Research Paper: Seal Hunt

[williat]

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.

This is true and I will admit I didn't touch on this subject. I do admit that we as Canadian have also been responsible for overfishing the waters, I'm not blaming everyone but us, I said "We did it too". You bring up the idea of human population growth, and that we have more efficient equipment therefore "we" as humans are taking more then ever before and I also agree with you on that point. Although my skepticism is with the avoidance of DFO, I mean I would like to assume that DFO's job is to make sure that we don't take "too much" so that we wipe out a species of fish, just like the seals I put confidence in the fact that the government is actively managing this...you can argue with me on the quality of job they do I'm just pointing out what their job is, as far as I'm concerned. Remember I'm attempting to look at this from an unbias perspective, so I'm not saying your ideas are wrong.

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.

Yes it is an argument that is often used by the industry, but I mean we’ve done it before as humans, all of a sudden its wrong because its seals…I know that’s not exactly what you’re getting at or probably not even really close to it but you have to understand the value I put to this argument from opponents of the hunt. I’d also like to point that it depends on what you’re calling a cull, because my view may be completely different. I recently watched the documentary Food Inc. and in the film they claim that some slaughterhouses kill upwards of 400 cows per hour, could this not also be considered a form of culling then? Clearly the argument about primarily saving fish stocks is just as invalid as calling slaughterhouses “culling factories”, and I think you make a very valid point that it shouldn’t be about killing one thing to save another.

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.

I completely agree, I think there are other solutions to the problem…but I’m not saying I don’t believe in the hunt, I mean we hunt basically everything else so why should seals be some kind of protected animal. I suppose you could continue to hunt them but not for commercial use, but what the hell is the point then, hunting lodges make money off people going out to hunt deer or moose or bear or birds and we don’t hear people saying “wait they shouldn’t be making money off that”. All I’m saying is if you plan to be against the commercial aspect of the seal hunt then you need to be against the commercial aspect of all other hunting.

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

So are all types of food, you can’t say fish is getting expensive but neglect the fact that it costs more to buy everything else too.

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.

I was trying to prove a point about how you are arguing. You’re basically just discrediting everything that doesn’t meet up with what you are attempting to say. That link is from a journal, just because YOU don’t have confidence in it doesn’t mean it might not be true…I mean what the hell do you really know about the veterinary journal? I have about as much confidence in the 98% figure as I do in all these opponents saying that almost 40% of seals killed are slaughtered inhumanely, so I take it all as a grain of salt, don’t sit here and only argue your point, have an open mind and try to understand what I’m asking…don’t just respond with “well how can we say that’s believable?”, how can we say that these Sea Sheppard activists aren’t full of shit? I agree that these figures of 200 charges seems foolish, as its already stated those are charges not convictions, I mean if you are going to accept certain things and discredit others then at least be fair about it and either accept or discredit all.

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.

This seems like a very interesting argument and I would like to read more about it if you have anything I should look it. As I’ve said I’m trying to be unbiased in the report therefore this may be a good argument as well. The one question I would raise to you about this is that we are talking about an industry, therefore the ban falls under the WTO which makes no provisions for human rights at all (doesn’t touch on child labour laws in any way), although when we choose to punish another country we also apply sanctions usually in the form of trade sanctions, which can also be detrimental to human life by reducing the market for said country’s exports, bringing in less money to the people of the country. So my question is why should there be animal rights considered in trade relations when we make absolutely no provision for human rights? I would be much more willing to accept the argument that animals should have rights if we we’re also provided with rights under the WTO, but I do not think we can put animal welfare above humans.

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

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.

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

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.

