Green Peace!

[Kinebra]

Let’s get Green Peace involved? I can see their boats ramming the netters?

I'm serious what do you people think? Is that who we should align ourselves with as sports fishers? I'll make a $5000 donation to the cause if they can guarantee that they'll bring attention to the issue! They’ve done a great job with the high seas nets why don’t we get them involved in the Columbia? I’m sure just the talk of it will scare the netters not wanting that kind of wrath of that organization on their tails every time they make a set!

Who's with me!

[Craft of Smoke]

I think you may have had a little too much kine bra :smile:

[CARTMAN]

I a gree that they would hassle the netters. However they are a little to extreme for my taste. But something needs to change.

cartman

[HANDLINER]

Violence gets us nowhere.I willnot support anything that is going down that road.You will do more harm than good!

[fish boss]

I a gree that they would hassle the netters. However they are a little to extreme for my taste. But something needs to change.

cartman

If they had any in put in it there would be no sport fishing and no nets!

[CARTMAN]

fish boss, that is what i mean. The would rather we sportsman not bother the fish too.

Cartman(keith Fisher)

[BloodNtheboat]

Ask green peace what their stance is on sportsifhing, hunting, trapping, riding ATV's driving cars everyday.
You will soo find ot that theese people are vrey extreeme.
There are better ways to go about theese kind of things than putting it in the hands of enviromental extreemists.
Brian

[AnnaDraMoss]

only if you think these (potimouth) will help you runout the sealions in the spring. and then again i still cannot tolerate this group.

[Ethical hunter]

only if you think these (potimouth) will help you runout the sealions in the spring. and then again i still cannot tolerate this group.

They are more into saving marine mammals of any sort than fish.

HB

[RvW]

I dont intend to hijack this thread, but there is a relevant point to make.

Global warming is REAL
Erosion is REAL
Massive amounts of aquatic polution is REAL
Air polution is REAL
Overharvesting of marine food animals is REAL

Greenpeace: Extremists?
How exactly would you label the people responsible for the list above?
I guess anything more than sitting around complaining is considered extreme these days eh?

I'd like to know how any one person here (who might decide to get off thier butt and actually do something) expects to CHANGE any of the things listed above WITHOUT being "extremely" confrontational (or associating yourself with a group as such)

Subtle and passive wont get anyone anywhere with these issues, and even the "extremists" (if youre naive enough to label greenpeace as such) show poor results for thier efforts in most cases. But thier ability to raise public awareness through the press with so-called extreme behavior has a recognizable possitive effect on legitimate causes. Too bad the media and critical passive public would rather focus on the behavior of individuals in an outspoken group rather than the issue itself.

If you want to change something as common and IGNORED as polution, or overharvesting, (or the negative impact on non-target species from gil-netting and other mass-harvesting practices) You HAVE TO BE extreme. Or the result is the same as doing nothing at all: AKA typing whatever critisisms you feel are popular into your web-box.

I applaud your effort Kinebra, obviously your serious about making an impact ($5k contribution to the cause)
Good luck, let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

Letters to our state reps is the only thing I can come up with. I have to be careful with in-person activism due to prior arrests for excersizing Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[David Johnson]

Those pukes are one step away from PETA, who would rather you not harm any fish or any thing else.

Greenpeace?
I personaly watched these people in action in the Antarctic for many years. Let them get a foot in your door and they will take complete control and take it to a radical extreme.

Don't Even Think About It!

[Bonneville Dan]

From the pan to the fire. No thanks.

I guess anything more than sitting around complaining is considered extreme these days eh?

I'd like to know how any one person here (who might decide to get off thier butt and actually do something) expects to CHANGE any of the things listed above WITHOUT being "extremely" confrontational (or associating yourself with a group as such)

R v W
Whether involving Greenpeace is a good idea or not getting involved yourself is a good idea

[WaterSkeeter]

Since I am not willing to live in a cave and cook over an open fire, I would rather not involve Greenpeace.

