Research Paper: Seal Hunt

[wyly]

My link This is hilarious, the government in thinking of culling the population of grey seals on Sable Island. Though a couple of things bother me under one option this is going to cost the taxpayer a fair chunk of money, and potentially nothing of the seal will be used.

BTW this is the type of thing that would have to happen with the harp seal if the hunt ever ends. So by supporting a ban your not supporting an end to the killing of harp seal your supporting an end to people being able to make money off of it and intead having the burden to pay for it put on the backs of the taxpaying Canadian.

or they could do nothing and let nature fix itself...the seals will eventually eat themselves out of a meal and if fisherman stopped slaughtering sharks for their fins this natural predator of the seal could help bring the seal numbers back into balance...nature did fine for billions of years controling the natural balances without human help, it's commercial hunting/fishing that needs to be regulated so that nature can sustain a regular harvest...

[wyly]

I think they'd be popular here. If I ever get the chance I'm going to go on a hunt to get some for some gloves or boots.

I don't feel a need to go on a hunt but you can bring me back a nice sealskin hat and mitts...

[PIK]

The problem is with the city dwellers, the ones that think food comes from a store. lol Stay in your cities and leave us rural people alone to do our jobs, we are the ones that subsibize your way of life. And when you look at the tactics that these people use (lies)don't waste your time with them. PETA actually went out and trap a animal years back very inhumanely to try and make trappers look bad ,but they did it during non trapping time. So they tortured a animal for no reason.

[Guest American Woman]

Then we should start hunting whitecoats again. I bet they'd be popular in Asia. There's a lot more money to be made there from luxury goods than there was 20 years ago.

So go for it. Suggest it. See where it gets you.

FYI, talk is cheap.

[WIP]

Again, what's ironic is that I've not once mentioned how cute the baby seals are, even though Argus keeps bringing it up. Also, I've not once said that it's legal to hunt white coats. I've simply posted my opinion, which apparently makes me an ugly American, dishonest, emotional, hysterical, and all sorts of nasty things.

A reasoned argument in favour of seal hunting can be undone by a gut level emotional reaction to those pictures, and that's likely why it bothers Argus so much....otherwise he probably wouldn't have mentioned it. It's not a lot different than the reaction most people feel if they get a close look at any beef, poultry or pig processing operation. Most modern city people can't stomach seeing how their food is made. When I was young and desperate for a job, I took a job as a poultry catcher at chicken processing plant. I never went back after the first day...even though I never considered chickens to be cute!

I don't even want to think about the responses I would have received if I had made such a statement.

I'm not saying the average farmer or meat-processing plant worker is a psychopath; most people working in these industries have made it work by making a sharp distinction between animals and humans. City people only come in close contact with their pets, so killing animals is going to be more difficult. But it has been noted in a number of published works over the years that dangerous psychopaths start with animals before moving on to people. They can carry out their evil intentions on animals and practice what they may later do to humans. This ugly little story that was exposed by a hidden camera shows a vile psychopath getting his kicks torturing cows in his place of work. He was fired...but only after the video exposed him and the company http://www.newser.com/story/90245/horrific-video-lands-farm-worker-in-jail.html

(Newser) – An Ohio dairy farm worker was charged with 12 counts of animal cruelty yesterday, after an animal rights group released an undercover video showing him and other dairy workers viciously beating cows with crowbars and stabbing them with pitchforks. Billy Joe Gregg is currently in jail awaiting arraignment, and faces almost three years in prison if convicted on all counts, the AP reports.

Killing animals may not make someone a psychopathic murderer, but it is the first rung on the ladder, and a hobby that these vile people are allowed to engage in because of industries that depend on mass slaughter of animals to put meat and dairy products on most people's dinner table.

I think there's much more to it than the cuteness. The babies are being killed for their coats, which makes it strictly a vanity thing. And it is babies being killed, which is objectionable to a lot of people. Also, it's connected to a western, civilized nation; the government is actually condoning it and defending it. It also takes place in a short period of time, so thousands are killed at once, making it more spectacular than some every day abuses.

For animal activists, though, I don't think they feel any more strongly about the seals than they do other animal abuses. I think those who are angry at the people who oppose the seal hunt just accuse them of opposing it only because they are cute, so it appears as if that's the reason. That's what's happened in this thread. The only ones mentioning their cuteness are those accusing those who oppose the hunt of doing so only because they are cute, in spite of the real reasons given.