I see the arguments you are trying to make and I believe this is a very reasonable approach to the debate on killing pups. Logical in the fact that we are really only killing the seal pups for the pelts, which fetch a higher price…and I agree that it’s probably not right to do it that way. I wouldn’t be opposed to setting an age limit a little higher, I mean people here are calling them babies but I’ve read that hunters must wait until the seal is “molting”, which I’m not exactly sure what that means but it appears it takes place after roughly 12-15 weeks when the mother leaves the child anyway. I sort of understand this being the bar that has been set, they would be left up to defend themselves anyway so it seems like an acceptable place to be allowed to hunt them if you take the numbers right out of it. But I don’t think we will ever find common ground on when it is appropriate, if we move the number higher to say not killing seals under 1 year then the debate becomes well how do we know the seal is a year old? It should be pretty clear when the seal is molting, or at least this is what I would hope the case is…

Also I must say that I agree with you that these sealers aren’t “money-hungry” individuals, I mean they didn’t steal anyone’s life savings over the past 2 years, so why should they be stamped with the image of slaughtering young seal pups out in the middle of nowhere, worse guys in Canada? I would argue that most are assuming these individuals know that this is wrong and continue to do it purely for greed. In reality the prices of seal pelts have all but collapsed due to the financial recession, falling from $105 in 2006 to $15 in 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html), I mean isn’t this the case of stereotyping? I’m not saying lets sweep the problem under the rug, all I’m saying is shouldn’t we have bigger things to worry about in the grand scheme of things, many on these forums gravely disagree with how our food industry works, but I don’t see anyone trying to put up a big fight against these industries, like the beef industry which is feeding cattle corn in turn producing E.Coli 0157H7, I mean we didn’t have this strain of E.Coli before we started feeding them corn as far as I know….all I’m trying to say is if you want to be mad at the sealers because they are practicing this, then you sure as hell better be ready to take up the fight against the rest of the food industry!

[Guest American Woman]

I see the arguments you are trying to make and I believe this is a very reasonable approach to the debate on killing pups. Logical in the fact that we are really only killing the seal pups for the pelts, which fetch a higher price…and I agree that it’s probably not right to do it that way. I wouldn’t be opposed to setting an age limit a little higher, I mean people here are calling them babies but I’ve read that hunters must wait until the seal is “molting”, which I’m not exactly sure what that means but it appears it takes place after roughly 12-15 weeks when the mother leaves the child anyway.

It takes place at 12-15 days, not weeks. It's legal to kill a 12-15 day old seal; which has not yet learned to swim or hunt. And yes, the mother does leave them at this age, to learn to swim and hunt for themselves. They are forced to learn in order to survive, after sitting around waiting for their mother to come back and losing a good portion of their 'nursing weight' in the process, before realizing that their mother isn't coming back.

This is the mother's/nature's way of forcing the pups, which are babies, to learn to fend for themselves. They have not yet learned it, making them 'sitting ducks' for hunters to come in and kill them. That's not part of "nature," that's humans taking advantage of their inability to swim. They don't die from natural causes/acts of nature by the hundreds of thousands during this learning process, so the "mother leaving the [baby] anyway" is not an excuse for allowing them to be killed.

I sort of understand this being the bar that has been set, they would be left up to defend themselves anyway so it seems like an acceptable place to be allowed to hunt them if you take the numbers right out of it.

It's part of nature for the seals to be left to learn to fend for themselves, and while they are on an ice floe waiting to begin this learning process, how many predators, other than man, do you think they are up against? There's hardly anything "acceptable" about allowing an unnatural predator into their territory to interfere with this learning process by killing thousands of them.

But I don’t think we will ever find common ground on when it is appropriate, if we move the number higher to say not killing seals under 1 year then the debate becomes well how do we know the seal is a year old? It should be pretty clear when the seal is molting, or at least this is what I would hope the case is…

Anyone who knows what they are doing would know the tell-tale signs of a seal over a year old, just as they know when a fish is a 'keeper' and/or deer and bear are 'fair game.'

I’m not saying lets sweep the problem under the rug, all I’m saying is shouldn’t we have bigger things to worry about in the grand scheme of things, many on these forums gravely disagree with how our food industry works, but I don’t see anyone trying to put up a big fight against these industries, like the beef industry which is feeding cattle corn in turn producing E.Coli 0157H7, I mean we didn’t have this strain of E.Coli before we started feeding them corn as far as I know….all I’m trying to say is if you want to be mad at the sealers because they are practicing this, then you sure as hell better be ready to take up the fight against the rest of the food industry!

We can "worry about bigger things" at the same time as we support the ban against the seal hunt. This thread isn't about "putting up a big fight" against the seal hunt; it's about whether or not we support the EU ban, and I daresay, from what I've read, any of us supporting the ban would also support a ban against any of the abuses you, or anyone else, has brought up.

