Beserk 2?

[Guest]

If you intend to depart a countries waters for another and make landfall of any sort, clearance is required.

 

That might be correct, but Jessica Watson left Australia with the intention of returning to the same port having crossed the equator twice and circumnavigated the world through international waters without making landfall anywhere. She was required to clear out of Australia and clear back in on her return.

 

If you are leaving the territorial waters of a nation to sail into international waters then perhaps you need to officially clear out of the country that you're leaving. Don't know .... it all gets a bit complicated really.

No requirement at all to clear customs & immigration if not intending to make landfall in another country but it is considered advisable to do so if there is a likelihood that you will need to clear into another country. Many commercial fishing boats fish for long periods outside the NZ EEZ but do not clear out (which is a bummer as they don't get duty free)

[Guest Crafty 1]

People with vested interests (in the maritime industry) have commented here with an obvious bias... and without all the facts and or presenting the whole story.

 

Like i said previously and ignoring the 3 deaths debate (as we don't know the facs and who is to blame, and what his intentions are down there) this guy is doing less harm than the many other idiots down their cruising, working, and researching and while leaving a dirty foot print!

 

And as for having a permit or certification to travel down there well that would be an american security sham! ...

You really don't know sh*t do you? How about doing a little basic research before opening your trap about things you obviously know nothing about. American Security Scam, pullease. Find out a bit about the Antarctic Treaty before you discredit yourself further. If it wasn't for your obvious total lack of credibility I would suspect you were a reincarnation STS amongst oothers. As it is you just come across as a mindless little troll who can't even offer decent advice on paint.

 

 

Sorry you feel that way but i think that is emotional crap trap.

 

The main thrust of my opinion, weather right or wrong, is to put into persective the earlier comments made on the thread about the "potential harm this guy would cause" from a Envirometal and personal saftey viewpoint.

 

 

 

yes i may know little about the treaty (and how the countires signed into it operate within the treaty and out side of it) but i do have the sense to see that this guy is a small problem compared to the peope who have caused more harm before him down there. But hey you keep defending you're corner

 

However If you and Grant are the experts then go ahead and knock yourselves out

 

As for the STS and Paint comments well i don't understand what that means

 

The tone certainly came across as very Angry though

 

Have a nice day

[Guest Crafty 1]

Well the nanny state has got its knickers in a twist hasn't it.

Im supporting this guy because of the life killing mommy knows best attitude of the whinging greenies, swimming pool fencers that want us to live in a mollycoddled world and who think that we should all have our balls removed.

 

He's not allowed to go..... Oh dear oh dear what shall we do!!

 

I know, let's sit in our lounges and watch movies, get old and fat then die having done nothing in life.

 

The three crew who died I am sure were adults who chose to take a risk, sadly it didn't work out for them. I say let the guy go to Antarctica and complete whatever process he's started.

 

 

That is pure poetry.

 

I'm 120%, 26/ 8 with you motorbike....

 

 

But common sense ai'nt to common around here !....

 

The "treaty" say's a guy cant go down there to look around with blah blah bla..

 

But they (the treaty countries)sign off dumb arse cruise ships and fishing vessels that kill more and do more damage...

 

 

But according to Pederwell, i am a complete noddy about a dumb treaty!

 

well My moral stance on the enviroment is better than his defence of the treaty.

 

After alll..."its about , Marbo, the vibe.... "HOWS the Serenity"

[Guest]

So, you're both defending this glory seekers right to sail down there in an unsuitable boat, potentially lose it and degrade the environment, go on a boondoggle to the South Pole leaving a wake of fuel spills and litter (as he did last time) and have other country's workers clean up his mess and potentially risk there lives to save him? Nice. The fact that he's heading down this late in the season shows he doesn't really have a clue as to what he's doing.

Are you sure you're not Riviera owners?

[grant 40]

crafty do have a bowl on your head covered in tinfoil so the satellites can't read your thoughts?

 

I know that you know that they can do that, but don't going telling anyone else ok?

 

two things Grant...

 

Play the opinion and do not berate the person. Your post offered nothing more than a dispaly of average wit and poor taste.

 

and Maybe, just maybe, i, as others are, are just trying to be open minded, challenge the other sides opinions, (be the devils advocate to garner a more balanced discussion)and show that we are more open minded than someone like your self who's wages come from, and are influenced by, people in the maritime intustry.

 

by the way you are the only one to disagree via peronal insults on this thread. Which reflecte poorly on you

 

crafty my apologies, it was an attempt at humor that obviously doesn't meet your high standards.

