View Full Version : Canadian Seal Hunt began today
Jenny
03-30-2008, 07:45 PM
I am always surprised to see barbarism rationalized with precise legal argument. Our president (in the US) is currently busy trying to convince his country that torture isn't really torture. In all such things, you can't really have it both ways--say you're not really for it but see the justification; under that logic, any form of barbarism is ultimately a moral human act. In nature, there is violence--but the systemic clubbing of animals is a creation of human economic and ecological mismanagement, and moves over a moral line which some of us just will not accept. If that makes me a "bleeding heart" (a term used here which tells me much about the politics of the poster) I shall be grateful that I have a heart. I would ask those in favor of this practice, who argue so precisely for it--could you, truthfully, grasp a club and kill a seal with it? If so, I think you would benefit from sidelining the political argument and asking some deeper moral questions of yourself.
I'm sorry - is this aimed at me?
I make "precise legal arguments" because what you people are looking to change is the laws - you are not writing seal hunters saying "you're mean"; you're writing the government saying "pass laws" - or in Pan Dah's case "enforce laws". In order to sensibly do that you have to be aware of what laws exist, why they exist and the social impact of passing more.
Would I personally kill a seal? No. Nor would I kill a mink, a fox, a chicken, a cow, and for that matter I wouldn't step on a spider; nor do I directly buy and consume products that are made from their carcasses - well, some products. But while calls to enforce existing laws may have some point behind them, it is a fact that the laws that exist protecting seals from cruelty are far greater than those protecting, say, chickens. So unless you are advocating for the end of commercial killing - which, you know, admirable, but not likely, I see neither the legal nor, frankly, the moral high ground here.
jhuka
03-31-2008, 05:33 AM
Jenny, I was actually responding to Kitty260. I was particularly concerned at the derisive tone--asking if we really feel we can make a difference by signing a few petitions, and then throwing all of the bleeding hearts in the audience a bone--"I know you guys are smart enough" she says, to eventually, finally understand the issue. In other words, one day I will finally be intelligent enough to admit that clubbing seals to death is the right thing to do?
But I also don't understand your argument, Jenny. I don't think there is a "moral high ground" in objecting to the clubbing to death of an animal--that seems to me like simple humanity. Pan Dah gives us some statistics from the Humane Society and I do not doubt that they are true--that, for instance, the seals are still sometimes conscious when being skinned. Regardless of what the law says, we know that when money and efficiency are involved such things will happen, probably more than anyone wants to admit. You make the leap to say that if I do not object to the inhumane treatment of chickens, I shouldn't object to the treatment of the seals. Why would you assume that I don't object to the inhumane treatment of other animals? You say that "seals--even clubbed seals--probably suffer the least of any given industrially killed animal" -- and I would suggest to you that this statement is more a demonstration of your rationalization than anything else. I understand that one can take up a rifle to kill an animal to feed his family. I would. But that is not what is happening here. This is a moral question: my position is that the clubbing of seals--or any animal--is immoral.
Kitty260 tells us to open our eyes and see reality. But reality is the stark brutality of killing something with a club because it is an inconvenience. Rationalization is an island reserved for those living with eyes closed.
Bob_Loblaw
03-31-2008, 07:29 AM
This is a moral question: my position is that the clubbing of seals--or any animal--is immoral.
I want to reiterate the majority are killed by rifles. Moving on... just for the sake of argument, would you be ok if the laws were changed to ban clubbing specifically while still allowing hunters to use rifles?
Jenny
03-31-2008, 07:44 AM
Sorry. Now I feel silly.
Anyway, please keep in mind that I am interested in animals rights - of all animals. And may I ask you - are you as interested in in the greater cruelty visited on industrial farm animals? (since you pointed out that I neglected the possibility) Are you advocating for the shut down of agriculture in the U.S. and Canada? Are you for criminalizing the hunting of all animals? Or just seals? If it is just seals it is either a) irrational or b) because you think there is something unusually cruel about the seal hunt. I question that there is something unusually cruel about the seal hunt. Like I said - I think if there were similar laws governing the treatment of all animals, animals in general would be in much better shape. If it is all animals - bravo and I sympathize. I also think that it is utterly pointless as an endeavour, in any country, not just Canada.
I do doubt the truth of the statistics of the U.S. humane society because I know that false information has been disseminated about the seal hunt in the past. I'm not really sure why you are so sure that the U.S. Humane Society is right and the Canadian government is wrong. And as Cameron pointed out - the law is aimed at efficiency. Non-beneficiaries are not allowed to trade in whitecoats and bluebacks. Commercial sealers are not allowed to sell the pelt or meat from from white coat or blueback seals. And yes, this issue has been litigated up here. It is not a mere technical law. It is not efficient to seal hunt in whelping grounds because you wind up with a lot of seals you can't sell. And just... FYI - the reason that viewing permits are not issued is not because the "canadian government is desperately trying to keep this quiet"; it is because in the past anti-sealers have harassed and assaulted the sealers and interfered in the hunt.