Edited May 31, 2010 by American Woman

[williat]

It takes place at 12-15 days, not weeks. It's legal to kill a 12-15 day old seal; which has not yet learned to swim or hunt. And yes, the mother does leave them at this age, to learn to swim and hunt for themselves. They are forced to learn in order to survive, after sitting around waiting for their mother to come back and losing a good portion of their 'nursing weight' in the process, before realizing that their mother isn't coming back.

You are very much correct and after looking into it on more sources it does appear to be days and not weeks (sorry clearly a typo on my behalf). I have to say that when I hear 12-15 days that is drastically different and I can’t say I would agree with this. But I’ve also heard that they loose their “white coats” at this stage, which is when they, as you stated, are learning to swim & hunt. It does clearly mean that they are at a disadvantage, although my counter point to this then is that we eat veal, spring lamb & young turkeys and if you even want to take the debate a step further eggs...these points are already highlighted by many posters before me. Therefore I find it difficult to say well its ok on one hand but not on the other. I mean for me I think we need to call it what it is, its pretty clear that these seals aren’t dying out and I mean we treat farm animals as bad if not worse so I can’t say that “Well they’re babies”, really doesn’t make any difference for other species so why at this point.

This is the mother's/nature's way of forcing the pups, which are babies, to learn to fend for themselves. They have not yet learned it, making them 'sitting ducks' for hunters to come in and kill them. That's not part of "nature," that's humans taking advantage of their inability to swim. They don't die from natural causes/acts of nature by the hundreds of thousands during this learning process, so the "mother leaving the [baby] anyway" is not an excuse for allowing them to be killed.

As I said above I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but I mean we keep cows, pigs and chickens in pens…essentially the farmer’s way of shooting fish in a barrel I suppose you could say. But again we don’t smash them over the head to kill them, I think we usually slit their throats, AH yes the far more ethical way to do it…

It's part of nature for the seals to be left to learn to fend for themselves, and while they are on an ice floe waiting to begin this learning process, how many predators, other than man, do you think they are up against? There's hardly anything "acceptable" about allowing an unnatural predator into their territory to interfere with this learning process by killing thousands of them.

Well my question then to you is what the difference is then between clubbing them over the head while there are disadvantaged or shooting them with a rifle? Clearly the seal is at a disadvantage when it’s shot at rather then someone walking up to it wouldn’t you say, or we could agree that it is as bad? It sort of seems you are clearly appalled by the ethics of it…but even activist groups have said that as long as it’s done correctly it is humane (Read the Wikipedia article if you don’t believe me).

Anyone who knows what they are doing would know the tell-tale signs of a seal over a year old, just as they know when a fish is a 'keeper' and/or deer and bear are 'fair game.'

How do you know? Did you ask? That’s like telling me you can tell a dog or persons age just by looking at them. This argument completely invalid in this case, also I believe the size difference in bears and deer is much greater then seals, don’t take my word for it but I believe after loosing their white coats (12 days or so) they begin to add weight, I mean I’ve seen a lot of seals where I grew up and let me tell you, I can’t tell the difference between an old seal and a young (not baby those are obvious) seal. Your argument about fish is totally different as well because when you go recreational fishing you must measure the fish, theoretically, I’m not saying that it happens all the time but there are size restrictions, commercially I really have no idea how they do it, I know with Crab again it is by size measurement.

We can "worry about bigger things" at the same time as we support the ban against the seal hunt. This thread isn't about "putting up a big fight" against the seal hunt; it's about whether or not we support the EU ban, and I daresay, from what I've read, any of us supporting the ban would also support a ban against any of the abuses you, or anyone else, has brought up.

All I was asking people to do was to think logically because clearly you are thinking very much in terms of ethics…if you think ethics is a big factor re-read my prior posts. I feel that the thread must contain “the big fight” against the seal hunt because compared to other industries in which “young” animals are also slaughtered the seal hunt has been made a “big” deal by opponents, but I agree with you that it shouldn’t happen in seals or any animal for that matter. I’m not trying to draw you away from the question, I’m just saying that there are different views on it so don’t just look at one side, I’ve looked at why the ban is put in place and it is largely due to ethics (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20090504IPR54952+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN). I know saying well we do it in one situation makes it ok for us to do it with seals, but I think we just need to step back from the Pro or Against and just look at the bigger picture.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, American Woman's stance is perfectly reasonable. (Hell, I disagree with her on this, but that's beside the point.)