I still think most people on both sides of the seal issue have a strong reaction to the videos and pictures. The pro-sealing side are angered because of the way the pictures make them feel, and the anti-sealing side try to distance themselves from it in the belief that it weakens a logical argument against sealing. It is what it is!

As a sidenote on that "emotional and hysterical" thing. We all have emotions, but rather than argue that you are coldly rational you need to ask some men if they are using that charge either deliberately or unconsciously against an opinion because it's coming from a woman. Seriously, it seems to come up more often against women, so there's likely either intentional or unintentional bias when the hysterical charge is put out there.

[Guest TrueMetis]

or they could do nothing and let nature fix itself...the seals will eventually eat themselves out of a meal...

Ye lets allow fish stock to be decimeated further ruining the lives of fishermen.

and if fisherman stopped slaughtering sharks for their fins this natural predator of the seal could help bring the seal numbers back into balance...

If you can get the counrties that do that to stop good for you.

nature did fine for billions of years controling the natural balances without human help,

Ya but natures methods are crude and include things like mass starvation and disease. I prefer out method.

it's commercial hunting/fishing that needs to be regulated so that nature can sustain a regular harvest...

Canada's commercial fishing and hunting is regulated.

[dre]

The problem is with the city dwellers, the ones that think food comes from a store. lol Stay in your cities and leave us rural people alone to do our jobs, we are the ones that subsibize your way of life.

Actually its the exact opposite. Money flows from the urban centers to rural communities through ll kinds of mechanisms like agricultural subsidies etc.

[Guest American Woman]

A reasoned argument in favour of seal hunting can be undone by a gut level emotional reaction to those pictures, and that's likely why it bothers Argus so much....otherwise he probably wouldn't have mentioned it. It's not a lot different than the reaction most people feel if they get a close look at any beef, poultry or pig processing operation. Most modern city people can't stomach seeing how their food is made. When I was young and desperate for a job, I took a job as a poultry catcher at chicken processing plant. I never went back after the first day...even though I never considered chickens to be cute!

Argus is mentioning the pictures in regards to me, insisting that that's what my opinion is based on. If the pictures bother him, that's one thing, but trying to project it on me and my opinions is dishonest. Furthermore, if that's all he's got, it tells me that he can't address what I've actually said.

I'm not saying the average farmer or meat-processing plant worker is a psychopath; most people working in these industries have made it work by making a sharp distinction between animals and humans. City people only come in close contact with their pets, so killing animals is going to be more difficult.

I'm not a "city person." Hunting is very much a part of life where I live. So I'm very familiar with hunting, and as I've stated, I wouldn't support a law legalizing killing fawns any more than I support killing baby seals. I've also said that I don't eat veal, lamb, or piglet, and would support bans on all of those things.

I understand that hunting and thinning herds etc. is a necessary part of life. I just don't understand the legality of killing a baby animal in any hunt.

But it has been noted in a number of published works over the years that dangerous psychopaths start with animals before moving on to people. They can carry out their evil intentions on animals and practice what they may later do to humans. This ugly little story that was exposed by a hidden camera shows a vile psychopath getting his kicks torturing cows in his place of work. He was fired...but only after the video exposed him and the company http://www.newser.com/story/90245/horrific-video-lands-farm-worker-in-jail.html

(Newser) – An Ohio dairy farm worker was charged with 12 counts of animal cruelty yesterday, after an animal rights group released an undercover video showing him and other dairy workers viciously beating cows with crowbars and stabbing them with pitchforks. Billy Joe Gregg is currently in jail awaiting arraignment, and faces almost three years in prison if convicted on all counts, the AP reports.

Killing animals may not make someone a psychopathic murderer, but it is the first rung on the ladder, and a hobby that these vile people are allowed to engage in because of industries that depend on mass slaughter of animals to put meat and dairy products on most people's dinner table.

There are a lot of sick people in the world, and it's a good thing that there are animal rights activists who go after them. And in the example you cited, I hope Gregg gets as stiff a sentence as possible. But at least there are laws against what he/they did, so people are not "allowed" to do what they did.

I still think most people on both sides of the seal issue have a strong reaction to the videos and pictures. The pro-sealing side are angered because of the way the pictures make them feel, and the anti-sealing side try to distance themselves from it in the belief that it weakens a logical argument against sealing. It is what it is!