As well, I think there is a psychological disconnect that we get from technology. I don't think Kitty is arguing that it is "the right" thing to do; I think she is pointing out, much as I am, that animal slaughter industry is not unique to seals, and that eliminating the animals slaughter industry - or parts of it - have serious and widespread economic consequences.
Anyway, I'm interested - like really. Keeping in mind that hunting animals is legal, and that seals are not endangered, and laws protecting the well-being of animals qua animals will not happen (hey, we both may dislike it, but it is a fact) what measures besides the "efficiency" measures that are in place do you think will help enforce the existing laws (again, seeking laws that are more prohibitive on their face is not a rational endeavour; if you are concerned about enforcement, I would be interested in what enforcement mechanisms you think might be more effective).
In terms of the usefulness of signing petitions - I would suggest that petitions and letters that do not demonstrate a basic familiarity with the protective legislation already in place will not be particularly useful. Further, petitions or letters that are unfamiliar with the competing economic issues - that is the degree to which Newfoundland in particular depends economically on the seal hunt and the fact that Newfoundland has had a depressed economy for like 50 years and has been teetering on bankruptcy for 10 - will not be particularly useful. Time and fundraising would be better directed at developing alternative models to the seal hunt.
I also think there is a psychological disconnect that we get from technology. I mean, bashing the animals over the head is just as effective as shooting it. It is just as fast, and there is a margin of error for all "methods" of killing, whether the animals is hunted, shot or put on a conveyor belt.
Jenny, I was actually responding to Kitty260. I was particularly concerned at the derisive tone--asking if we really feel we can make a difference by signing a few petitions, and then throwing all of the bleeding hearts in the audience a bone--"I know you guys are smart enough" she says, to eventually, finally understand the issue. In other words, one day I will finally be intelligent enough to admit that clubbing seals to death is the right thing to do?
But I also don't understand your argument, Jenny. I don't think there is a "moral high ground" in objecting to the clubbing to death of an animal--that seems to me like simple humanity. Pan Dah gives us some statistics from the Humane Society and I do not doubt that they are true--that, for instance, the seals are still sometimes conscious when being skinned. Regardless of what the law says, we know that when money and efficiency are involved such things will happen, probably more than anyone wants to admit. You make the leap to say that if I do not object to the inhumane treatment of chickens, I shouldn't object to the treatment of the seals. Why would you assume that I don't object to the inhumane treatment of other animals? You say that "seals--even clubbed seals--probably suffer the least of any given industrially killed animal" -- and I would suggest to you that this statement is more a demonstration of your rationalization than anything else. I understand that one can take up a rifle to kill an animal to feed his family. I would. But that is not what is happening here. This is a moral question: my position is that the clubbing of seals--or any animal--is immoral.
Kitty260 tells us to open our eyes and see reality. But reality is the stark brutality of killing something with a club because it is an inconvenience. Rationalization is an island reserved for those living with eyes closed.
xdamage
03-31-2008, 08:13 AM
As a total aside... this thread reminds me what a lame job we have done of culling our own own over population problem and demand for fish. It's amazing to think that in the relatively short time I have been alive, a tiny blip on the historical time scale, the world population has doubled. Not just a few tens of thousands extra, more like another 3 billion people. And this is in a day and age that has created a multitude of BC methods and has the abortion option. Maybe there would be room for more seals, and less issue with a lack of fish if we focused some of our education and law making powers on the human culling problem? Just a thought.
jhuka
03-31-2008, 08:41 AM
Hi Jenny,
No reason to feel silly--I didn't name any names, so there was no way you could know who I was talking about. I didn't want the discussion to turn into a personal pointing of fingers.
Bob and Jenny, my main objection is, yes, with the clubbing of seals. You both concur that it is going on. My contention is that if you can do this yourself, then you can go ahead and argue for it. Bob, I said I could hunt if my family depended on it, with a rifle--I would not go on a hunt to eliminate large swaths of animals because of government mismanagement. I'm sure you'll howl angrily at this, but that is simply my position, so I guess we'll just disagree. Beyond the moral discussion about clubbing an animal to death, a position I'll never go for, I agree with the spirit of what you say, Jenny, that I need to learn more about the issue regarding the Humane Society and the Canadian government. As a former reporter, I saw again and again how vested interests were always best at the spin. My suspicion is that the same is true in this case. We have a similar moral problem happening in the United States. The Bush administration, giving in to pressure from ranchers and elk hunters, is now pushing the mass killing of gray wolves--an endangered species which has made, under the Endangered Species Act, a remarkable comeback. Only this administration could manage to put tax dollars toward killing an animal on the endangered species list. Many argue forcefully for it: the wolves are killing the elk, their natural prey. But human mismanagement caused this in the first place (nature, untouched by man, balances itself quite effectively) and now what is behind this push toward slaughter are politically powerful constituencies.
Jenny, I understand what you are saying about the psychological disconnect between shooting a rifle and "bashing" an animal over the head, and the role of technology in this. But this simply sounds, again, like rationalization. I would go back to the question...could you do it? You have said you could not, though I suspect you could hunt with a rifle if it meant feeding your family. This should be telling you something, I think. It seems to me that the psychological disconnect comes before this decision altogether--in the intent and reason for the killing. Beating something to death involves a great psychological disconnection, as far as I'm concerned. Human beings are famous for it.