If she were indulging in special pleading--claiming that the treatment of animals in factory farms was fine, but the seal hunt was bad--then it would a useless, hypocritical argument. But she's simply keeping focussed on this particular issue per the thread topic, so there's no hypocrisy.

Edited June 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

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

I'll skip the next part college boy, because what you've found is confirmation bias. Do you think both sides here didn't already know that seals eat a lot of fish and fish stocks are collapsing? The objection I have is that this excuse for the seal hunt has done nothing to stop the decline in fish over the last 40 years! So, at best it would be considered a bandaid solution for a more fundamental problem. You seem to think for some reason that we have to insert ourselves into maintaining the balance of nature, otherwise seals will kill all of the fish in the North Atlantic and then starve to death. This is ridiculous, since it never seemed to happen previously in the millenia before the modern fishing industry arrived, and there's nothing in those data sets about seal populations and fish stocks that justify such an outlandish conclusion now.

."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.

I don't know if you're paying attention or not, but the main reason I say ethics is part of this debate is because of what it says about us and some changes in attitude we need to adopt if our species is going to survive the next few centuries. If our circle of concern stays limited to the human race, and we believe animals are just products for our exploitation -- we're screwed, plain and simple! This is the worldview that's given us the messes we have now, and a new paradigm is needed...fast!

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?

First of all, there are nine dissenting veterinarians who did not accept the official line and issued their own report, so they can't claim unanimous agreement. And about those statistics; isn't there a saying in statistical analysis that goes something like:'garbage in, garbage out'! Your low probability number is assuming that those 200 charges are the only examples of misconduct on the ice floes, rather than an indication that most of the sealers are not being monitored by federal authorities to begin with. You linked the same damn article from the CBC that everybody else is using here! I found an anti-sealing website that contains some pertinent information about the policing of the seal hunt, which indicates that finding and prosecuting abuse on the ice flows is not much more than finding a needle in a haystack:

In 1986, the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry reported on the inability of fisheries officers to adequately monitor the seal hunt. They noted, “the area that they must patrol is very extensive, the number of sealers is large, and sealing operations are multifaceted. For these reasons it is impossible to keep all parts of the seal hunt under close supervision at all times” (8-9).

Today, government monitoring of the commercial seal hunt in terms of humane killing is conducted by fisheries officers stationed on coast guard vessels. While there are over 1000 sealing vessels that participate in the commercial seal hunt, only a couple of coast guard vessels are deployed to the region. The massive coast guard vessels are normally stationed miles away from the smaller sealing boats, and thus observation of hunting methods from this platform is not viable. Enforcement agents are able to leave the coast guard vessels by helicopter or small speed boat, but are rarely seen to do so by animal protection groups that document the seal hunt.

Regardless, the handful of enforcement people stationed on coast guard vessels would be unable to monitor the thousands of individuals hunting over hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean this way. The scale of the hunt presents another challenge, with hundreds of thousands of seals slaughtered in just a few days. Not surprisingly, HSUS filmed consistent and serious violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations in 2007, with a Coast Guard vessel stationed nearby. To further complicate the situation, Coast Guard vessels are often called away from monitoring and enforcement of the hunt to perform other duties, such as icebreaking for other vessels (IVWG 2005).

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?

Shouldn't the question be: why the hell doesn't the WTO make provisions for human rights!

[Guest TrueMetis]

You seem to think for some reason that we have to insert ourselves into maintaining the balance of nature, otherwise seals will kill all of the fish in the North Atlantic and then starve to death. This is ridiculous, since it never seemed to happen previously in the millenia before the modern fishing industry arrived, and there's nothing in those data sets about seal populations and fish stocks that justify such an outlandish conclusion now.

Except no one has made that claim. I haven't made it, the DFO hasn't made it, so who's made it? Other than anti-sealers setting up a strawman.