I can't argue that the pictures/videos don't have an impact. I'm just saying that there's much more to it than that; that it goes much deeper. Furthermore, it's honestly not what I've based my opinion on.

As a sidenote on that "emotional and hysterical" thing. We all have emotions, but rather than argue that you are coldly rational you need to ask some men if they are using that charge either deliberately or unconsciously against an opinion because it's coming from a woman. Seriously, it seems to come up more often against women, so there's likely either intentional or unintentional bias when the hysterical charge is put out there.

I've never claimed to be coldly rational, but I'm certainly not irrational regarding this issue, nor am I overly emotional about it. As I pointed out, others here have been arguing more 'emotionally' than I am, and are trying to claim that I feel the way I do based on my emotions. And really, I have no doubt that the charges are being thrown at me because I'm a woman, and an American woman at that.

[WIP]

I'm not a "city person." Hunting is very much a part of life where I live. So I'm very familiar with hunting, and as I've stated, I wouldn't support a law legalizing killing fawns any more than I support killing baby seals. I've also said that I don't eat veal, lamb, or piglet, and would support bans on all of those things.

I wouldn't ban hunting, but the sport seems to be dying out anyway because it is just becoming too expensive, too restrictive with regulations, to make it worthwhile. Younger people are not bothering to take up the sport.

Personally, the yardstick I would use would have to do with the treatment of the animal, rather than the age. The reasons why hunters wouldn't be allowed to kill fawns or bear cubs would likely have more to do with the negative consequences it would have on the population. But the first reason cited for the seal hunt is usually overpopulation of seals. If it's just a matter of culling the herd, they could go out and shoot seals.

But, because the object of the game is to retrieve a pelt that is still a valuable commodity for some stupid reason, the sealers are so concerned with retrieving a seal pup's pelt, that they would rather skin a baby seal alive then do too much damage to the pelt and lose money. They do as little clubbing as possible, before performing the "blinking eye test" which is supposed to be required before skinning. If the pup doesn't blink during a brief amount of time, then the sealer can start skinning. Several years ago, an independent panel of veterinarians selected by a federal government study, found that up to 40% of the seals were skinned alive! And that's why I feel that this industry should be shut down and become a relic of the past.

There are a lot of sick people in the world, and it's a good thing that there are animal rights activists who go after them. And in the example you cited, I hope Gregg gets as stiff a sentence as possible. But at least there are laws against what he/they did, so people are not "allowed" to do what they did.

He wasn't the only one! And the fact that it took an animal rights group with hidden cameras to reveal this grotesque spectacle, shows that the employer was also culpable whether or not charges are filed.

Personally, I haven't been a vegetarian long enough to start lecturing people about their food choices; but after learning about the ugly inside story of modern factory farming that provides cheap meat and dairy products for the consumer, I would argue that these operations that keep these selectively bred animals in cramped, overcrowded conditions should be shut down for the environmental problems they've created, as well as mass-scale animal abuse.

If people want to eat meat and enjoy dairy products, the animals should at least be guaranteed the quality of life they used to have on the average farm several decades ago. That would mean a big drop in output and resulting increase in meat and dairy prices, but in the meantime these costs are being kept artificially low and cannot be sustained indefinitely into the future.

[jbg]

The reasons why hunters wouldn't be allowed to kill fawns or bear cubs would likely have more to do with the negative consequences it would have on the population.

In the case of fawns or bear cubs, I think it may have have a lot to do with the "negative consequences" of tangling with the mother of those fawns or bear cubs. Deer and black bear are not particularly rare.

But the first reason cited for the seal hunt is usually overpopulation of seals.

That's more true in Newfoundland and Labrador than in Saskatchewan or Alberta, the other big seal-hunting provinces. If you remember Heather McCarthy thought she was in Newfoundland at the time of her interview, not Nova Scotia. I guess she didn't know where Halifax was.

[Guest TrueMetis]

But the first reason cited for the seal hunt is usually overpopulation of seals. If it's just a matter of culling the herd, they could go out and shoot seals.

Yes but instead they managed to create an industry which means its not a taxpayer funded cull, and some people get economic benefit from it.

But, because the object of the game is to retrieve a pelt that is still a valuable commodity for some stupid reason,

Because it's really soft and warm? Have you ever felt seal skin? It's one of the nicest clothing materials out there. It;s also completely waterproof.

the sealers are so concerned with retrieving a seal pup's pelt, that they would rather skin a baby seal alive then do too much damage to the pelt and lose money.