Now, having assured that I'll have no place on either of your dance cards, I'm off to work. I appreciate both of your opinions, Bob and Jenny--I guess we'll never see eye to eye. But I am interested now, from our discussion, in learning more about the political aspects of the issue. I thank you for your thoughts.
Best,
J.
Sorry. Now I feel silly.
Anyway, please keep in mind that I am interested in animals rights - of all animals. And may I ask you - are you as interested in in the greater cruelty visited on industrial farm animals? (since you pointed out that I neglected the possibility) Are you advocating for the shut down of agriculture in the U.S. and Canada? Are you for criminalizing the hunting of all animals? Or just seals? If it is just seals it is either a) irrational or b) because you think there is something unusually cruel about the seal hunt. I question that there is something unusually cruel about the seal hunt. Like I said - I think if there were similar laws governing the treatment of all animals, animals in general would be in much better shape. If it is all animals - bravo and I sympathize. I also think that it is utterly pointless as an endeavour, in any country, not just Canada.
I do doubt the truth of the statistics of the U.S. humane society because I know that false information has been disseminated about the seal hunt in the past. I'm not really sure why you are so sure that the U.S. Humane Society is right and the Canadian government is wrong. And as Cameron pointed out - the law is aimed at efficiency. Non-beneficiaries are not allowed to trade in whitecoats and bluebacks. Commercial sealers are not allowed to sell the pelt or meat from from white coat or blueback seals. And yes, this issue has been litigated up here. It is not a mere technical law. It is not efficient to seal hunt in whelping grounds because you wind up with a lot of seals you can't sell. And just... FYI - the reason that viewing permits are not issued is not because the "canadian government is desperately trying to keep this quiet"; it is because in the past anti-sealers have harassed and assaulted the sealers and interfered in the hunt.
As well, I think there is a psychological disconnect that we get from technology. I don't think Kitty is arguing that it is "the right" thing to do; I think she is pointing out, much as I am, that animal slaughter industry is not unique to seals, and that eliminating the animals slaughter industry - or parts of it - have serious and widespread economic consequences.
Anyway, I'm interested - like really. Keeping in mind that hunting animals is legal, and that seals are not endangered, and laws protecting the well-being of animals qua animals will not happen (hey, we both may dislike it, but it is a fact) what measures besides the "efficiency" measures that are in place do you think will help enforce the existing laws (again, seeking laws that are more prohibitive on their face is not a rational endeavour; if you are concerned about enforcement, I would be interested in what enforcement mechanisms you think might be more effective).
In terms of the usefulness of signing petitions - I would suggest that petitions and letters that do not demonstrate a basic familiarity with the protective legislation already in place will not be particularly useful. Further, petitions or letters that are unfamiliar with the competing economic issues - that is the degree to which Newfoundland in particular depends economically on the seal hunt and the fact that Newfoundland has had a depressed economy for like 50 years and has been teetering on bankruptcy for 10 - will not be particularly useful. Time and fundraising would be better directed at developing alternative models to the seal hunt.
I also think there is a psychological disconnect that we get from technology. I mean, bashing the animals over the head is just as effective as shooting it. It is just as fast, and there is a margin of error for all "methods" of killing, whether the animals is hunted, shot or put on a conveyor belt.
Jenny
03-31-2008, 09:05 AM
Bob and Jenny, my main objection is, yes, with the clubbing of seals. You both concur that it is going on.
Actually what we are concurring on is that it is going on in extremely small numbers that are largely separate from the commercial hunt that you are objecting to; that is a commercial boycott is not likely to be effective because the commercial bodies are shooting the seals in the water in order to kill and capture the seals they can sell as opposed to just toss away.
My contention is that if you can do this yourself, then you can go ahead and argue for it.
I think that is... a poor argument. Like if I'm an inveterately cruel bloodthirsty person my argument has more weight? I'm not sure how sensible that is.
Jenny, I understand what you are saying about the psychological disconnect between shooting a rifle and "bashing" an animal over the head, and the role of technology in this. But this simply sounds, again, like rationalization.
Interestingly, I think the "I'm okay with shooting but not with clubbing while I have no real evidence that clubbing is more painful or slow" is a rationalization. The fact that seals can be killed just as effectively, quickly and painlessly with a club as a gun is a fact.
I would go back to the question...could you do it? You have said you could not, though I suspect you could hunt with a rifle if it meant feeding your family.
I'm a vegetarian. If I were in a position where I had to kill a seal to eat or perish, I could likely kill it in any manner available. If I had the option of eating something else... I would.
This should be telling you something, I think. It seems to me that the psychological disconnect comes before this decision altogether--in the intent and reason for the killing. Beating something to death involves a great psychological disconnection, as far as I'm concerned. Human beings are famous for it.
Interesting. I think assuming a position of moral superiority because you buy meat in a supermarket rather than killing it, and you can stand at a distance where you don't get blood on you indicates a much more significant disconnect; shooting is not necessary less painful, and it requires greater skill on the part of the shooter and more seals are likely wounded and escape to die slowly; so I'm not sure from the seal's standpoint this difference is particularly significant.