 

Is it possible that i am not defined by my employment and may have an opinion of my own?

 

you initial comment about "the real story" amuses me because there seems to be a part of society that believe (the government (or whoever) have dark offices full of people planning to device and cajole the masses. This maybe be true but i have no knowledge of them and honestly most don't have the time or inclination (and unfortunately in some circumstances, the competence) to actually be that sneaky.

 

Sometimes things are just as they seem, and in this situation, I believe that is the case.

 

And just to be clear I am not an 'insider' on this case, I know pretty much the same as you do and was just passing on the initial request for info.

[Guest Crafty 1]

So, you're both defending this glory seekers right to sail down there in an unsuitable boat, potentially lose it and degrade the environment, go on a boondoggle to the South Pole leaving a wake of fuel spills and litter (as he did last time) and have other country's workers clean up his mess and potentially risk there lives to save him? Nice. The fact that he's heading down this late in the season shows he doesn't really have a clue as to what he's doing.

Are you sure you're not Riviera owners?

 

 

In a word YES!.. (and not just us two either)

 

for the following reasons...

 

1.he made a mistake before and knows he'e being wathced so is unlikely to do it again

 

2. If its good enough for bigger ships go down there (approved under the treaty) and rape and pillage the toothfish, catch fire, sink, ram the ice to bits, drill holes using Petrol powered equipment, explore for oil, cruise around the ice in massive private cruise ships and breakdown, pollute..... then this guy's is a bloody saint compared to the Approved HAvoc happening down there!

 

Whats a boondoogle... sounds bloody good!

 

Pederwell, I understand your arguement and the treaty, but the treat is an arse!

 

it's a "corporate" treaty in my mind used to justify the scientists, cruise ships, fisherman, who are exploiting the area. But if you have money or have someone high up the governmental food chain youcan get approved to go down there and exploit the environment. (cruise ships, Fisherman)

 

Take a look at Mt Everest. If you've got $$ and no brains you can buy an expert and climb it and leave all your tanks / rubbish behind. If you're poor, but experienced, and do it yourself and don't come to grief, and don't leave a mess behind. then "it's deemed as irresponsible!

[Guest Crafty 1]

crafty do have a bowl on your head covered in tinfoil so the satellites can't read your thoughts?

 

I know that you know that they can do that, but don't going telling anyone else ok?

 

two things Grant...

 

Play the opinion and do not berate the person. Your post offered nothing more than a dispaly of average wit and poor taste.

 

and Maybe, just maybe, i, as others are, are just trying to be open minded, challenge the other sides opinions, (be the devils advocate to garner a more balanced discussion)and show that we are more open minded than someone like your self who's wages come from, and are influenced by, people in the maritime intustry.

 

by the way you are the only one to disagree via peronal insults on this thread. Which reflecte poorly on you

 

crafty my apologies, it was an attempt at humor that obviously doesn't meet your high standards.

 

Is it possible that i am not defined by my employment and may have an opinion of my own?

 

you initial comment about "the real story" amuses me because there seems to be a part of society that believe (the government (or whoever) have dark offices full of people planning to device and cajole the masses. This maybe be true but i have no knowledge of them and honestly most don't have the time or inclination (and unfortunately in some circumstances, the competence) to actually be that sneaky.

 

Sometimes things are just as they seem, and in this situation, I believe that is the case.

 

And just to be clear I am not an 'insider' on this case, I know pretty much the same as you do and was just passing on the initial request for info.

 

 

Fair enough

 

If i can offer some advice?... my stance is not based on some ruling or treaty but the overbearing controll that certian people have over this peice of sea. (and many other things in life) But i (maybe wrongly) see people in the industry having a bias (so not to expose any "anti establishment" perception to their industry/bosses) to agree with the "rules and Reg's" without the foresight to see that the rule's favour some over others based on Money and "whom they might know" higher up the food chain)

 

After all how is this guy wrorse than the polluting fishing factories down there killing people sinking ships and raping fish? yet he is traked down, being monitored beyound belief, made out to pollute the whole ross sea area, and a killer who has 2 hostages he is about to kill any day soon!

 

Why are'nt these kind of extreme measures taken on the real idiots down there? The recent collisions, sinkings, strandings by the "legal guys" is 1000's times worse... but thats OK as they have sign off by the "management"

 

I also realise that my opinions are biased against these people whom i (and motorbike) feel are killing of the spirit of adventure for some people (regardless of history or motives) while allowing corporates / countries to line their pockets, while breaking the rules and damaging the environment and peoples lives faster than this guy in a little yacht.