This is totally false and defies common sense. Do you have any idea how hard it is to skin an animal? Throw in being on ice with a living animal and there is no way you would get a workable pelt. It's in the sealers interest to make sure the seal is dead so that they can get the pelt easier. Not to mention there has never been a substantiated report of a sealer skinning a seal alive in Canada.

They do as little clubbing as possible, before performing the "blinking eye test" which is supposed to be required before skinning.If the pup doesn't blink during a brief amount of time, then the sealer can start skinning.

You really know nothing about the seal hunt do you? This is the process for kill a seal.

The three-step process for harvesting seals is a science-based approach developed to ensure that seals do not suffer unnecessarily. The three steps are:

Step 1) "Striking" - Sealers must shoot or strike animals on the top of the cranium, with either a firearm or a hakapik or club;

Step 2) "Checking" - The sealer must palpate both the left and right halves of the cranium, following striking (either with a firearm, hakapik or club), to ensure that the skull has been crushed. This ensures that the seal is irreversibly unconscious or dead;

Step 3) "Bleeding" – The sealer must bleed the animal by severing the two axillary arteries located beneath the front flippers and must allow a minimum of one minute to pass before skinning the animal. Bleeding ensures that the seal is dead.

And that's not how the blinking eye tests works at all anyway, you have to touch the seals eye and if it doesn't blink then the seal is unconscious at the very least.

Several years ago, an independent panel of veterinarians selected by a federal government study, found that up to 40% of the seals were skinned alive! And that's why I feel that this industry should be shut down and become a relic of the past.

Cite you source, the only time I've ever heard of a seal being skinned alive in Canada was staged by the IFAW. And most of the studies that say this are payed for by animal rights groups trying to shut down the hunt and aren't peer-reviewed.

Edited May 29, 2010 by TrueMetis

[WIP]

Because it's really soft and warm? Have you ever felt seal skin? It's one of the nicest clothing materials out there. It;s also completely waterproof.

No sale!

This is totally false and defies common sense. Do you have any idea how hard it is to skin an animal?

No! Did I say that I did?

Throw in being on ice with a living animal and there is no way you would get a workable pelt. It's in the sealers interest to make sure the seal is dead so that they can get the pelt easier. Not to mention there has never been a substantiated report of a sealer skinning a seal alive in Canada.

This topic is your hobby horse not mine; I accidentally stumbled upon it, and I have no interest in doing in depth research on the claims of either side -- there are other animal welfare issues that I want to spend a little more time on than this one. But if there has never been proof of a sealer skinning a seal alive, then what is this supposed to mean: "The federal government acknowledges that it has laid more than 200 charges against sealers since 1996, but argues that shows it's serious about enforcing its regulations." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html#ixzz0pOwO2QnQ So why were those charges laid, and how many offenders go unnoticed by authorities out on the ice floes?

You really know nothing about the seal hunt do you? This is the process for kill a seal.

I know as much as I intend to know about this archaic business that serves no useful purpose.

[williat]

No sale!

No! Did I say that I did?

This topic is your hobby horse not mine; I accidentally stumbled upon it, and I have no interest in doing in depth research on the claims of either side -- there are other animal welfare issues that I want to spend a little more time on than this one. But if there has never been proof of a sealer skinning a seal alive, then what is this supposed to mean: "The federal government acknowledges that it has laid more than 200 charges against sealers since 1996, but argues that shows it's serious about enforcing its regulations." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html#ixzz0pOwO2QnQ'>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html#ixzz0pOwO2QnQ So why were those charges laid, and how many offenders go unnoticed by authorities out on the ice floes?

I know as much as I intend to know about this archaic business that serves no useful purpose.

I feel that it is time that I interject to make sure we are still on the right path. Just so everyone knows, this has really helped me look at the argument from both perspectives for my research paper, so THANKS GUYS