Keep in mind - the seal is struck once in the head and the skull is crushed. It is not a situation of standing over a corpse, repeatedly striking it. In the few instances in which seals are clubbed, they are struck once, whereupon the skull is crushed, then visually inspected to ensure it is dead, poked in the eye (again to ensure death, not just for fun) and then the next one is hit. The instances in which the seal needs to be struck repeatedly are very few - much fewer, I suspect than the number who are merely wounded with rifles.
AlexxaHex
03-31-2008, 09:05 AM
I am always surprised to see barbarism rationalized with precise legal argument. Our president (in the US) is currently busy trying to convince his country that torture isn't really torture. In all such things, you can't really have it both ways--say you're not really for it but see the justification; under that logic, any form of barbarism is ultimately a moral human act. In nature, there is violence--but the systemic clubbing of animals is a creation of human economic and ecological mismanagement, and moves over a moral line which some of us just will not accept. If that makes me a "bleeding heart" (a term used here which tells me much about the politics of the poster) I shall be grateful that I have a heart. I would ask those in favor of this practice, who argue so precisely for it--could you, truthfully, grasp a club and kill a seal with it? If so, I think you would benefit from sidelining the political argument and asking some deeper moral questions of yourself.
What a beautiful post. Very well said.
Humans are supposed to be the caretakers of the planet. When imbalances happen, in an ecosystem of any size, humans are always responsible. We can say that it's the fault of the animals, but it is always to take the blame off of us. We, as humans are responsible for killing the fish, for harpooning the whales into extinction, for disposing of our trash and our chemicals into the nature they have relied upon to be their home. We have imprisoned them, tortured and slaughtered them unnecessarily. We know plant based diets are far superior in nutrition, economics and environmental conservation, yet we continue to rape and kill these innocent creatures...all for taste and cosmetics. How can anyone with half a brain or conscience say that animals are responsible? We must come up with new ways to support ourselves, and stop relying on animals as sources of food and material consumption. It is killing them and it is killing us!
cameron_keys
03-31-2008, 09:09 AM
Well said Alexa.
And Jenny...I have fought against factory farming all my life. I do NOT agree with that either. so this isnt a matter of one is ok and one is not...not for me.
Jenny
03-31-2008, 09:17 AM
I know, Cam - I've read other posts of yours. And ultimately, I agree that all forms of industrial slaughter are... you know, bad. However I still think there is a factual deficit in the discussion about the seal hunt, and that discussion of limiting it further cannot take place in a "seal hunt" vacuum, but in the context of general animal slaughter. Otherwise we are essentially reinforcing ridiculously arbitrary separation between animals and protecting human sensibilities, not animals at all.
cameron_keys
03-31-2008, 09:20 AM
I agree. But I think whenever animals are brutally killed for human convenience it's wrong.
And the majority are not killed by rifle...think about it..these people are killing them because they are POOR. Bullets cost a LOT more then a club with a spike on it does.
AlexxaHex
03-31-2008, 09:21 AM
I know, Cam - I've read other posts of yours. And ultimately, I agree that all forms of industrial slaughter are... you know, bad. However I still think there is a factual deficit in the discussion about the seal hunt, and that discussion of limiting it further cannot take place in a "seal hunt" vacuum, but in the context of general animal slaughter. Otherwise we are essentially reinforcing ridiculously arbitrary separation between animals and protecting human sensibilities, not animals at all.
If what you are saying is that you can't be against the seal murders [clubbing, hunting, shooting,etc] and not be against other forms of animal cruelty, then I agree. This small community of people reflects all communities as a whole. It is very much a worldwide problem.
Jenny
03-31-2008, 09:27 AM
And the majority are not killed by rifle...think about it..these people are killing them because they are POOR. Bullets cost a LOT more then a club with a spike on it does.
Cam, you are mistaken. Commercial sealers are shooting them in the water. These people are not looking to kill seals that they can't sell. The laws, as you yourself pointed out, are aimed at making the killing of certain seals inefficient and unprofitable.
Alexxa - I think on the contrary, I'm saying that people absolutely are against he seal hunt while supporting other forms of animal cruelty.
cameron_keys
03-31-2008, 09:44 AM
From HSUS:
"Rebecca Aldworth, director of Animal Programs for Humane Society International, released the following statement in response to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans restricting journalists and animal welfare experts access to the commercial slaughter of baby seals.
"Yesterday we filmed sealers consistently violating the few regulations that exist to protect seals. It is no coincidence that today the Canadian government is doing everything in its power to stop us from documenting the slaughter. The DFO will only allow one of our helicopters to go into the hunt area, preventing more than a dozen journalists from witnessing the killing today. If the Canadian government's claims that this is a humane slaughter are true, then why are they working so hard to hide it?