[PGJPJ]

One major difficulty with our views on these types of topics is our diversity in opinions/politics. We are defiantly not a united group of individuals, and unfortunately our differences cause us to stand against each other in several ways.

For this reason, I would not recommend enlisting Greenpeace to help engage with this issue. Enlisting Greenpeace would be no different in my view then standing with the ACLU, or PETA, or the Taliban for that matter. Side with them and I'll stand against you in every way, and oppose you on every front. And I'm sure several others would feel the same way.

Greenpeace is definitely not the way to unite sport anglers.

[Chromaflage]

With all the other sport fisher groups out there, It's easy to see how divisiveness works against the sports anglers. How about an umbrella organization formed by sport fishers that draws together the resources of other organizations willing to participate.

How about:

Fishermen for
Equitable
Allocation of
Resources

A shock and awe campaign of letter-writing, emailing, phone calling, inundating the decision makers with pressure beyond belief. Of course it would take money, attorneys, marketing, organization, etc. Who knows? I'd like to hear from someone who knows what buttons to push.

(I'm sure that my ignorance on the subject is glaring - I just wanted to get the F.E.A.R. acronym in here )

CrF

[Water Ready]

Take a stand-----Awesome!
Include Green Peace---Nada, noway, uhn-uhn, Doh! Extreme Goobers with an agenda of their own. Don't get caught in thier CRAP :depressed:
Many more respectful groups out their to help the cause.
Happy Fishn' --------------~ <{{{{><

[PGJPJ]

How about:

Fishermen for
Equitable
Allocation of
Resources

A shock and awe campaign of letter-writing, emailing, phone calling, inundating the decision makers with pressure beyond belief. Of course it would take money, attorneys, marketing, organization, etc. Who knows? I'd like to hear from someone who knows what buttons to push.

I'm so in with F.E.A.R! That would be awesome!

[RvW]

One major difficulty with our views on these types of topics is our diversity in opinions/politics. We are defiantly not a united group of individuals, and unfortunately our differences cause us to stand against each other in several ways.

For this reason, I would not recommend enlisting Greenpeace to help engage with this issue. Enlisting Greenpeace would be no different in my view then standing with the ACLU, or PETA, or the Taliban for that matter. Side with them and I'll stand against you in every way, and oppose you on every front. And I'm sure several others would feel the same way.

Greenpeace is definitely not the way to unite sport anglers.

How ironic that you are associated with a group called sportfishers, therefore subject yourself to the image portrayed by that group which includes poachers and snaggers.

Fair to say thier behavior and ideals represent your own?

How equally ironic that the "pukes" of Greenpeace, with all its terrorist-like tactics of protecting >our< environment and natural resources has undoubtably done more possitives to protect fish habitat than you, me or anyone here will ever dream of doing.

Greenpeace is an organization with a reasonable agenda. They have, in association with other groups, forced both goverment and corporations having an effect on our environment to accept, respond to and acknowledge their own social responsibilites in a proactive manner rather than simply a reactive, and defensive arguement.

I think this concept has a long way to come before it catches on here.

[PGJPJ]

Sportfishers = snaggers/poachers?

Oh, I get it. Everyone that doesn't agree with you is a snagger. Well that's very enlightened of you...

[RvW]

Sportfishers = snaggers/poachers?

Oh, I get it. Everyone that doesn't agree with you is a snagger. Well that's very enlightened of you...

Geez, do I need to spell it out for you?

Try to follow me here.
Greenpeace is a proactive group. The actions of some do not exactly reprisent the groups standards of participation.

Sportfishers are a group. The actions of some in this group do not exactly reprisent the groups standards of participation.

Should I continue with this lecture, or has the analogy in my previous post become clearer to you?

No worries mate, theres still time to edit the silliness from your reply.