The one problem I seem to come across however in the arugments laid out by both sides seem to return to the same points over and over again. Primarily it becomes a question of ethics. For instance the opponents argue that there is no real reason for this hunt, well on the contrary, I have researched the topic quite extensively and if you care to read my report (ask and you shall receive) then it becomes clear that although the population numbers of seals is greatly debated (namely falling within the range of 5.2 to 5.9 million harp seals). Well lets take the low end for example and say that the population stands at 5.2 million, the same number DFO estimated in 2000 (Harp Seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modeling populations with uncertainty, by Stephen Harris, Carl D Soulsbury & Graziella Iossa). Ok so we've determined that the population stands around 5.2 million, now consider that the quota's have been increasing over the years, therefore the argument that we are "overhunting" or the hunt is useless would be contradicting hard facts (removing the dispute portion of the argument), therefore we are solely managing the population. What would happen if the hunt didn't occur, well the seal population would obviously expand (as simple math can predict). From there we must focus our attention to fish stocks in the region seals are hunted, well we can chalk up the poor quality of fish stocks off Atlantic Canada then to a combination of 3 factors. Namely European overfishing, Canadian overfishing and seals consuming the fish (obviously their main diet). Research has already shown the seals consume more fish, "The annual prey consumption by Harp Seals (one of three types of seals hunted) increased from 3.6 million to 6.9 million tons between 1981 and 1994; this represents an increase of 57% over a 13 year period." (Predation by Harp Seals in Atlantic Canada: Preliminary Consumption Estimates for Arctic Cod, Capelin and Atlantic Cod. by G.B Stenson, M.O. Hammill & J.W. Lawson). Therefore it becomes clear that the 3 events combined have resulted in depletion of fish stocks, I would then suggest to everyone...well do we stop eating fish so that the levels can begin to regain strength? Also the EU added to the problem by overfishing our waters for decades if not centuries, should they not be held somewhat accountable, therefore is it right for them to ban this product? What do we do if we stop the hunt all together, then the seals will just consume more and more fish until the balance is too out of wack and they begin to starve to death. These are the type of questions that we need to dicuss, get away from the ethics of the whole thing, we're never going to find a common ground there that everyone can agree to, so lets look at it from an analytical standpoint and say well what would happen if we did this..."its a cruel practice" is by no means a relevant addition to the argument, Jacques Cousteau even famously said to "take the emotion out of it", I mean shit some people still shoot their dogs out behind the shed because they are too cheap to take them to the vet, do we plan on taking up a fight against it, not a chance.

We can debate the question of ethics up and down, but we must realize that a combination of law, numbers and ethics should be the basis of our decision. It would be wrong to sit here and argue "We shouldn't hunt the seals" or "The seal hunt is a good thing" without looking at all the information, I understand obviously that not everyone has taken the time to research the topic, but as a suggestion to both opponents and proponents is to look into the issue in detail before making a decision, and please god don't take everything you read as truth. For instance WIP has pointed out that yes skinning a seal alive can occur, but with only 200 charges laid and a quota of roughly 330,000 harp seals for 2010, this would only represent a 6.09x10^-4 chance of occuring, which we can both agree is extremely miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Do I agree that it can happen, obviously, I mean I don't know much about slaughterhouses but I'm willing to bet animals are somehow being killed inhumanely. Secondly I think it depends on who you are asking concerning the amount of seals skinned alive "a 2002 report by the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that 98% of hunted seals examined had been killed properly" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html), I mean 98% in any other industry is considered pretty damn good wouldn't you agree?

Finally I must raise the question to all of you that the WTO makes no provision for human rights, so why therefore must it make provisions for animal rights? The WTO made it very clear in their ruling on the US Sea Turtle case stating "Although the legislation could have been legitimate under certain GATT articles, the WTO doesn’t necessarily need to allow countries to take measures to protect the environment. " (Domain of WTO dispute resolution, Joel P. Trachtman), it brings up the discussion of trade & environmental values. Could we also not argue that this ban is discrimination and would violate the Most-Favored-Nation clause, “the committee was in favour of a proposed derogation for the Inuit and other aboriginal communities. This would apply to products derived from traditional subsistence hunting that could be traded for cultural, educational, and/or ceremonial purposes, but subject to a number of conditions.” (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/054-50624-061-03-10-909-20090302IPR50623-02-03-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm), in Canada the Inuit are deemed to be a "distinct" group under our Charter of rights, therefore would this not constitute a clear violation, favoring one "nation" or people over another?

Things to think about people, do not be so naive to only look at one side, be it For or Against.

[Molly]

Also the EU added to the problem by overfishing our waters for decades if not centuries, should they not be held somewhat accountable, therefore is it right for them to ban this product?

This got very short shrift in this conversation, and should be repeated with emphasis.