Not one sealer I saw yesterday was obeying the new conditions of their hunting licenses – to stun the seals, check for unconsciousness, and then bleed the animals. Given that the sealers are flagrantly ignoring the rules in front of us, imagine what happens when our cameras aren't there."
jhuka
03-31-2008, 10:16 AM
Jenny, I'm afraid you're making a lot of assumptions about me here that just aren't fair, and it almost feels as if you're arguing just to argue and not listening to yourself. I understand that you have some stake in this--what it is, I'm not aware of. I said that you and Bob agree that the clubbing is going on--even if you maintain it is in small numbers. I said I feel that the act is immoral. That is my position: I don't think it is right in any circumstances to treat an animal that way. I'm against all mistreatment of animals and have been, consistently, all my adult life. I never said that I had no evidence that clubbing is not painful or slow--those are your words. I grew up around animals, and it might even be that I have more experience with them than you do. I've had to put down animals. I once had to kill a raccoon that was rabid and frothing at the mouth--dangerous to everyone in the area. I killed it by clubbing it with a shovel--no other option available at the time. Having had that experience, and it was a harrowing one, I cannot imagine doing it as part of a political policy--or shooting animals for that reason, either. You portray me as one with an easy conscience--that I can cruise through a grocery store to buy meat rather than kill it, and have no blood on me, and thus somehow because of this I have an emotional disconnection from the issue. I suppose if this is true, it is true of most of the world, right? I have said a number of times that I would kill to feed my family. What I do not agree with is killing wild animals because they are an inconvenience and are upsetting the human economic equation. That is a much different thing than hunting.
And I never said that you if you were cruel and bloodthirsty your argument would have weight. What I am saying is that if you truly believe this is the way to go, you must be prepared to climb on all rungs of the moral ladder--not just to argue with someone who disagrees with you on SW but also to do the killing itself, including in the specific way that you admit is happening--clubbing. You have said you could not do this. That, to me, is emotional disconnection.
I'm not going to get too drawn into this debate here (though it seems I already have!) I respect your positions, Jenny. But I think you should be more fair in your assumptions about me--you've drawn the wrong picture of me here.
* * *
cameron_keys
03-31-2008, 10:25 AM
^^ is there a way to fix the quotes? I"m not quite sure which is you and which is Jenny there which makes it confusing
jhuka
03-31-2008, 10:39 AM
^^ is there a way to fix the quotes? I"m not quite sure which is you and which is Jenny there which makes it confusing
Sorry about that, Cam. I did something when I was typing and messed it up--I've edited it now so that there aren't any quotes--just my response. Jenny's thoughts are in her post a few above. I'm afraid my skills with a computer are not very good!
Jenny
03-31-2008, 10:43 AM
I question the veracity, seeing as they are not allowed to trade the animals and inspections and limitations on trade are routine for non-beneficiaries; in addition I would point out that the reason the Canadian government limits the viewing licenses is to prevent interference with the hunt; obviously if it was to conceal it, they would not allow the US Humane society to witness it. I mean - if you are trying to conceal something, that seems like an odd permit to give out, and while I disagree with the limitation, it is perfectly clear that they don't have to issue it.
Finally, I would point out that characterizing an animal as a "baby" doesn't make it one. That is, because they call it a "baby seal" doesn't mean that it is a whitecoat or what we would identify as a baby seal.
In addition... there was no mention of what steps were ignored, whether the sealers were commercial or beneficiaries, or for that matter, how many seals were killed - see? Factual deficit. I mean, they assure us that it is cruel, but don't give you any facts (if you followed the various links provided, they would eventually lead you to the information, that yes, the slaughter and sale of whitecoats is prohibited and that more than 70% of the seals would be shot in the water. I realize that they don't give you that information on the first page, because they provide you with a very short shrift on facts). I watched the video.
In any case - I would ask you the same question I asked jhuka; what enforcement mechanism do you think would be more effective? Like laws exist that prohibit these concerns - how do you think they should be enforced? Seriously - I do have concern over cruelty, but signing petitions and writing letters calling for better enforcement mechanisms would likely have a much better chance of success than the "stop killing seals - they're too cute to die" campaign that is currently going on.
cameron_keys
03-31-2008, 10:47 AM
Sorry about that, Cam. I did something when I was typing and messed it up--I've edited it now so that there aren't any quotes--just my response. Jenny's thoughts are in her post a few above. I'm afraid my skills with a computer are not very good!
Thanks...it makes more sense now.
In my years as a vet tech I put down a fair amount of animals.It always depressed me..even though I never once put down any animal that wasnt suffering. It was hospital policy to not put down animals out of sheer convenience or owner stupidity. If an owner wanted to put down an animal for BS reasons(it shed too much or was peeing outside the litter box or some other crap) we had them sign it over to us. We cured it and adopted it out(which is how many of us got a lot of our pets!)
Putting down or especially brutally killing and torturing for sheer human convenience is NEVER right.
I will never buy the excuse that the herd needs to be culled. They are NOT overpopulated...WE are. We are the ones overfishing and destroying the ocean. WE are the ones building strip mall after strip mall and taking away land from the natural inhabitants for our own greed. Killing them because of OUR mistakes is just not right.