First of all, there are nine dissenting veterinarians who did not accept the official line and issued their own report, so they can't claim unanimous agreement.

Wow 7, vs the hundreds that have worked for the DFO over the past 60 years.

I found an anti-sealing website that contains some pertinent information about the policing of the seal hunt, which indicates that finding and prosecuting abuse on the ice flows is not much more than finding a needle in a haystack:

Can you say conformation bias? But hey you got your source I've got mine. My linklink 2 link 3

At least my source doesn't depend directly on the seal hunt to make money. It will exsist whether the seal hunt does or not. Ever notice the anti's never actually do anything? It's in their best interest to seem like they're against the hunt when they aren't, it's why the only show up for a few days during the seal hunt but are rarely seen protesting otherwise.

In 1986, the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry reported on the inability of fisheries officers to adequately monitor the seal hunt. They noted, “the area that they must patrol is very extensive, the number of sealers is large, and sealing operations are multifaceted. For these reasons it is impossible to keep all parts of the seal hunt under close supervision at all times” (8-9).

Things have changed in the last 20+ years.

Today, government monitoring of the commercial seal hunt in terms of humane killing is conducted by fisheries officers stationed on coast guard vessels. While there are over 1000 sealing vessels that participate in the commercial seal hunt, only a couple of coast guard vessels are deployed to the region. The massive coast guard vessels are normally stationed miles away from the smaller sealing boats, and thus observation of hunting methods from this platform is not viable. Enforcement agents are able to leave the coast guard vessels by helicopter or small speed boat, but are rarely seen to do so by animal protection groups that document the seal hunt.

That's probably because they're only out there for a few days until they get enough footage that looks bad enough. So they can justify their multi-million dollar benefit packages.

Regardless, the handful of enforcement people stationed on coast guard vessels would be unable to monitor the thousands of individuals hunting over hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean this way. The scale of the hunt presents another challenge, with hundreds of thousands of seals slaughtered in just a few days. Not surprisingly, HSUS filmed consistent and serious violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations in 2007, with a Coast Guard vessel stationed nearby. To further complicate the situation, Coast Guard vessels are often called away from monitoring and enforcement of the hunt to perform other duties, such as icebreaking for other vessels (IVWG 2005).

Bullshit you can't tell if most of the regulations are being followed from a video, and who is going to trust the HSUS it is probably one of the cruelest organizations in the world. Look up what they did to the lost dogs in the wake of Katrina. A long with a million other things they've done.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, American Woman's stance is perfectly reasonable. (Hell, I disagree with her on this, but that's beside the point.)

If she were indulging in special pleading--claiming that the treatment of animals in factory farms was fine, but the seal hunt was bad--then it would a useless, hypocritical argument. But she's simply keeping focussed on this particular issue per the thread topic, so there's no hypocrisy.

Thank you for recognizing that. Sometimes I wonder if people even read what I've posted, as I think it's easy to comprehend what I've said. And if not, I'm perfectly willing to clarify, as long as I don't have to do so repeatedly. More and more often, though, it seems as if people are responding to what they claim I believe rather than what I say I believe, which is not only frustrating, but makes posting my beliefs/views pointless.

I've also said repeatedly that I don't eat veal, lamb, or piglet, or any young animal and would support a ban on them, too.

My stance on this, and my reasons for it, are perfectly consistent with my beliefs concerning other issues, too.

So again, I appreciate your recognizing that.

[Molly]

Today, government monitoring of the commercial seal hunt in terms of humane killing is conducted by fisheries officers stationed on coast guard vessels....

Excuse me.... fisheries observers travel aboard the working boats, and are not dependent on the coast guard for a ride.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Molly

[bloodyminded]

More and more often, though, it seems as if people are responding to what they claim I believe rather than what I say I believe, which is not only frustrating, but makes posting my beliefs/views pointless.

I hear you. It appears I'm a Communist...something I didn't even know until I started posting here.

[Guest American Woman]

You are very much correct and after looking into it on more sources it does appear to be days and not weeks (sorry clearly a typo on my behalf). I have to say that when I hear 12-15 days that is drastically different and I can’t say I would agree with this. But I’ve also heard that they loose their “white coats” at this stage, which is when they, as you stated, are learning to swim & hunt.

