Letter from BMP to Coast Guard re whale hunt

[Guest guest]

Rear Admiral J. David Spade

Coast Guard Commander

Thirteenth Coast Guard District

915 Second Avenue

Seattle, WA 98174

 

21st April 2000.

 

BY TELEFAX AND OVERNIGHT MAIL

Fax: 001 (206) 220-7265

 

Dear Rear Admiral Spade,

 

On behalf of Breach Marine Protection's world-wide membership, particularly

those who are U.S. citizens, and seamen from every country, we must protest

in the strongest possible terms about the actions of the Thirteenth District

of the U.S. Coast Guard.

 

As we already informed you on the September 8, 1998, BMP believes the

establishment of the 'Coast Guard Rule' that provides for an exclusion zone

around Makah whaling boats in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to

be in violation of several federal laws including the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and Marine Sanctuaries Act (MSA). We also believe the

enforcement of this 'Rule' is a blatant violation of the First Amendment of

the Constitution by denying whale advocates the right to engage in free

speech and to peacefully assemble and protest at the site of the killing.

But

as of the 20th. April 2000, the U.S. Coast Guard has escalated these

illegalities to a height beyond belief.

 

By a U.S. Coast Guard vessel running down a jetski in Neah Bay on that day,

and the ramming of another boat earlier in the week, the deliberate and

premeditated flaunting of the Inter-Government Maritime Organisation (IMO)

International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1977), to which

the U.S. is a signature, by vessels under your command has stunned the

maritime world. We will be sending a copy of this letter to the IMO asking

for action to be taken against you under these regulations.

 

In the following, note that the use of the word SHALL means that it is

mandatory under these Rules to do so. As you are well aware, the IMO

Regulations state categorically:

 

Rule 1. a) These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in

all waters connected therewith navigable by sea going vessels. b) c) d) & e)

all deal with exceptions to the Rules, but none of these sub-paragraphs

exempt your exclusion zone from IMO Rules and certainly does not exempt your

employee's actions.

 

Rule 2. a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner,

master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect of any

precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by

any special circumstances of the case. You are equally responsible with your

Government and your employees for their actions.

 

Rule 3. For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise

requires: a) The word " vessel " includes every description of water craft,

including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being

used

as a means of transport on water. b) The term " power-driven vessel " means

any

vessel powered by machinery.

i) The term " underway " means a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast

to

the shore, or aground. The jetski and other boat your vessel ran down is

covered by these Rules. So are your vessels.

 

Rule 4. Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight

and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing

conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and the risk of

collision. If you claim your vessel's captain did not see the vessels he/she

rammed, both you and him/her are still negligent.

 

Rule 6. Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she

can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped

within

a distance appropriate to the prevailing conditions. In determining a safe

speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account: a) By

all vessels: (ii) the traffic density.. (iii) the manoeuvrability of the

vessel (yours) with special reference to stopping distance and turning

ability.. If your skippers are so incompetent not to know their own vessel

well enough to avoid two other vessels in one week, it still does not

exonerate you from responsibility. If they are competent, their actions must

be deliberate.

 

Rule 7. a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate.. to

determine if a risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk

shall be deemed to exist. d) In determining if a risk of collision exists

the

following considerations shall be among those taken into account: (i) such a

risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching

vessel

does not appreciably change (and the range is decreasing); We must assume

that your vessels have compasses fitted and your crews know how to read

them.

 

Rule 8. a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances

of

the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the

observance of good seamanship. d) Action taken to avoid collision with

another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. e)

If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation,

a

vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing

her means of propulsion. By any stretch of the imagination, the term " good

seamanship " cannot be applied to the crew(s) of your vessel(s) who

deliberately ram boats or rundown power vessels.

 

Rule 14. a) When two power vessels are meeting on a reciprocal course or

nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve the risk of collision each shall

alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of

the

other. b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the

other ahead or nearly ahead.. c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether

such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act

accordingly. Even if you claim to be the stand-on vessel in these or any

other circumstances, if the other vessel does not conform to these Rules,

that non conformation does not exonerate you or your vessels from

responsibility to take avoidance action (Rule 17. a)(ii),b) d)). Something,

it seems, your vessels did not attempt at all.

 

Rule 34. a) When vessels are in sight of each other, a power driven vessel

underway, when manoeuvring as authorised or required by these Rules, shall

indicate that manoeuvre by the following signals on her whistle: -- one sort

blast to mean " I am altering my course to starboard " ; two short blasts to

mean " I am altering my course to port " .. etc. There are no reports from Neah

Bay to indicate your crews conformed to this Rule. Even the police, before

taking any action that may injure or endanger life as your crew did by

deliberately running down a jetski are required BY LAW to give due warning

of

their actions.

 

It seems to us that in your haste to carry out your Government's wishes to

placate the Makah Indian Tribe by allowing them to slaughter whales within a

Marine 'Sanctuary', the U.S. Coast Guard Thirteenth District has decided

that

they are above the law.

 

Yet another area the U.S. Coast Guard has acted illegally is that after the

harpooning of the gray whale on that day, your vessels still carried on

'protecting' the Makah hunt. Under the terms of the whaling permit issued to

the Makah, the following applies:

 

A whaling permit shall expire when any one of the following events occurs:

(1) the whaling team lands a gray whale;

(2) the whaling team strikes a gray whale but is unable to land it;

(3) the whaling team returns to port after a whaling expedition in which no

gray whales have been struck;

(4) the whaling team fails to initiate a whaling expedition within 72 hours

after permit

issuance; or

(5) the Council determines, for any reason, to terminate the permit.

 

'Strike' means any blow delivered to a whale by a harpoon, lance, rifle,

explosive device or other weapon which results or is likely to result in

death or serious bodily harm to the whale.

 

Under item (2) above, the permit expired when the whale escaped. This means

from then on, the Makah were hunting without a permit, with the Coast Guard

alongside as a accessory during in this illegal act.

 

The actions of your Command has brought a once globally respected Service

into disrepute. IMO involvement will hasten that slide. But as seamen, you

leave us no alternative but to report your District's appalling actions. The

U.S. Coast Guard built its reputation on saving life, not attempting to

kill,

nor protecting those that would kill. We are extremely saddened that the

actions of your Command has brought this Service to the depths it now

occupies in the eyes of the world.

 

We insist that you immediately instigate a public enquiry into your

employee's conduct of this past week and stop your bias towards the Makah

whalers forthwith. That way, you may yet do justice to the many thousands of

brave men and women that have served the U.S. Coast Guard so admirably in

the

past.

 

Sincerely,

 

David Smith

Campaigns Director

Breach Marine Protection

 

cc. Inter-Government Maritime Organisation