 

Yes he may fail and break all the rules!... but his damage footprint is nothing compared to the other Legal vessels down there! and we pay to clean up their mess too!

 

So i (and others) do think the "dark office people" believe all the Paperwork, reg's and rule's and are payed to defend them regardless of the real risk as it relates to 3 guys in a 40' yacht.

 

I also accept your right to do this, but, the money and time spent on this guy while the big guys are "approved" to exploit this area totally bamboozles me.(and others i suspect)

 

enjoying the debate

[Guest]

2. If its good enough for bigger ships go down there (approved under the treaty) and rape and pillage the toothfish, catch fire, sink, ram the ice to bits, drill holes using Petrol powered equipment, explore for oil, cruise around the ice in massive private cruise ships and breakdown, pollute..... then this guy's is a bloody saint compared to the Approved HAvoc happening down there!

 

it's a "corporate" treaty in my mind used to justify the scientists, cruise ships, fisherman, who are exploiting the area. But if you have money or have someone high up the governmental food chain youcan get approved to go down there and exploit the environment. (cruise ships, Fisherman)

 

Please do a small amount of very easy research before you shoot your other foot. Your conspiracy mindset is not the usual crap we have to tolerate on this forum. It is usually used by more rational people.

[Guest]

I'm a great believer nanny State is out of hand in most places. I am also a great believer people have the basic right to do what they like but in doing so they must look after their own arse and knot expect to be a frecking loose unit at the expense everyone else.

 

Hey Crafty, Motorbike, etc, I reckon it's time we had a race. How about we start at the top of the harbour bridge heading south and redline the motors then see who is the 1st one to be a chicken sh*t poofter conformist by slowing below 200kph? If you have any balls lets make the start time 8.30am on a Wednesday morning to up the adventure and pushing the envelope levels.

 

Hey, we may die but it's our choice to be what many will call fuckwits isn't it and f*ck the rules, it's just nanny state squashing our rights as you say. Any who says we are fuckwits are obviously just part of the fun police so f*ck them all. Do we care if we take out a school bus full of kids, leave a massive opening for nanny State to go hard with new rules like all cars can now only do 20kph. must get a new WOF once a week, drivers get a relicense check once a month, cars will have to get $50K worth of extra safety gear fitted before they can go on the road? Na, f*ck them all, the poor socially minded sad fucker conformists they are.

 

Obviously a tad tongue in cheek with that bit, even if my KLR would stand a pretty god chance

 

But one example of what could happen should a 'f*ck the rules, it's only nanny state and the fun police being overly controlling dicks' mind-set set in. There does have to be lines drawn somewhere, as much as it does genuinely pain me to say. If knot for you and I but for the sake of the majority.

 

If these dudes want to go down there in a very obviously poorly planned trip (even putting the rules and regs aside) to a place they can't get too at the moment as the ice has closed it off, in a knot prepared boat, which I do know and think is somewhat marginal for the attempt (even if a great boat for going north in), trash a pristine environment and possibly kill more people so be it. But be aware it will very highly come at some cost to you, me, everyone else and all our kids.

 

I am currently in discussions with a dude re sponsorship for his attempt to do a very similar thing as these dudes are. I do regard him as a tad loopy mainly as what he is about to attempt just isn't my cup of tea but I do very much admire his balls for having a crack. The difference between the loose units and this dude is that he is mindful of others and any consequences that may come from his attempt. What he is doing to minimise potential fall out doesn't take much time nor money nor effort.

 

I'm all for adventure and envelope pushing, I try and do get a bit in myself a times. But there are times just going off half-cocked in the pursuit of wild stuff is plainly stupid for everyone. I'd suggest these dudes are plainly stupid, in many but knot all ways, and it will cost us one way or another. I try very hard knot to inflict my stupidity on others and I would like to think the favour is returned by others who want to push the boundaries. I'm knot feeling that from this mob in any way.

 

Article in the Herald this am. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10781794

 

This bit is interesting

Norwegian authorities had not authorised last year's voyage, or this one, as required by that country's law.

Any idea what that's about and how Norway rules fit into it all?

[Guest]

This bit is interesting

Norwegian authorities had not authorised last year's voyage, or this one, as required by that country's law.

Any idea what that's about and how Norway rules fit into it all?