Call me a bleeding heart...I prefer to think of it as being outraged that humans continue to be so self centered that we punish others for what we've CHOSEN to do.
jhuka
03-31-2008, 11:26 AM
I guess we're both bleeding hearts, Cam. I'm with you.
Dottie Rebel
03-31-2008, 12:44 PM
^^I'm with you both. And we're not bleeding hearts. I'm not going to say more than that at the risk of being offensive.
Eric Stoner
03-31-2008, 01:31 PM
I don't hunt and I don't wear fur but didn't they ban this practice several years ago and then revive it ? I thought ecotourism had replaced the revenues lost by not bashing baby seals .
Btw, who buys the fur ? Why not boycott baby seal fur like ivory was boycotted?
As for protecting the fish with a "cull" that smells "fishy" when it is humans who are OVERFISHING the planet. I haven't eaten swordfish in years even though I love it and tuna has too much mercury.
Jenny
03-31-2008, 01:40 PM
I'm not calling anyone a bleeding heart; I'm pointing out the absence of actual knowledge of what you are campaigning against. I'm actually a little surprised by the tenacious gripping to this idea that somehow compassion is a substitute for actually knowing things. Knowing and appreciating actual, you know, facts and, for that matter, trying to engage with the issue on a "real world" basis is not incompatible with compassion.
sapphiregirl
03-31-2008, 01:57 PM
Thanks...it makes more sense now.
In my years as a vet tech I put down a fair amount of animals.It always depressed me..even though I never once put down any animal that wasnt suffering. It was hospital policy to not put down animals out of sheer convenience or owner stupidity. If an owner wanted to put down an animal for BS reasons(it shed too much or was peeing outside the litter box or some other crap) we had them sign it over to us. We cured it and adopted it out(which is how many of us got a lot of our pets!)
Putting down or especially brutally killing and torturing for sheer human convenience is NEVER right.
I will never buy the excuse that the herd needs to be culled. They are NOT overpopulated...WE are. We are the ones overfishing and destroying the ocean. WE are the ones building strip mall after strip mall and taking away land from the natural inhabitants for our own greed. Killing them because of OUR mistakes is just not right.
Call me a bleeding heart...I prefer to think of it as being outraged that humans continue to be so self centered that we punish others for what we've CHOSEN to do.
You are a smart girl....rock on. :)
I've actually had the amazing opportunity to work on marine mammals and some of the stuff I've seen done to them by humans is heartbreaking. Marine Mammals have to compete with all the trash dumped into the ocean, sound pollution from more ships, being beaten over the head because someone wants a fur coat, less habitat, melting ice, I can go on and on.
Human beings are the ONLY animal who have managed to have a NEGATIVE impact on every other species on earth. Yet, we think we are so smart.
Our oceans are dying...and its not because of harp seal population numbers.
Dottie Rebel
03-31-2008, 02:22 PM
I'm not calling anyone a bleeding heart; I'm pointing out the absence of actual knowledge of what you are campaigning against. I'm actually a little surprised by the tenacious gripping to this idea that somehow compassion is a substitute for actually knowing things. Knowing and appreciating actual, you know, facts and, for that matter, trying to engage with the issue on a "real world" basis is not incompatible with compassion.
So, as a last resort in a disagreement, you simply insult the intelligence of the opponent? I've chosen to stay out of this debate, but I'm reading through and it seems that rather than "not knowin' stuff real good", your opponents simply have differing opinions.
Jenny
03-31-2008, 02:49 PM
Um, no. I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I'm pointing out that... there is not a lot of actual knowledge about the seal hunt. There is a lot of knowledge about peta and USHS propaganda and very little actual... you know, facts on anything. Whenever anyone points out actual facts, they seems to be just ignored because people already know everything they need to know. When someone points out other issues that are involved in the seal hunt they are dismissed, somewhat naively, in my opinion. This is not a debate Dottie - I'm not advocating for the seal hunt. I'm simply pointing out derelict and misrepresented facts. Like I said - one can be both compassionate and understand factual discrepancy in peta propaganda. One can also both be compassionate and realize that economic issues cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.
Jeska
03-31-2008, 11:34 PM
Hey Jenny you do have some good points.
I emailed HSUS asking them what the donations go to exactly and they said it was just to keep their crew on the ice so they could document and let everyone know about it. Which is fine but I think there's enough documented already..
I would like to know what you think an average person like myself can really do to help besides send a letter or sign an online petition.. I would love to do more, I just don't know where to start.
sapphiregirl
04-02-2008, 11:43 AM
The seal hunt is currently suspended....Once again Canadian sealers have proven their greed will come back to bite them in the butt...and its sad because now it has cost some of them their lives. Last year they were stuck in the ice for days on end trapped with boats tipping over.
As for sealing being "regulated".....Hell, there are pictures of the Canadian Coast Guard RUNNING over seal pups on slushy ice....they don't care.
--------------------------------------
Seal Slaughter Suspended for a Week
The savage slaughter of the baby seals has been suspended for a week.
The sealers of the Quebec’s Magdalen Islands have returned home to bury three of the four sealers killed by Canadian Coast Guard incompetence. The fourth is still missing and is presumed dead.