[lor]

My 0.02
In any movement, there will be a portion of that movement agenda which a majority of the population can agree with.
But there is always an longer agenda which doesn't materialize until the group feels it has sufficient power.
Most people, can agree that is probably wrong to senseless use animals such as mice, rabbits, cats, and dogs for experiments. For awhile this is what PETA seem to project, but lately we can see that the true agenda of that Organization is Veganism, not just for you and I, but also our PETS.
Personally, I don't know what Green Peace's agenda really is.

[freespool]

RvW, you brought up some good points.
But why do we want to bring in a outside group to fight our battles? When we are not doing anything about the problem ourselfs. We have over 8k members here on ifish, yet we can not make a good showing at a meeting. So now you want someone like Greepeace to do your dirty work for you?
How about joining NSIA? They know what the problem is, and they work their rearends off trying to fix the problem.
Or better yet, make the commitment and participate in the process, attent the meetings.
Sportfishers need to fight for their own cause, not let some outside group do it for them.
We need salmon and we need change



salmon hugger

[baltz526]

paying enviromental terrorists to bring attention to a fishing issue is very anti productive in swaying public opinion to end river commercial fishing

[freespool]

paying enviromental terrorists

Is that what Lars said?



salmon hugger

[baltz526]

no that is just a fact of public perception

[STGRule]

That's the problem with "Public Perception". The view depends on who's yard you're standing in and whom your tour guide is.

[RvW]

Baltz,
Environmental terrorists? Can you enlighten us to how youve come to that conclusion?

Bingo freespool. 8k members of IFish with 7950 "lurkers" when it comes to issues that require action to make change.


You wont read anywhere in my posts that aligning with greenpeace is a flawless idea, but it seems like it is the ONLY idea because sportfishers refuse to take advantage of their own strength in numbers.

Theres also the question of what the title sportfisher actually reprisents. All this arguing and passive protest of the gilnetters alotments of fish, coming from a group who wants the fish for themselves? Does anyone really think both sides can reach a satisfying compromise?

If anything, I think the presence of greenpeace is ideal in a situation where gilnetters want 10 fish, and sportfishers want 10 fish, but we all have to be constantly reminded that theres only 9 fish in the "dammed" river! (pun intended)

I honestly think the group known as "sportfishers" should either step away from the podium , or identify themsleves in a different way. Something along the lines of alternative consumers, self harvesters?

Commercial fishing is a business. Commercial fisheries SELL thier product. Is it fair that any legislation that favors the commercial fishing industry also limits the consumers oportunity of aquiring the product by other, or thier own means (such as fishing!) I may be all wet here, but this sort of rings to the tune of "microsoft" doesnt it?

I'd prefer to provide myself and my family with salmon aquired by my own means. Yet buying commercially caught salmon is so much cheaper and easier than equiping, and licensing myself to catch a supply of fish that with current regs does not meet my own demands.

Condemning greenpeace is pathetic when you think about it. Obviously the consumption of fish is never going to cease, which many naively and laughably think greenpeace or even PETA expects to see come to fruition.

But this group known as greenpeace is a train with momentum that is headed in the right direction (albeit thier destination is beyond ours) Why sportfishers wont jump on that train is well beyond my comprehension.

Environmental terrorists? How incredibly uninformed!
Some people prefer to jump on a bandwagon that travels in circles powered by fiction I guess.
At least greenpeace, and gilnetters lay down tracks to a destination. What do sportfishers do?

[freespool]

Bingo freespool. 8k members of IFish with 7950 "lurkers" when it comes to issues that require action to make change.

Row Vs Wade, make that 7990 lurkers.





salmon hugger

[Taylor's viewpoint]

"Greenpeace is a proactive group".