I was disgusted to read, in articles that claimed (and likely intended) to be balanced and unbiased wrt the seal hunt, references to Canadian overfishing leading to collapse of fish stocks, yet nary a mention of the ongoing European outright vandalism of fish stocks. Popular wisdom as sold by fund-raising anti-sealers has simply drifted that far from truth....

Such things jaundice my view of those who support the ban for ethical reasons (or think they do).

[Sir Bandelot]

or they could do nothing and let nature fix itself...the seals will eventually eat themselves out of a meal and if fisherman stopped slaughtering sharks for their fins this natural predator of the seal could help bring the seal numbers back into balance...nature did fine for billions of years controling the natural balances without human help, it's commercial hunting/fishing that needs to be regulated so that nature can sustain a regular harvest...

Perhaps we could stop killing things entirely, and all become vegetarians. But then who will protect the rights of the carrot

[WIP]

Perhaps we could stop killing things entirely, and all become vegetarians. But then who will protect the rights of the carrot

No society beyond hunter/gatherer is able to sustain itself by hunting, but that is essentially how fishing, whaling and sealing is conducted. It is hunting on the wide open oceans. Ecologists have warned us for decades that the growing human population cannot just keep taking more and more out of the seas without end. The trawlers are bigger, the nets drag deeper and scoop more and more out of the seas, and people on land think that this can go on without end...just like the oil industry!

And yes, 99% of the meat and dairy that finds its way to the supermarkets is also an environmentally unsustainable industry. Traditionally, in most of the Far East, most people learned how to eat with a lot less meat in the diet because of the cost. In the future, if we are going to escape ecological disaster, meat is going to have to be priced at a level that properly accounts for taking on average: ten pounds of plant food to produce one pound of meat.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This topic is your hobby horse not mine; I accidentally stumbled upon it, and I have no interest in doing in depth research on the claims of either side -- there are other animal welfare issues that I want to spend a little more time on than this one. But if there has never been proof of a sealer skinning a seal alive, then what is this supposed to mean: "The federal government acknowledges that it has laid more than 200 charges against sealers since 1996, but argues that shows it's serious about enforcing its regulations." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html#ixzz0pOwO2QnQ So why were those charges laid, and how many offenders go unnoticed by authorities out on the ice floes?

Those charges were probably laid because most people can't tell a good kill from a bad one. FYI a charge is not proof that it happened it proof that someone thinks it happened. So 200 charges that haven't been verified as having actually happened amongst a hunt of some 300,000 animals. Though in the cases that are proven the sealers involved should be fined heavily and have to retake the licensing courses as they obviously missed something. Also none of this proves the "they would rather skin a baby seal alive" bit. Only a fool would rather skin a living animal, and if any of the sealers out there were like that they wouldn't have made it past their apprenticeship.

williat I would like to read your report.

[WIP]

What would happen if the hunt didn't occur, well the seal population would obviously expand (as simple math can predict). From there we must focus our attention to fish stocks in the region seals are hunted, well we can chalk up the poor quality of fish stocks off Atlantic Canada then to a combination of 3 factors. Namely European overfishing, Canadian overfishing and seals consuming the fish (obviously their main diet). Research has already shown the seals consume more fish, "The annual prey consumption by Harp Seals (one of three types of seals hunted) increased from 3.6 million to 6.9 million tons between 1981 and 1994; this represents an increase of 57% over a 13 year period."

I already noted this argument that sealing is needed primarily to save fish stocks, since that is usually the first card to be played by the industry. If it was a matter of culling the numbers of seals, that still does not equal taking harp seal pups and skinning them for fur. Once there is money to be made, any and every excuse will be given to keep the hunt going. If the decline in fish stocks also leads to a decline in harp seals, the advocates for the fur industry will resist all efforts to stop the hunt because of the money involved.

I don't even think culling predators should be given this sort of knee jerk approval without any investigation of wider ecological issues. Why are fish stocks in decline? Remember, according to legend, John Cabot's boat got stuck off the coast of Labrador because of a dense school of cod fish swimming in their path. Now, cod numbers are so low, they may be headed for extinction and the fishing industry keeps pulling any and every species of fish out of the waters to keep their business going. Rather than ask what can be done to save the oceans, the first suggestion is to just kill off the other predators that compete with ocean-going trawlers. The seals did not cause over-fishing before the first commercial trawlers showed up to vacuum the oceans, so how can anyone seriously consider harp seals to be a primary cause of decline in fish numbers.

