Nilaya / Berserk Missing

[sabray]

high gloss I laugh wth you

[callmecrazy]

Originally Posted by sabray

high gloss I laugh wth you

Sorry, I assumed you were from the US.

[ice]

Originally Posted by minaret

If the insurance law requires the insurers to clean up any environmental impact.

The required insurance is search and rescue insurance - nothing to do with environmental clean-up.

Originally Posted by Last_Mutineer

He can't afford the insurance. It's that simple. Without the insurance, no permission.

He might have been able to make that argument back when he was sailing a 27'er. But the required search and rescue insurance is not that expensive. If he can afford the boat he just got he certainly can also afford the insurance.

Originally Posted by Last_Mutineer

When the Berserk went down last year, Andhøy was not in command. The Berserk left the anchorage against Andhøy and the crew's agreement and sailed into a storm. We don't know why. But we certainly know that Andhøy wasn't responsible.

The anchorage where Jarle left the boat was not an all weather anchorage - there are NO all weather anchorages in the Ross sea. It is open to the South and East, and they got a forecast for 60kts winds (with higher gusts) from the SE. Any prudent skipper would have left.



Jarle was the expedition leader and was responsible for the vessel, even if he was not on board at the time. If the backup skipper he left on board was not competent, that was Jarles responsibility.

Originally Posted by rognvald

If, however, I choose to explore the polar regions without government permission and accept full personal responsibility for my actions, I only endanger myself and my willing crew. Did I miss something?

Yes, you have missed several things:

Jarle's vessel required a search and rescue effort by others, both private and government.

Jarle himself required a government air-evac.

Jarle's actions have hurt the prospects of future adventurers. He has left bad feels and ill will all around the world with officials, who will now be less flexible and understanding with other sailors and adventurers. This has explicitly happened in the North West passage as a direct result of his scoffing at the law there.

He has now lost 2 vessels sunk and 3 crew dead, and is unwelcome in 4 countries.

He is not an island and his actions have had and do have an impact on others.

Originally Posted by Landkrabbe

- They were in such a hurry to cast off, that they brought along an extra man who was just below working on the anchor windlass and wasn't supposed to go with them. "We've got a stowaway" *

This will just cause more trouble - a stowaway with no papers will cause further problems and ill will where ever he ends up.

Right now the Ross is iced up and he must (or should) have known that before he left. So, in all likelihood this is just all for show and another movie.

[David_Old_Jersey]

The rumour I heard is that he's not going to visit Antarctica - he's gonna settle there, declare independence and then shake off the yoke of the colonial powers.

Freedom and Democracy is: one Penguin - one Vote .


That's the real reason folks want to stop him.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by ice

The required insurance is search and rescue insurance - nothing to do with environmental clean-up.



He might have been able to make that argument back when he was sailing a 27'er. But the required search and rescue insurance is not that expensive. If he can afford the boat he just got he certainly can also afford the insurance.



The anchorage where Jarle left the boat was not an all weather anchorage - there are NO all weather anchorages in the Ross sea. It is open to the South and East, and they got a forecast for 60kts winds (with higher gusts) from the SE. Any prudent skipper would have left.

Attachment 36604

Jarle was the expedition leader and was responsible for the vessel, even if he was not on board at the time. If the backup skipper he left on board was not competent, that was Jarles responsibility.



Yes, you have missed several things:

Jarle's vessel required a search and rescue effort by others, both private and government.

Jarle himself required a government air-evac.

Jarle's actions have hurt the prospects of future adventurers. He has left bad feels and ill will all around the world with officials, who will now be less flexible and understanding with other sailors and adventurers. This has explicitly happened in the North West passage as a direct result of his scoffing at the law there.

He has now lost 2 vessels sunk and 3 crew dead, and is unwelcome in 4 countries.

He is not an island and his actions have had and do have an impact on others.



This will just cause more trouble - a stowaway with no papers will cause further problems and ill will where ever he ends up.

Right now the Ross is iced up and he must (or should) have known that before he left. So, in all likelihood this is just all for show and another movie.