So is the Earth Liberation Front. Do you agree with their actions also? Both are extremest groups.
TV

[freespool]

"Greenpeace is a proactive group

Northwest Steelheaders and Northwest Sportfishing Industry Assoication are also proactive groups that specialize in sportfishing issues. I do not see Greepeace taking over for these sportfishing action groups.
My money is on NSIA, they are clearly doing the heavy lifting, when our right to angle is in jeopardy.



salmon hugger

[David Johnson]

I'd like to think of myself as an alternative consumers and self harvester but also a sportsman as I like to <font color="blue">play with my food </font>
:grin:

Yes Freespool, my money is on NSIA too. They are proactive and have moved in leaps and bounds for our industry.

Kinebra, it was a good thought, to try and get the nets out.

Whether involving Greenpeace is a good idea or not getting involved yourself is a good idea

True. It's also good to get invalved with a group that is going in the same direction. I've gone to some ODFW meetings when most of the speakers are all bringing up one point and then some guy gets up there and starts talking about some crack pot other option or even talking totally off the subject. (like at the commercial allocation meeting and then some guy starts ranting about seals...)

That's the problem with "Public Perception". The view depends on who's yard you're standing in and whom your tour guide is.

So true. He who has the best tour guide influences the most public.

its terrorist-like tactics of protecting &gt;our&lt; environment and natural resources has undoubtably done more possitives

I don't see how Terrorist tactics are possitive.

[RvW]

Sarcasm David. Show me terrorist tactics please. The references to greenpeace are so innacurate and profoundly fictitious its almost comical.

Both are extremest groups

Oh really? Not that it matters to my point, but could you provide some factual examples of how Greenpeace is "extremist" please, and how these so called extreme tactics have effected you in any way.

While your at it, could you show some examples of how whatever group you associate with has made equal or maybe more profound changes when it comes to our environment than Greenpeace has?


I am a contributing (formerly active) member of Greenpeace international. I take offense to being called extremist and a "puke"
Especially when my efforts and the efforts of other very reasonable people who have physically involved ourselves in making YOUR planet a better place to live, while many of you do nothing more than critisize and flame a group you know little or absolutely NOTHING about other than what you read here, and in a newspaper.

My very first effort with this group resulted in a leather tannery being forced to stop dumping chemicals into a river back east, which resulted in contamination leading to lead and mercury poisoning of people and fish. A dozen stand-in protests, constant lobbying, endless letters to the EPA and congress....Extreme? You should be THANKING me and greenpeace.

Im done with this rediculous conversation. It amazes me how many people in here have NO clue, and dont care enough to get one.

[David Johnson]

Oh really? Not that it matters to my point, but could you provide some factual examples of how Greenpeace is "extremist" please, and how these so called extreme tactics have effected you in any way.

How about blocking and harrassing the Indians up in Washington while they were trying to catch a whale?

It effected me in that I want them to get their whale.

A dozen stand-in protests, constant lobbying, endless letters to the EPA and congress....Extreme?

No, that's not extreme. I too have many times wrote letters and stood in protest of issues. Once I was told to "get a job" as I was standing with a sign on the side of the road. I laughed, she probably makes less than me....

Any way, letters and peacefull protests are fine. Ramming boats, causing damage to other peoples property etc are extream and done by pukes.

[RvW]

Greenpeace put their boats between the whalers boats and the whale. still questionable who did the "ramming"

[BloodNtheboat]

Well said David.


R Vs W

Global warming is REAL
Erosion is REAL
Massive amounts of aquatic polution is REAL
Air polution is REAL
Overharvesting of marine food animals is REAL

No one is arguing with you here,
There are better ways than greenpeace.
Greenpeace has no interest in sportfishing, and could care less about fishermans rights.
All I am saying is that if you want good results that do not put a damper on sportfishing, greenpaece is not the group for us.

[RvW]

What is it that is so hard to understand about this?

Who asked greenpeace to come to the aid of sportfishers?
Nobody.
Are sportfishers so blind that they cant see how greenpeace, with a bit of encouragement could have an effective voice in the gilnetter controversy, thus benefitting sportfishers indirectly?

People think its a shameful thing to associate themselves with greenpeace, so far, this claim is unfounded here.
If you hunt bear and use a dog, does that make you a dog?

