Of whales and men
Posted on | July 8, 2010 | 1 Comment
Live and let live is not a bad sort of maxim for the tolerant mariner, although he or she probably would distance themselves from the Norwegians, Japanese and citizens of the Faroe Islands in their enthusiasm for whale hunting.
But they will probably deplore equally the piratical tactics of some of the animal rights activists whose violent attempts to prevent the Japanese “research” whalers in Antarctic waters cannot possibly be justified.
But should great tracts of the oceans be fenced off for the pleasure of these enormous mammals, with mariners prohibited from them, or forced to take considerable diversions during the breeding season?
The question was raised recently by Captain Peter Newton, a regular correspondent to the London Daily Telegraph, in a “Letter to the Editor” that probably generated a lot of angry responses on his doormat. He makes the point that mariners never used to be forced to take such precautions and while it was a delight and a treat to encounter these huge creatures, it was rare for anyone to knowingly hit them with a big ship.
Speedboats, careering around the whales when they closed the land, I have been told, were more likely to blame for damaging them, but unlike porpoises, which actively sought out ships to disport themselves in the waves they generated, whales wouldn’t generally get close to large vessels.
It is a sensible point Captain Newton makes, but it won’t make him many friends in this age of anthropomorphism, when the US Navy is exhorted never to use its sonar lest the navigation systems of a whales’ brain become confused.
Who remembers the scenes of wild hysteria when a whale swam up the Thames, then breathed its last on a craft taking it back to the sea, with sobbing interviewees, queuing up at every available microphone.
And it is in the US, which is home to the most vociferous whale lobbies, that they have actually sought to regulate the hapless mariners who clearly deserve a lot less sympathy as they go back and forth on their comparatively unimportant mission to feed and fuel the world.
I know it is a hypothetical scenario, but one wonders whether a tanker master, who took evasive action to
avoid hitting a dozing cetacean, and impaled his ship upon a rock, would be able to plead extenuating circumstances in the subsequent criminal trial.
I only ask because I want to know.
Comments
One Response to “Of whales and men”
Leave a Reply
July 26th, 2010 @ 9:05 am
CRIMINILISATION – DOUBLE STANDARDS.
Increasingly seafarers face wanton criminal proceedings for incidents that are truly beyond their control. A whale hit by vessel engaged in feeding world trade is down to a number circumstance but not to deliberate action of part of either. This non-willful act by either party is generally accepted misfortune and one in which the whale will likely pay the ultimate price. On the other hand, deliberate harpooning is most definitely willful with the same outcome, the question is, is it legal, if so then to interfere with the process has to be illegal. This is not to say that someone taking action against a legal act may do so on moral or ethical grounds with impunity. However, action taken throughout history to champion causes against then legal activities changed laws.
The wanton act of overloading a container is one, which threatens the well-being and very lives of others. This is a chain conspiracy driven by greed, from the shippers, terminals, haulers and vessels owners with the latter two in the main ignoring the practice. Fear of losing customers is the reason given by haulers and owners for reluctance to charge extra for overweight boxes. Could it be to acknowledge overloading would also open Pandora’s Box? Road transport authorities set limits to on vehicle weights allowed on public infrastructure systems which would be to the embarrassment of haulers who are required to abide by them. It seems they accept the risk of apprehension, additional fuel, maintenance costs and increased pollution. Owners whilst in almost the same boat also have the dilemma of large numbers of containers entering the terminal to coincide with vessel sailing schedules, disruption of which can hit them in the other pocket.
To the point, consider incidents, whereby because of being overweight containers take away life, cause disability or environmental damage. Meting out criminal sanctions on those who are the root cause is the answer. After all, only by removal of the root cause will avoid recurrence. Prosecutions against the true perpetrators are therefore the answer. Unlike cases against mariners, before locking someone up, such prosecutions would require a trial with a great deal of evidence. This is where the law is guilty of allowing double standards by picking on easy scapegoats rather than seeking out true justice.
Jim Nicoll
http://www.newslinkservices.com
http://www.faceofshipping.com