Norway is an Antarctic Treaty signatory and under the treaty all citizens of treaty nations must abide by that country's laws including any treaty specific laws. As such, any treaty specific violations would be prosecuted by Norway, not NZ. If Norway failed to prosecute an obvious violation by one of its citizens then the other treaty nations would have a bit to say about it.

[Guest Crafty 1]

2. If its good enough for bigger ships go down there (approved under the treaty) and rape and pillage the toothfish, catch fire, sink, ram the ice to bits, drill holes using Petrol powered equipment, explore for oil, cruise around the ice in massive private cruise ships and breakdown, pollute..... then this guy's is a bloody saint compared to the Approved HAvoc happening down there!

 

it's a "corporate" treaty in my mind used to justify the scientists, cruise ships, fisherman, who are exploiting the area. But if you have money or have someone high up the governmental food chain youcan get approved to go down there and exploit the environment. (cruise ships, Fisherman)

 

Please do a small amount of very easy research before you shoot your other foot. Your conspiracy mindset is not the usual crap we have to tolerate on this forum. It is usually used by more rational people.

 

So i take it everything else i said in the 2 previous posts was allright and only the two parargraphs you disected from my post you take issue with.

 

 

Pederwell, there is plenty of crap on this and all forums so your statement has no truth nor substance and is more emotional crap trap!, also i find you're berating of me and selecting only parts of a whole post, and taking them out of context as irrational and as crappy as the things you blame me for.

 

The only conspiracy theory is in your own mind and i will not make a judgement on that!

[grant 40]

If i can offer some advice?... my stance is not based on some ruling or treaty but the overbearing controll that certian people have over this peice of sea. (and many other things in life) But i (maybe wrongly) see people in the industry having a bias (so not to expose any "anti establishment" perception to their industry/bosses) to agree with the "rules and Reg's" without the foresight to see that the rule's favour some over others based on Money and "whom they might know" higher up the food chain)

 

 

If I may return some advice to you... If i post on here it will either be some factual material (whether your believe or not) if relevant, or my opinion that i hold, not necessarily "the party line". I'm not on here representing my employer, and if i was i would be very clear about that.

 

If you thought my attempt at humour was an insult, in reply it appears you have either just suggested i lack integrity or am a simpleton that cannot form my own opinions,

 

It does remind me of an unPC quote about arguing on the internet being similar to competing in the special olympics...

 

anyway, regardless of that

 

in relation to the time & money spent on finding the yacht, I get the impression there is a perception the aircraft flight was specifically for him. As far as i know (opinion only here Crafty) the airforce do regular patrols all around the coast, i expected that they just got the info that this boat was being looked for and the general area and it was part of their normal patrols, the other siting was by a fishing boat so i assume there was also some info broadcast to large commercial vessels, to my mind not actually huge resources, just making use of what is already around.

[Guest]

So i take it everything else i said in the 2 previous posts was allright and only the two parargraphs you disected from my post you take issue with.

 

 

Pederwell, there is plenty of crap on this and all forums so your statement has no truth nor substance and is more emotional crap trap!, also i find you're berating of me and selecting only parts of a whole post, and taking them out of context as irrational and as crappy as the things you blame me for.

 

The only conspiracy theory is in your own mind and i will not make a judgement on that!

Wrong, everything you say seems to be garbage, I just highlighted some of the more obvious conspiracy nonsense you spout. Exploring for oil??? Please give me a break, and as I said, do a bit of simple research before you prattle on.

I post factual information based on my experience of Antarctica and where I post opinion I constantly try to state it is just that. You on the other hand only seem to have uninformed opinion to base your posts on and as you take an extremist view then I can only assume you are either a tinfoil hat wearer or a rather ineffectual troll.

[Guest]

With due respect to your experience on the ice as I have none, I'm actually defending your right to go to Antartica, and you are making some pretty bold statements that seem to come from moral indignation. First you make an ad hominem attack on the man, and then suggest he will make a mess, lose his boat, suggest he is going pollute the entire southern ocean and continent, furthermore you state that others will risk their lives to save him.

 

There s lot going on in your head isn't there, that hasn't actually happened?

 

Gerry Clark sailed , a Nova bilge keeler around the continent, so I think a 55 foot steel Mummery will get at least that far. As for waste and fuel spills- well How much impact can one small yacht and a few people really have?

 

Whats on the table here is the fight between the safe sanitised world and the more dangerous free one

It has actually happened already on their last jaunt down there. Fuel spills and litter left behind for others to clean up, people risking their lives to search for the crew. Even without an EPIRB they will be monitored and the permanent SAR crews down there will be obliged to risk their lives to rescue them if they get in trouble (which IMHO they probably will).