(Predation by Harp Seals in Atlantic Canada: Preliminary Consumption Estimates for Arctic Cod, Capelin and Atlantic Cod. by G.B Stenson, M.O. Hammill & J.W. Lawson). Therefore it becomes clear that the 3 events combined have resulted in depletion of fish stocks, I would then suggest to everyone...well do we stop eating fish so that the levels can begin to regain strength?

It's already happening from market forces. Fish is getting expensive and is already out of many people's price range.

For instance WIP has pointed out that yes skinning a seal alive can occur, but with only 200 charges laid and a quota of roughly 330,000 harp seals for 2010, this would only represent a 6.09x10^-4 chance of occuring, which we can both agree is extremely miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Do I agree that it can happen, obviously, I mean I don't know much about slaughterhouses but I'm willing to bet animals are somehow being killed inhumanely. Secondly I think it depends on who you are asking concerning the amount of seals skinned alive "a 2002 report by the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that 98% of hunted seals examined had been killed properly" (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html), I mean 98% in any other industry is considered pretty damn good wouldn't you agree?

That is the same link I provided! I don't know much confidence a report in the veterinary journal should receive since there could be money and influence involved in getting that judgment.

How much confidence can we have in the 98% figure? How many speeders are prosecuted for driving 20 - 30 kmh over the speed limit? The cops have to write out a few tickets to prove that they are earning their pay. "Only 200 charges have been laid" doesn't tell me how actively the feds are trying to find and prosecute evidence of abuse, especially when they parade that number as evidence of how hard they are working to find signs of abuse. It could be not much more than a PR effort. I raised the ethical issue because I did not find an argument for banning the hunt on the basis of age (killing baby seals) to be very compelling.

Even if the ethical arguments against the seal fur industry are not the most important, they have to be acknowledged because modern ethics is being informed by new information about animal life, and changing our Judeo-Christian worldview that humans are the pinnacle of life on earth, and other life is just here to be exploited (dominion over the animal creation, yadayada) -- a modern appreciation for where we really stand, tells us that we are a branch of the primate family that developed an overly large pre-frontal cortex, which has allowed us to do great things but also to act recklessly towards our own detriment.

We have developed an illusion of having dominion over all living things for the last 10,000 years, ever since we developed agriculture; now we have to adopt a new paradigm that we are part of the ecosystems of earth, not standing over and above them! If we do not learn as a species to act in harmony with the planet's ecosystems, our species will become extinct in one to five centuries. And part of living in harmony with nature depends on a new appreciation for the welfare of other sentient creatures on earth. Again, we are not something separate and superior to them, we merely have superior abstract reasoning capabilities that they don't have. If we do not have any empathy for the welfare of other advanced creatures that have the same capacity for emotional states that we have (like dogs for example), then that's a slap against any ethical claims made regarding humans. When it comes to animals that are close to our cognitive abilities, such as whales and dolphins, they should be accorded something close to the human rights that we guarantee to the few hunter/gatherer still in existence, such as the residents on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

[Alta4ever]

Perhaps we could stop killing things entirely, and all become vegetarians. But then who will protect the rights of the carrot

Do you listen to tool?

[Alta4ever]

Do you listen to tool?

TOOL HIDDEN TRACK LYRICS

Send "Hidden Track" Ringtone to your Cell

And the angel of the Lord came unto me,

snatching me up from my

place of slumber,

and took me on high,

and higher still until we

moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself.

and he bore me unto a

vast farmland of our own midwest,

and as we descended cries of

impending doom rose from the soil.

one thousand, nay, a million

voices full of fear.

and terror possessed me then.

and I begged,

"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

And the angel said unto me,

"These are the cries of the carrots,

the cries of the carrots.

You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day

and to them it is the holocaust."

And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat

like the tears of one millions terrified brothers

and roared,

"Hear me now,

I have seen the light,

they have a consciousness,

they have a life,

they have a soul.

http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1167877/Tool-Hidden-Track-Lyrics

[Guest American Woman]

I wouldn't ban hunting, but the sport seems to be dying out anyway because it is just becoming too expensive, too restrictive with regulations, to make it worthwhile. Younger people are not bothering to take up the sport.

I wouldn't ban "hunting," either. I take it you mean you wouldn't ban hunting seals?