Yes, they do lose their white coats at this stage, and I've never claimed otherwise. I clearly realize that it's illegal to kill whitecoats, but that doesn't mean it's not illegal to kill babies who have shed their whitecoats; seals who have not yet learned to swim or fish. They haven't even reached the "learning to" stage yet at 12-15 days, as I've pointed out.

It does clearly mean that they are at a disadvantage, although my counter point to this then is that we eat veal, spring lamb & young turkeys and if you even want to take the debate a step further eggs...

I've stated several times that I don't eat veal, lamb, young turkeys, etc., and would support a ban on all of them. As for eggs, no, I don't want to take the debate a step further; I've also clearly referred to animals who have been born just to have their lives ended, which is why I haven't taken "a step further" regarding the hunting/killing of pregnant animals.

these points are already highlighted by many posters before me. Therefore I find it difficult to say well its ok on one hand but not on the other.

As do I.

I mean for me I think we need to call it what it is, its pretty clear that these seals aren’t dying out and I mean we treat farm animals as bad if not worse so I can’t say that “Well they’re babies”, really doesn’t make any difference for other species so why at this point.

Yes, it does, when one objects to all the other issues you've mentioned, too. And again, I've made that quite clear, in several posts, including my response to you.

As I said above I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but I mean we keep cows, pigs and chickens in pens…essentially the farmer’s way of shooting fish in a barrel I suppose you could say. But again we don’t smash them over the head to kill them, I think we usually slit their throats, AH yes the far more ethical way to do it…

As for farm animals being the equivalent of also 'shooting fish in a barrel,' as I've already pointed out, they are not wild animals. We have different rules/laws for hunting than we do wild animals, just as we have different laws for pets than either farm animals or wild animals.

Farm animals are bought and raised and tended to with the idea of making a profit. The farmer invests time and money into the care of the animals. And again, they should be raised/treated/killed without abuse. But it is a different situation than killing animals in the wild. Even so, I repeat, I still oppose the slaughter of baby farm animals, too.

Well my question then to you is what the difference is then between clubbing them over the head while there are disadvantaged or shooting them with a rifle? Clearly the seal is at a disadvantage when it’s shot at rather then someone walking up to it wouldn’t you say, or we could agree that it is as bad? It sort of seems you are clearly appalled by the ethics of it…but even activist groups have said that as long as it’s done correctly it is humane (Read the Wikipedia article if you don’t believe me).

What would make you think I'm more appalled by the ethics of clubbing a seal that can't swim yet, ie: get away, than I am by shooting it? Clearly if an animal can't swim it's at just as great a disadvantage if the hunter walks up to it.

How do you know? Did you ask? That’s like telling me you can tell a dog or persons age just by looking at them.

Ummmmm. I know because I read up on it. Seals have different characteristics/coats at different stages of their lives. Anyone on a seal hunt should be knowledgeable enough to tell the difference, just like anyone hunting deer should be able to tell the difference between a fawn and older deer, for example. Or the difference between a whitecoat and a 12-14 day old seal, for that matter.

All I was asking people to do was to think logically because clearly you are thinking very much in terms of ethics…if you think ethics is a big factor re-read my prior posts.

And "think logically" is exactly what I've done.

I feel that the thread must contain “the big fight” against the seal hunt because compared to other industries in which “young” animals are also slaughtered the seal hunt has been made a “big” deal by opponents, but I agree with you that it shouldn’t happen in seals or any animal for that matter. I’m not trying to draw you away from the question, I’m just saying that there are different views on it so don’t just look at one side

Obviously I'm going to base my decision on my beliefs. And it appears as if you agree with me regarding baby seals:

"I agree with you that it shouldn’t happen in seals or any animal for that matter"

If one believes that it shouldn't happen to any animal, I fail to understand how one could support it happening to any animal, including seals.

Edited June 1, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I hear you. It appears I'm a Communist...something I didn't even know until I started posting here.

Apparently so am I, so you're in good company.

But I'm also many other things, things that ironically completely oppose each other, depending on the thread and the issue.