If sportfishing is your encouragement to right a wrong with gilnetting, use greenpeace to confront the issue. Trust me, only the ill-informed short-sighted will call you a "dog"

Or a puke.
Or a terrorist.

[Ethical hunter]

How about blocking and harrassing the Indians up in Washington while they were trying to catch a whale?

It effected me in that I want them to get their whale.

I wanted them to catch their whale as well. The group that participated in the major harrassment activities during the Makah gray whale hunt was "sea sheppards" led by Paul Watson - not green peace.

HB

[RvW]

Bravo Balczak!

Someone interested in the truth!

I knew very well that greenpeace was not directly involved in the gray whale incident. My reply to DJ further feeds the misconceptions, I was hoping someone would elaborate on greenpeaces involvement. To prove a silly point I guess.

Watson was one founder of Greenpeace, but the group banished him in the late 70s because of his violent tactics.

Imagine that, Greenpeace banishing one of its own founders due to acts of violence.

Terrorists?

I wanted them to catch their whale as well.

Why? Where you on the "preserve the cultural rituals" bandwagon too?

Kinda foolish knowing the Makah tribe had not hunted a whale since 1926 isnt it?

Not one of them knew what to do with a whale when they got it! An eskimo had to show them, and then half the meat ended up in the landfill because the tribes people wouldnt eat it!

[baltz526]

What is it that is so hard to understand about this?

read the poll results, 70% of us on this net do not think of greenpeace in a positive way and that is caused by their actions and our perception of the greenpeace flag flying over boats doing terrorist type actions on legal commercial intrests and indian whaling for example.my opinion is based on what i think the public impression would be of having greenpeace on the columbia harrasing commercial fishermen. it would turn out bad for fishermen and salmon/other fish.in other words bad politics and bad public relations.

[BCF]

Well said RvW and Stew. Kudos to Kinebra for addressing a problem in a constructive way. Recognizing a problem and seeking a solution by asking a question and listening to the input of others.

DJ shame on you for calling people who align themselves with causes or organizations with opinions different then your own "Pukes". That doesn't sound very "Christian" to me. We are not talking about ***** here. These are people who desperately care about the earth and the creatures that God created.They just don't have a voice or a keyboard to defend themselves.

Flame on Robin Rabiroff

[Ethical hunter]

Perception is everything. We sportfishers (self harvesters) have the perception that the gillnetters are in direct competition with us. Fisheries managers are well aware of this, how are they to take us seriously when it is obvious that we have an agenda - more for us less for the commercials. A unbiased organization that does not recieve a direct benifite from the gillnetters being banned is needed.

HB

[David Johnson]

OK, shame on me.

I should love those people. Being "Christain" is a process, not a perfection.

I'll refraze this. The things that extreamist do are
"puke-ish"

I'm sure I might love them if I met them. At least some of them. But I don't think I'll side with them or even like spending time with them becuase of what they do/beleive.

I'll still say that if they are doing harmfull acts they are acting like pukes.

When I see people, many Christians, protesting at abortion clinics I call them pukes too. And I'm opposed to abortion. I beleive there are other ways of doing things.

[baltz526]

That's the problem with "Public Perception". The view depends on who's yard you're standing in and whom your tour guide is.

public perception is ruled by the 5 second video clip of a greenpeace boat ramming or being rammed by a boat with anybody doing a legal occupation. be it whaling, walrus hunting,oil drilling. and my tour guide was hung on a cross and speared in the side while one of his diciples denied he knew him.another sold him for 30 pieces of silver.

[RvW]

Perception is everything. We sportfishers (self harvesters) have the perception that the gillnetters are in direct competition with us. Fisheries managers are well aware of this, how are they to take us seriously when it is obvious that we have an agenda - more for us less for the commercials. A unbiased organization that does not recieve a direct benifite from the gillnetters being banned is needed.