Personally, the yardstick I would use would have to do with the treatment of the animal, rather than the age. The reasons why hunters wouldn't be allowed to kill fawns or bear cubs would likely have more to do with the negative consequences it would have on the population. But the first reason cited for the seal hunt is usually overpopulation of seals. If it's just a matter of culling the herd, they could go out and shoot seals.

I think age has a lot to do with it. If the reason is overpopulation, killing the older seals would limit the number just as surly as killing the babies. But there are plenty of deer around, they are every bit as plentiful as seals. I don't know about bears, but the fact that the deer population is so high is argument enough to refute the idea that hunting fawns isn't permitted because of the effect it would have on the population. Furthermore, there have been years when the ice has been so thin that baby seals have drowned, cutting down on the population naturally. This was another bad year, from what I've read, so if this continues, it could likely limit the population of seals quite drastically over time.

But I do feel there is a difference between killing an animal that has lived its life and killing an animal that hasn't even learned to swim and/or hunt yet. I don't think it's right to kill an animal before it's had a chance to do much more than be born.

But, because the object of the game is to retrieve a pelt that is still a valuable commodity for some stupid reason, the sealers are so concerned with retrieving a seal pup's pelt, that they would rather skin a baby seal alive then do too much damage to the pelt and lose money.

They kill the young in far greater numbers than the mature seals because of the value of their pelt. They aren't killing them for food; they could go after seals over a year old if that were the purpose of the hunt. They could kill seals over a year old to control population, too.

They do as little clubbing as possible, before performing the "blinking eye test" which is supposed to be required before skinning. If the pup doesn't blink during a brief amount of time, then the sealer can start skinning. Several years ago, an independent panel of veterinarians selected by a federal government study, found that up to 40% of the seals were skinned alive! And that's why I feel that this industry should be shut down and become a relic of the past.

If that's true, it's terrible. I can't imagine anyone being so money-hungry that they could knowingly skin a live animal.

He wasn't the only one! And the fact that it took an animal rights group with hidden cameras to reveal this grotesque spectacle, shows that the employer was also culpable whether or not charges are filed.

I agree that the employer, if he knew what was going on, was culpable too. I'd never suggest otherwise.

Personally, I haven't been a vegetarian long enough to start lecturing people about their food choices; but after learning about the ugly inside story of modern factory farming that provides cheap meat and dairy products for the consumer, I would argue that these operations that keep these selectively bred animals in cramped, overcrowded conditions should be shut down for the environmental problems they've created, as well as mass-scale animal abuse.

I agree with you about shutting down places such as you describe. And I applaud you for living by your values, not eating meat. It's what I do, too. I don't believe baby animals should be killed and act accordingly. Also, I don't buy (non-medical) products from companies that test on animals.

If people want to eat meat and enjoy dairy products, the animals should at least be guaranteed the quality of life they used to have on the average farm several decades ago. That would mean a big drop in output and resulting increase in meat and dairy prices, but in the meantime these costs are being kept artificially low and cannot be sustained indefinitely into the future.

I couldn't agree with you more; I'm 100% in agreement. Rising prices should not be a reason to allow/condone/excuse abusive situations.

[Sir Bandelot]

99% of the meat and dairy that finds its way to the supermarkets is also an environmentally unsustainable industry. Traditionally, in most of the Far East, most people learned how to eat with a lot less meat in the diet because of the cost. In the future, if we are going to escape ecological disaster, meat is going to have to be priced at a level that properly accounts for taking on average: ten pounds of plant food to produce one pound of meat.

I was involved in a cancer research study once, in which we had to eat food based on the diet of a particular region in China, where they had very low incidence of colon cancer. The food was lots of rice and vegetables. A very small amount of meat once a day.

About 5 years go I became a vegetarian, not 100% I eat a small amount of meat once in a while. But if good vegetarian food is available I always prefer to go for that!

[Sir Bandelot]

Do you listen to tool?

Yes I do...

[Alta4ever]

Yes I do...

That album is one of my favorites.

[wyly]

I was involved in a cancer research study once, in which we had to eat food based on the diet of a particular region in China, where they had very low incidence of colon cancer. The food was lots of rice and vegetables. A very small amount of meat once a day.

About 5 years go I became a vegetarian, not 100% I eat a small amount of meat once in a while. But if good vegetarian food is available I always prefer to go for that!

I knew a surgeon who did some work in East Africa he said he never saw any colon cancer while there, his opinion was it ws due to a diet high in fiber ...my docter says it's red meat that is the danger, chicken and pork being the better choice...