Some of the Magdalen Island sealers will not be returning. According to the Canadian meida: Wayne Dickson hasn’t caught his quota of seals this season. But the 53-year-old says he no longer has the will to hunt after watching his friend’s sealing vessel capsize while being towed by a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the weekend. Dickson and his six-member crew managed to rescue two fishermen, but three other sealers drowned and a fourth is still missing after the damaged L’Acadien II fishing vessel overturned while being dragged over a large chunk of ice, about 70 kilometres north of Cape Breton Island. "I just don’t have the heart for it - I don’t think many of the guys are going back out," Dickson said Tuesday. "It is just too devastating."
Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has accused anti-slaughter organizations of exploiting the tragedy to underscore how unsafe sealing is, citing that the sealers are well aware of how dangerous their occupation is.
"We did not kill these men," said Captain Paul Watson. "Canadian government incompetence and the political ambitions of Loyola Hearn killed them. Hearn allows hundreds of undersize, wooden and aluminum vessels into treacherous ice conditions and does not provide adequate Coast Guard protections and training. Those men died because they were in conditions they should not have been in and the Canadian government put them in that position."
alabasterwing
04-13-2008, 02:14 PM
Firstly, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans classifies the hunt as a "cull" meaning that they're strategically eliminating a certain number of seals per season to prevent starvation and disease.
---
Also, there's a major issue with the cod stocks. That's right, THERE'S NO FISH.
---
The cull gives these out of work fishermen a job and a temporary income.
---
PETA is up their old bullshit tricks again. What they don't tell you is that the cull is VERY well controlled. There's a certain quota established and there are government officials on the ice every single day enforcing that quota.
I had started another thread on this (http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112852) - I didn't realize there was already one going "hot and heavy" (jeez)...
Actually, according to the DFO: "The seal hunt is not a cull. It is a sustainable, commercially viable fishery based on sound conservation principles". A cull by definition is any hunt designed to reduce a population, and according to their plan, they're going to continue until the seal population is reduced by 70%. Huh? PETA are a bunch of wackos (they do get good footage, though, just don't have the stomach to watch much of it anymore) but, methinks it's the DFO up to bullshit tricks again.
Seals are depleting the cod population, that's why the seal hunt exists. No, it isn't. Atlantic cod represent a small part - usually estimated to be 3% or less - of the harp seal’s annual diet. And Atlantic cod are not consumed throughout the entire year, but rather in certain places at certain times of the year. Canadian government scientists have recently lowered their estimates of seal predation on cod in the northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Most of the harp seal’s annual diet is comprised of smaller, fatty fishes, like capelin and Arctic cod and a variety of small shrimp-like organisms including mysids and euphausids.
Both sides(pro and con seal hunt) now agree that seals and cod can coexist. In March 2005, Greenpeace called on then-federal Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan to "dispel the myth that seals are hampering the recovery of cod stocks." A letter from Greenpeace said, "the DFO has been a partner in perpetuating this myth."
"The commercial seal quota is established based on sound conservation principles, not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks," the DFO says. "Seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod."
Additionally, according to a recent paper by two Canadian government scientists, “it will not be possible to assess the relative impact of seal predation on fish stock abundance until other sources of natural mortality are quantified.” In short, even now, there isn't any evidence to support the frequent claims that harp seal are impeding the recovery of cod.
But about their "sound conservation principles"...
The size of the seal herd has actually been slightly decreasing since the expansion of the hunt in 1996. Poor ice conditions in recent years may have lowered the survival rate of newborn pups (& it did: last year another 250,000 seal pups drowned because the ice conditions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were so diminished), and made this population decline even worse.
In 1971, the population reached such a dangerous low (at 1.8 million) that senior Canadian government scientists said all commercial hunting should be stopped for at least ten years or we would risk losing the population. So, when the DFO says the harp seal population has "tripled" since the 1970s, they are conveniently neglecting to mention that the population was simply recovering from a dangerously low level, which is one of the reasons why quota management was introduced.
More bad news: The DFO actively encourages sealers to exceed their quotas—often extending the seal hunting season beyond the regulated closing date even when the quota has been surpassed.
In 2002, the Canadian government knowingly allowed sealers to exceed their quota by more than 37,000 seals. In 2004, it again allowed sealers to exceed the quota by nearly 16,000 seals. In both years, sealers had gone well over the quota by May 15 (the regulated closing date), and yet the DFO chose to extend the sealing season into June.
Not taken into account in those numbers are the countless seals that slip off the ice after being clubbed or shot. They are lost and never accounted for. Studies from Greenland indicate up to half of the animals shot at in open water may be lost. The DFO insists that the "...record of struck and loss for the Canadian commercial seal hunt stands at less than five per cent." Assuming that was even accurate, that's at least 15,000 seals.
There was talk about most of the seals being shot, but I think it was addressed. A few dollars are deducted from the cost of the pelt for each bullet hole. If the first shot isn't dead on, especially difficult when they're shooting from moving boats, water swell, etc, they are loathe to put another bullet hole in the skin.