As for the impact of one small yacht, that's a facile question. Do you throw plastic over the side of your boast because individually it makes a small impact? We're talking about an environment where things don't rot or degrade and where the legitimate inhabitants are bound by a strict set of environmental protocols which even require them to sh*t in a plastic bag in the field and bring it back with them for processing.

[Guest Crafty 1]

Your argument is dumb. How is this guys pollution potential any comparison to what has recently happened with fishing vessels. Just the fuel burn of rescue ships is more than this guy will ever produce if he sinks ten boats down there. You argue symantics and MB and I will talk reality...

[Guest]

Your argument is dumb. How is this guys pollution potential any comparison to what has recently happened with fishing vessels. Just the fuel burn of rescue ships is more than this guy will ever produce if he sinks ten boats down there.

I'm sorry but that dumb call is dumber. Why even let the situation develop where a cock-up could happen in the 1st place. If the dudes respected the rules and the environment they wouldn't be there to trash or have to be rescued at all.

 

Your argument is no different than saying it was perfectly fine for SCF, Capital Finance and a few others to rip off piles of NZers as Blue Star had already done it.

First you make an ad hominem attack on the man, and then suggest he will make a mess, lose his boat, suggest he is going pollute the entire southern ocean and continent, furthermore you state that others will risk their lives to save him.

I think P has the full right to suggest that as the dudes do have a 100% success rate in doing exactly that.

 

Whats on the table here is the fight between the safe sanitised world and the more dangerous free one

In some minds, a little being in my own. But also in mine in a bigger way and probably mosts, it's more one of some fuckwits highly likely to add to any ecological trashing, giving bureaucracy a good reason to get bigger and in doing both f**king it for you, me and our kids.

 

What these dudes want to do can be done just the same but without the antagonism they have generated. Sure it may cost a couple of bucks more but then they could have left without many thinking they are just selfish dickheads on some ego trip.

[Guest]

Your argument is dumb. How is this guys pollution potential any comparison to what has recently happened with fishing vessels. Just the fuel burn of rescue ships is more than this guy will ever produce if he sinks ten boats down there.

I'm sorry but that dumb call is dumber. Why even let the situation develop where a cock-up could happen in the 1st place. If the dudes respected the rules and the environment they wouldn't be there to trash or have to be rescued at all.

 

Your argument is no different than saying it was perfectly fine for SCF, Capital Finance and a few others to rip off piles of NZers as Blue Star had already done it.

First you make an ad hominem attack on the man, and then suggest he will make a mess, lose his boat, suggest he is going pollute the entire southern ocean and continent, furthermore you state that others will risk their lives to save him.

I think P has the full right to suggest that as the dudes do have a 100% success rate in doing exactly that.

 

Whats on the table here is the fight between the safe sanitised world and the more dangerous free one

In some minds, a little being in my own. But also in mine in a bigger way and probably mosts, it's more one of some fuckwits highly likely to add to any ecological trashing, giving bureaucracy a good reason to get bigger and in doing both f**king it for you, me and our kids.

 

What these dudes want to do can be done just the same but without the antagonism they have generated. Sure it may cost a couple of bucks more but then they could have left without many thinking they are just selfish dickheads on some ego trip.

 

 

++1

[Guest Rocket]

You guys shouldn't come back in the next life as a trout as you seem determined to take the bait every time. I think you will find crafty1 has a familiar ISP or if not he has moved recently....

 

For what it is worth I think the voyage south is mad and all who are involved are utter plonkers. I am quietly confident the big guy will win in the end and that we will likely see a repeat of the last outcome. My only wish is that should that occur, the master perpetrator will be one of those "suffering" in order that there isn't a next next time.

[Megwyn 2]

the other siting was by a fishing boat so i assume there was also some info broadcast to large commercial vessels, to my mind not actually huge resources, just making use of what is already around.

 

It is on the maritime radio regular broadcasts.

 

M

[Chewing Gum 17]

That guy does seem to be a loose cannon. Heading down there again without proper preparation, regard for the ice conditions is not my idea of sensible.

Interesting to see the amount of vitriolic comment this subject has generated ! - I can see both sides.

 

This mummy state thing tho really bugs me.

 

I see Coastguard is calling for lifejackets to be worn at all times - again - after the collision yesterday. This is bollocks, you can't guard against every eventuality - it is more reasonable to weigh up the risks - which are minimal. How many wear lifejackets in their tenders ? Very few in my observation even though it is against the law.