Attachment 36605

Now there's the truth! This is what I was trying to say before. I was a fan in his early days before the NW Passage, but all that thumbing his nose at authority will cost the rest of us. It might be a PITA to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops, but if people don't respect the laws of other countries when travelling, or the laws of their own, it starts to affect everyone who might be interested in that sort of thing. What seemed like good clean fun that was hurting no one but themselves in the early days starts to seem like a problem after a certain amount of time. It may suck that the world is not an entirely free place where people can do whatever they want with no rules holding them back, but that's just the reality of the situation. By ignoring that he's making it worse for the rest of us.

[Old Soul Wayne]

Really, does anyone have the right to adversly affect the environment. Gee, I feel like going to the Galapogos so I can fulfill my dream of eating a sea iguana. I also haven't enough money to pay for visa etc, so screw them them it is my right as an adventureer. There are many reasons for laws all of which have evolved to protect those unable to protect themselves ( in this case environment). The sad thing is some people think these actions should be allowed. Under some freedom act?
Cheers

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Old Soul Wayne

Really, does anyone have the right to adversly affect the environment. Gee, I feel like going to the Galapogos so I can fulfill my dream of eating a sea iguana. I also haven't enough money to pay for visa etc, so screw them them it is my right as an adventureer. There are many reasons for laws all of which have evolved to protect those unable to protect themselves ( in this case environment). The sad thing is some people think these actions should be allowed. Under some freedom act?
Cheers

Please don't be He's not going for killing whales or penguins there..

[Landkrabbe]

Originally Posted by rognvald

The "government group" has castigated Andhoy for his reckless, criminal behaviour (...) "adventurers of the human soul" have correctly pointed out the absurdity of this logic(...)

The adventurers of the actual Antarctic - as in the people who are actually there right now, or have been there - seem to be in your "government group" then. From what I've read some of them have been previously amused by Andhøy, but not anymore.

Originally Posted by ice

The required insurance is search and rescue insurance - nothing to do with environmental clean-up.

It's true that the Norwegian Antarctic regulations have a specific rule for SAR insurance (section 31), but section 10 and 11 also require that there has to be measures in place for clean-up at the end of activities and mitigation of environmental damage in case of accidents.

Originally Posted by ice

This will just cause more trouble - a stowaway with no papers will cause further problems and ill will where ever he ends up.

Hopefully it's for another movie yeah. I was more worried that they'd try to spend the whole winter there and run out of supplies because of an extra crew member.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Please don't be He's not going for killing whales or penguins there..

Well, he came close to killing a few endangered species on his trip to Spitzbergen, and was fined for that - so let's not rule anything out yet.

[callmecrazy]

Originally Posted by Landkrabbe

It's true that the Norwegian Antarctic regulations have a specific rule for SAR insurance (section 31), but section 10 and 11 also require that there has to be measures in place for clean-up at the end of activities and mitigation of environmental damage in case of accidents.


Well, he came close to killing a few endangered species on his trip to Spitzbergen, and was fined for that - so let's not rule anything out yet.

They application for pleasure craft travel to antarctica on the Norwegian Polar Institutes website (which by the way, is only 1 page long) only states that the group must provide a "contingency plan" for SAR emergencies, such as insurance. I think you may be referring to a different type 'regulation', maybe for commercial ventures or something. Tourist travel and cruising boats are not so heavily regulated as you're making it sound.

Also, Jarle was not fined for "coming close to killing a few endagered species", that is pure BS. He was fined for being in too close proximity to a polar bear. And this is what is being considered "kicked out of the country" or "not welcome" by many people on this forum. His problem in canada was because the one of his crewmates was a Hells Angels (norway) member and not allowed into Canada. it really has nothing to do with Jarle "giving the thumb" to government and all this other crazyness.

You certainly don't have to like the guy, or agree with what he does. But please stop spreading misinformation.

[Mr B]

This thread reminds me exactly of that round world racer,

Tony Bullmer, English sailor, Sorry, I dont remember his exact name, He sank two boats,

One was in the bottom of the Southern Ocean, It was at the extreme end of the flight distance of rescue planes from Australia,

He was in his over turned vessell for a week before he got saved by an Australian Destroyer That sailed specifically down there to rescue him,

But I suppose that was allright, He had the necessary paper work,

Does a bit of paper make all that much difference,

I will now run for cover, After opening this can of worms, Hahahahaha

[ice]

For anyone interested in facts, there is an official report on 'the Berserk incident', from the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting, June 2011. I think its posted at www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/ATCM34_ip018_e.doc

But if it's not still there, just google "The Berserk incident, Ross Sea" and you will find it.