HB

Youre absofreakinlutely right balczak!!!

But there isnt one group out there with the same momentum and clout as greenpeace (well, maybe the Sierra club ) so I elect greenpeace, who has a PEACEFUL agenda all thier own that would coincidently benefit sportfishers. We all KNOW and can take comfort that Greenpeace and PETA will fall short of their ultimate goal and fail at any efforts to stop "self harvesters" from catching and eating fish...dont we?

Maybe theres some nervousness in here because after commercial harvesters, guides and charters are next on PETAs list?

[BCF]

Ok , I can accept that Dave. But it is the tactics I think that you object to and not necessarily what they believe. Frankly I can't speak intelligently as to what anyone or group of individuals believes.

My perception is that Greenpeace's philosophy is rooted in environmental Protectionism as an ideal. I remember the early years of the organization brought public awareness to issues like;

The dangerous dumping of radio-active material in the Arctic Ocean which threatened to pollute the entire planet.

The hazards of Atomic energy.

The destruction of marine mammals as a result of incidental bi-catch from ocean netting operations.

The extinction of whales from the worlds ocean whaling fleets from all nations.

Frankly I don't see any of these as bad things to be aware of. In fact I am thankful that there are people willing to sacrifice for all of us and the creatures that God gave us "dominion" over.

I don't hunt, But I would if I had to. I do kill and eat fish. Although it is getting harder for me to justify doing so as the earths conditions seem to be swinging against their survival at this time on our planet. I desperately pray and desire a world that is at peace and in harmony with man and nature.

Maybe if we all remember that we all share these precious resources. It might teach us to be more tolerate of each others differences.

BCF

[David Johnson]

But it is the tactics I think that you object to and not necessarily what they believe

Yes, their tactics.

They have a right to believe anything they want.

[freespool]

Maybe if we all remember that we all share these precious resources. It might teach us to be more tolerate of each others differences.

Well said Robin. When are the fish coming?




salmon hugger

[STGRule]

and my tour guide was hung on a cross and speared in the side while one of his diciples denied he knew him.another sold him for 30 pieces of silver

Well, we have the same tour guide. We are just standing in different yards.

[KChookem]

Sorry to hijack the hijacked thread, but regarding...

Global warming is REAL
Erosion is REAL
Massive amounts of aquatic polution is REAL
Air polution is REAL

My philosophy, and motto, is: "It's not my fault" ... so here goes...

Re: Global warming - No My Fault! - It was them dyno-sores stomp'en around that caused the ice to melt (you know, the ice that covered about half the planet). They danced themselves to death, and now we suck up their blood and guts, and put it into our motor vessels (boats), so we can play with, and sometimes kill, things that have not done us any harm (well, except for sharks, crabs, and that whale in Moby Dick's book).

Re: Erosion - Not MY Fault ! Blame it on the gods of wind, rain &amp; gravity (did you know that one day, the entire planet will be flat?). Of course man had a hand in this too - I blame it on farmers tilling the soil (now we're back to them pesky gods of wind, rain and gravity). I'd like to get involved to ban farming, but then Willie (Nelson) would be too busy to sing for us, and I like potaters.

Re: Massive amounts of aquatic polution ... DeFINatley not my Fault - I've done my best to rid the waters of fish, but even if I were are good as the alpha-dogs (the 10%'ers), I could not do it. Course I have to be careful not to offend you "Ifishers", so I'm going to put most of the blame for aqua pollution on Seals, Sea Lions, and the Portland Sewage Treatment folks !!! Oh ya, seagulls, ducks and geesse are pretty messy too.

Re: Air polution is REAL ...Duh... first it was radio, then telephones, television, cellphones, and now we are on computers - the air is full of this stuff and it hurts my head (fortunately, Tre Arrow is sending me back by aluminum foil hat and jacket).

