherds approach borders on extremism. Extremism seems to follow animal rights activists around like a bad smell and does more harm than good. I recall an event a few years ago where i personally witnessed livestock being released (or 'freed') by animal rights activists in a non-rural setting. The result was chaos after a collision between livestock and cars. Similar stories have been told of non native animals being released in an area which go on to become a feral species and so forth. 

http://exposinganimalrightsgroups.blogspot.com/

But going back to lasers, since this is what we are discussing, at those ranges and without accurate tracking, permanent blindness may not be the end result but damage can still occur. It's just like the sun, stare at it for a few seconds and you may not become blind, but it still isnt good. Secondly, we do not know the situation of each individual sailor on board the whalers ships. Most are likely non-professionals, just doing a job and following orders. I wonder how many even like whale meat.


----------



## easilyled (Jan 8, 2010)

I think its extremely arrogant to put the value of a human life so much higher than *other* animals.

Yes that's right, humans are animals too despite all the religious drivel that some people use to try to pretend otherwise.

Humans are also by far the most destructive animals on the planet and are wiping out and destroying species after species, ecosystem after ecosystem and ultimately the planet we live in.

I'd have much more sympathy for the potential damage caused to the whalers by lasers, if they weren't perpetuating the cruelty and damage that humans inflict on the planet's other equally-important animals.


----------



## Unforgiven (Jan 8, 2010)

Sorry guys, but This has turned into a topic better suited for the UG. You may continue there.


Thread closed.


----------