About seals usually killed with one club shot to the head: rare occurrence. I'm tired of seeing videos showing a seal having to be clubbed multiple times (some of these groups are putting video out of the seals being skinned alive). Even worse are when the seal is shot or clubbed and left to die slowly (and obviously painfully) because a sealer goes after another seal. Remember, the sealers are in competition with each other to fill quotas, the conditions are dangerous, they are in a hurry. Enforcement efforts of DFO are inadequate. The new "bash and slash" regulation (checking if the seal is dead, if not slashing main artery - is not being enforced, and we've all seen the videos of the 'business as usual'.
They're on the ice every day enforcing regulations? Canada's commercial seal hunt is conducted with hundreds of fishing vessels, by thousands of sealers, over hundreds of miles of ocean. DFO enforcement budget for patrol hours allocated only 1.5 percent to monitoring the seal hunt. In the "front" (northeast of Newfoundland) there is virtually no monitoring of the seal hunt at all. Of that time, a good portion is spent harassing, intimidating, arresting (and allowing sealers to threaten and physically assault) the conservation groups that are trying to FILM the hunt, rather than enforcing regulations. On 4/12 the Farley Mowat - one of the Sea Shepherds Conservation Society's Dutch registered ships in International waters, there to document the hunt - was illegally stormed and the crew assaulted.
Tired of reading? Yeah, me too.
Subsidies, and other such stuff....
Even in Newfoundland, where more than 90% of sealers live, revenues from sealing account for less than 1% of the Gross Domestic Product and less than 3% of the landed value of the fishery. Sealing is an off-season activity conducted by a few thousand fishermen from Canada’s east coast. The Newfoundland government itself estimates there are only 4,000 active sealers in any given year. Media reports and government data confirm they make, on average, less than 5% of their incomes from sealing, and the rest from commercial fisheries. Any profits from the seal hunt are offset by the large government subsidies that continue to be provided to the sealing industry.
The DFO insists that subsidies were stopped in 2001. In 2001, the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment produced a report detailing over $20 million that had been provided to the sealing industry in government subsidies from 1995–2001.
But in 2004 alone, more than $450,000 was provided by the Canadian government to two companies to develop seal products. Additionally, the Canadian Coast Guard continues to break ice for sealing vessels at taxpayer’s expense.
The government of Canada regularly provides subsidies to the sealing industry through Human Resources Development Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and other federal programs. These subsidies are provided in the form of grants and loans to seal processing plants, sealing industry associations and private companies, and cover capital costs, employee salaries, operating expenses, and product development and marketing.
It's been called a “glorified welfare project”.
Last year, the crews of over 12 sealing vessels had to be rescued by the Canadian Coast Guard. Guess who footed the bill? The Canadian taxpayer. Which is interesting because national opinion polls consistently show the majority of Canadians are opposed to the commercial seal hunt outright, and even higher percentage of Canadians opposes characteristic aspects of the commercial seal hunt, despite the DFOs arguments to the contrary.
Since this turned out to be this long (and I really don't know if anyone cares to read it), I'm just not even going to go into the wastefulness of the hunt (no market for seal meat, seal oil contains a known carcinogen)...
alabasterwing
04-13-2008, 02:36 PM
"We did not kill these men," said Captain Paul Watson. "Canadian government incompetence and the political ambitions of Loyola Hearn killed them. Hearn allows hundreds of undersize, wooden and aluminum vessels into treacherous ice conditions and does not provide adequate Coast Guard protections and training. Those men died because they were in conditions they should not have been in and the Canadian government put them in that position."
I met Paul Watson Friday night(it's one of his vessels that was stormed yesterday). No, these hunts are NOT regulated like the Canadian government keeps saying they are - it's a free for all. Capt. Watson has been out there year after year since 1976 (even studying alternatives to sealing). I have no end of admiration for him at this point.
http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_sscs_history.html
He said the Canadian gov.'t wanted him to apologize for his comments about the sealers. He agreed that their deaths were a tragedy and believes the needless slaughter of so many animals is an even bigger one.
I would like to know what you think an average person like myself can really do to help besides send a letter or sign an online petition.. I would love to do more, I just don't know where to start.
Jeska, at the above link on the right hand side, there are some "take action" links.
Capt. Watson believes this hunt is finally coming to an end. He said he thinks that this will be the last year. I don't know what to think, but I do hope he turns out to be right.
alabasterwing
04-21-2008, 11:09 AM
Wow - this just came out 4/17. The National Post published an article on the economics of killing seals in Canada and the article details the funds the Canadian government is spending in order to continue/subsidize it:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/18/the-millions-ottawa-spends-subsidizing-the-seal-hunt.aspx
kitty260
04-21-2008, 11:14 AM
So, uh....having fun talking to yourself in here?
The rest of us are over it already. Don't fan the flames.
alabasterwing
04-21-2008, 11:34 AM
Some people have PM'd me with interest and obviously it's still going on. So, perhaps you should only speak for yourself. If you're "over it" - go play elsewhere.
And, goodness - if you don't have any useful info - why would you post? Ah - then again you posted with inaccurate info, so apparently you don't care one way or the other.