In closing, let me sum this up by some words I remember from an intelligent man, Todd Knapp... (1) Ant Lions, (2) Bacon is the seared flesh of a murdered hog, and (3)... sorry, I can not repeat what Todd said when he found someone had defecated in the urinal.

[baltz526]

i absolutly beleive our yards are right next door to each other,with a very short hedge.

[Joe Schwab]

Baltz, Re. your post "public perception is ruled by the 5 second video clip of a greenpeace boat ramming or being rammed by a boat with anybody doing a legal occupation. be it whaling, walrus hunting,oil drilling. and my tour guide was hung on a cross and speared in the side while one of his diciples denied he knew him.another sold him for 30 pieces of silver."

I agree wholeheartedly and with regards to my next door neighbor, as long as he is obeying the law and not trying to burn down my house or destroy my property, I leave him alone. I do not try to force my beliefs on anyone and for some strange reason I have always believed in working within the law not outside of it. Imagine that!

[baltz526]

the poll has stabilized at 1/3 for 2/3 against. i believe this is more accountable to the publics negative perception of the tactics of green peace that we all see on the nightly news programs than anything we as a group know about the organizations true operating directive. i know in the past greenpeace has accomplished great thing for humanity in making hidden government actions known to the world and by so doing averted massive enviromental damage in more than one area of the globe we all live on. but in the last ten years i know they have been having internal struggles for power over the direction of the organization,(a house divided against itself can not stand) and durring this proccess their public image has been tarnished to say the least.have they solved these internal issues? i'm a fairly well informed person on international issues and i have no idea.greenpeace has always been an international enviromental group supported in a large part by donations from the entertainment industry in this country, and other members in a smaller dollar way.if greenpeace starts getting involved in a very local issue like gill netters in the columbia, i believe this would be a waste of their energies, drawing them away from major international issues that should be the focus of a group like this.

[freespool]

i'm a fairly well informed person on international issues and i have no idea.greenpeace has always been an international enviromental group supported in a large part by donations from the entertainment industry in this country

I do not not why, but this stuff just sucks me in like a vortex.



salmon hugger

Greepeace eco-terrorists?......don't think so
However they were the victims of state sponsored terrorism in 1985 Remember?

Twenty years ago, two French secret service frogmen attached mines to the hull of a ship owned by the environmentalist group Greenpeace as it lay anchored in a New Zealand harbor, and the explosions ripped large holes in it.

The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior before it could set off to protest French nuclear tests in the Pacific killed a Greenpeace photographer on board, provoking much embarrassment in Paris and the resignation of top officials.

Much has become known about the government's deliberate sabotage of the vessel thanks to the tenacious pursuit of the case by the French press. But Saturday, exactly 20 years after the operation, the newspaper Le Monde added another intriguing chapter by publishing what it called the account of the events written by the man in charge of the plan.

Adm. Pierre Lacoste, the former head of France's General Directorate for External Security, the French foreign intelligence agency, said in a 1986 report that he personally obtained approval to sink the ship from the late president François Mitterrand.

French press reports and books have previously said Mr. Mitterrand was informed of the operation in advance , but cited no sources. Le Monde has now published long verbatim excerpts from what it calls a 23-page handwritten report written by Admiral Lacoste that had remained secret until now and was never even circulated within the government.

The text provides a rare insight into the hatching of a secret operation, the plans for its deniability, the subsequent attempts to cover it up and, not least, the pleas of ignorance by high officials, including President Mitterrand himself.

Devoting an entire page to the affair, the story begins on the front page with a large cartoon of Mr. Mitterrand, dressed as a frogman, a snorkel on his head and a bomb under one arm, telling schoolchildren studying history: "At that time, only presidents had the right to carry out terrorism."

Le Monde does not say where it got the document, but Admiral Lacoste, now 81, has himself given several newspaper interviews in recent days.

His report says he discussed the plan with Mr. Mitterrand - it is customary in France that the head of the secret service reports directly to the president - in a meeting on May 15, 1985. "I asked the president if he gave me the authorization to put into action the neutralization plan (for the ship) that I had prepared at the request of Mr. Hernu," Mr. Lacoste wrote. At the time, Charles Hernu was the minister of defense.