The contingency planning and insurance discussion are focused on SAR.

Regarding the environment I do remember that he spilled fuel into the snow and water right near the reverse osmosis water intake for the Scott base and that the base crew later had to clean up after him.

Also if he had gotten to the pole he would have needed both medical help (for facial frostbite) had getting fuel to return to the coast (the commercial supplier of fuel he had contacted would not supply him when they learned the expedition had no permits).

Regarding the Canadian situation, Jarle was arrested and deported, not because he had Hell's Angles on board (which he did), but because he tried to sneak one of them across the boarder after already being told they were denied permission to enter. So he was deported for helping an attempt at illegal entry.

Regarding Svalbard, he was fined twice. Once (20,000kroner) for sailing without the required SAR insurance (and float plan). And a second time ( 5,000 Kroner and 2 year probationary period) for unauthorised landings in protected areas and provoking a polar bear.

[callmecrazy]

Sounds like a sailor to me

[david7]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

It cracks me up that people keep using the term "explorer." Even a comparison to Leif Erickson!!

Folks, we already know where Antarctica is. I bet he even has decent charts on board. He's a tourist, not an explorer. Granted, he's one heck of an adventurous tourist, but a tourist nonetheless. You're not an explorer if you're following in somebody else's footsteps, even if you're climbing Everest.

The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people "traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business, and other purposes". So the term tourist could be applied to a pretty broad swath of people or so called explorers/adventurers. Here is a quote from Yvon Chouinard about plastic surgeons and CEO’s climbing Everest...

“They pay $80,000 and have Sherpas put all the ladders in place and 8,000 feet of fixed ropes. You get to a camp and you don’t even have to lay out your sleeping bag, it’s already laid out with a little chocolate mint on the top. The whole purpose of climbing Everest is to effect some sort of spiritual and physical gain; but if you compromise the process, [then] you’re an ******* when you start out and you’re an ******* when you get back.”

I don't think he has compromised the process from a spiritual or physical sense (even if he does have charts) just a bureaucratic sense. I think those comparisons were made more in the 'spirit' of the venture than to be taken literally. Even though Antarctica has already been explored it's still a pretty short list of people to have actually sailed there. Presumably far less than have climbed Everest I would think.

[Landkrabbe]

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

They application for pleasure craft travel to antarctica on the Norwegian Polar Institutes website (which by the way, is only 1 page long) only states that the group must provide a "contingency plan" for SAR emergencies, such as insurance. I think you may be referring to a different type 'regulation', maybe for commercial ventures or something. Tourist travel and cruising boats are not so heavily regulated as you're making it sound.

Are we looking at the same thing? The form I'm looking at is 4 pages, plus 9 appendices, and Andhøy's expedition has to fill out some of the appendices too.
PDF: http://www.npolar.no/npcms/export/si...spedisjonx.pdf
Whether or not he has to submit additional information, or indeed a full consequence analysis, is determined based on this initial notification.

Indeed I don't think it would have been all that hard for him to get permission if he'd only bothered to submit the required information. Since he's previously disturbed wildlife, caused spills and sunk two vessels, those areas of the notification would probably receive extra attention - but if he had shown that this time things would be done responsibly, I think he would have been allowed.

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

Also, Jarle was not fined for "coming close to killing a few endagered species", that is pure BS. He was fined for being in too close proximity to a polar bear.

There was no risk of the polar bear getting shot then? No potential self-defense situations caused in this or other provocations of the wildlife? Even if they'd let that bear kill them, I think the authorities would have shot it afterwards suspecting it to be rabid.
I admit that I've been imprecise though - the official conservation status of the polar bear is Vulnerable, not Endangered. Also some of the other species aren't endangered anymore, thanks to conservation efforts.

[Doodles]

I see two new members (Landkrabbe and ice) both just joined and both have only posted in this thread. What up with that? You guys related?

I need to be nice so ... welcome to CF.