"He gave me his agreement while stressing the importance he attached to the nuclear tests. I did not go into greater detail on the plan because the authorization was sufficiently explicit," Adm. Lacoste wrote

He said the plan he discussed with the defense minister involved a small explosion to make sure the crew left the ship, then a second, larger blast to sink it. While he was personally reticent, he said, he was urged to carry it out, obtained funds and informed other senior officials.

Afterward, he said, the top officials and the president denied any knowledge of it. "I would have never launched such an operation without the personal approval of the president," he wrote later in the report.

The sinking of the ship led to the arrest of two French secret agents, posing as Swiss tourists, in New Zealand, while the defense minister and Admiral Lacoste were forced to resign. France also paid large sums in compensation to New Zealand and to Greenpeace, which has since replaced the ship.

[baltz526]

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ this site shows what greenpeace is doing internationally, on multipal fronts. i have a question i would like everyone to ask themselves when you see the picture of the greenpeace ship sourounded by greenpeace outboard powered zodiacs, are these tactics good for their political image,or is it making them appear to be ecoterrorists.it is also nice to see them advertising the harry potter books.i wonder if the writer is a major doner.

[STGRule]

Probably not. The article is about buying an edition that is printed on enviro-friendly paper.

[baltz526]

watched a news report where jk rowling mentioned donating to greenpeace. supporting groups with her new money. when asked what she was doing with her new millions after being on the dole.

[RvW]

if greenpeace starts getting involved in a very local issue like gill netters in the columbia, i believe this would be a waste of their energies, drawing them away from major international issues that should be the focus of a group like this.

I agree there are far more important issues that Greenpeace could be addressing. I really have little faith that greenpeace would get involved in a local issue such as the gilnetters controversy. But a waste of thier energies?
Greenpeace isnt exactly a small group with extremely limited resources. With motivated people like Kinebra willing to monitarily support confronting the issue, momentum can be gained with a few others in the same position as he.

The "image" you speak of with the picture of the ship and the zodiaks is a valid observation, but imagine that ship simply docked in the columbia somewhere. promoting PUBLIC AWARENESS!

As you point out baltz, the majority of the confusion, bickering and animosity created by mentioning the word "greenpeace" is caused by ill-informed, presumptuous people who know very little about the organization, and assume it to be extreme, criminal, harmfull to people and property or share any semblance to the likes Of ELF or PETA My point of posting in here is: 1) to say if this really IS the publics perception of greenpeace that image is unfounded and quite naive!.... and 2) to suggest that it really doesnt matter what your motivation is to get involved, soliciting the help of organized, dedicated, and widely recognized groups such as greenpeace is a very valid idea that could encourage results far more productively than a few fishermen showing up at a meeting to get "gutted" by the gilnetters who are obviously far more organized.

Its quite revealing how so many people think greenpeace could only realize those results by "ramming" boats, or physically interfering with the gilnetters in action. So naive! Greenpeace comprises activists who take part in, and make HUGE waves by getting involved in the political process, public awareness etc and they leave no stone unturned, and no expense spared when it comes to studying the cause and effect of environemntal hazzards. Greenpeace comprises very intelligent, highly educated, and admirably dedicated people who just happen to wear thier conscience on thier sleeve (which benefits ALL of us)
I cant begin to say how neauseatingly discouraging it is to see those with such outspoken opinions of the group assume that being an active member of greenpeace requires nothing more than growing your hair long, limiting your wardrobe to hemp-only clothing and having a willingness to actively participate in some sort of fictitious eco-terrorist activity.
Is it arguable that the biggest victims of this shallow, presumptious, naive thinking.... are the shallow, presumptuous naive thinkers?

And so the gilnetting continues, while the sportfishers mutter thier discontent into the wind.