[williat]

I'll skip the next part college boy, because what you've found is confirmation bias. Do you think both sides here didn't already know that seals eat a lot of fish and fish stocks are collapsing? The objection I have is that this excuse for the seal hunt has done nothing to stop the decline in fish over the last 40 years! So, at best it would be considered a bandaid solution for a more fundamental problem. You seem to think for some reason that we have to insert ourselves into maintaining the balance of nature, otherwise seals will kill all of the fish in the North Atlantic and then starve to death. This is ridiculous, since it never seemed to happen previously in the millenia before the modern fishing industry arrived, and there's nothing in those data sets about seal populations and fish stocks that justify such an outlandish conclusion now.

So I’m just going by how I’m reading it, that apparently I, the “college boy”, instantly have an opinion that is less valuable then yours because I am in college. That’s fine I should just call you Mr. Arrogant for the rest of this post. But I think you probably already know you’re a bit arrogant. Obviously I knew there was going to be confirmation bias, I said Thank You EVERYBODY as in I incorporated most of the arguments into my paper (the original goal). You just assume that I have “chosen” a side, personally I still don’t know, I don’t think the evidence is enough in either direction to automatically say yes or no to the ban, I wanted to see if a clear conclusion could be made after looking at the ban on the levels of law, science and ethics. I also never suggested that the three findings on each level would ever agree. I never suggested that we should take anything from the earth, I merely said “we do it”, so stop sitting here thinking I’m this colossal idiot when I told you that you’re post about how humans have no right greater then any animal (as I interpreted it) was an extremely interesting theory. By the way the part about the fish stocks I stated as an obvious known fact, why you instantly assume I deemed you less intelligent and that I had to point it out to you and you’re followers is beyond me…get serious not everyone is against you all the time. I never suggested that “we have to insert ourselves into maintaining the balance of nature” or seals will die off, I agreed with you in an earlier post stating very clearly that I very much thought the idea was interesting, I don’t know if they would or wouldn’t because how the hell would to be able to say that with any confidence. My argument either way would be invalid of course, which is why I never suggested it, again I merely stated we do practice it (and one of the major arguments Pro sealing is that we are managing the population as many have stated is no a good reason).

I don't know if you're paying attention or not, but the main reason I say ethics is part of this debate is because of what it says about us and some changes in attitude we need to adopt if our species is going to survive the next few centuries. If our circle of concern stays limited to the human race, and we believe animals are just products for our exploitation -- we're screwed, plain and simple! This is the worldview that's given us the messes we have now, and a new paradigm is needed...fast!

I am very much listening too you, but that’s exactly what I’m saying too. People’s attitudes towards ethics can be quite different. I totally agree with you when you say “If our circle of concern stays limited to the human race, and we believe animals are just products for our exploitation -- we're screwed, plain and simple!”. I think pretty much every system we have is a mess because of our outlooks on the world, so where you get off telling me it’s unclear if I’m paying attention, only makes me question if you’re listening to me?

First of all, there are nine dissenting veterinarians who did not accept the official line and issued their own report, so they can't claim unanimous agreement. And about those statistics; isn't there a saying in statistical analysis that goes something like:'garbage in, garbage out'! Your low probability number is assuming that those 200 charges are the only examples of misconduct on the ice floes, rather than an indication that most of the sealers are not being monitored by federal authorities to begin with. You linked the same damn article from the CBC that everybody else is using here! I found an anti-sealing website that contains some pertinent information about the policing of the seal hunt, which indicates that finding and prosecuting abuse on the ice flows is not much more than finding a needle in a haystack:

In 1986, the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry reported on the inability of fisheries officers to adequately monitor the seal hunt. They noted, “the area that they must patrol is very extensive, the number of sealers is large, and sealing operations are multifaceted. For these reasons it is impossible to keep all parts of the seal hunt under close supervision at all times” (8-9).

Today, government monitoring of the commercial seal hunt in terms of humane killing is conducted by fisheries officers stationed on coast guard vessels. While there are over 1000 sealing vessels that participate in the commercial seal hunt, only a couple of coast guard vessels are deployed to the region. The massive coast guard vessels are normally stationed miles away from the smaller sealing boats, and thus observation of hunting methods from this platform is not viable. Enforcement agents are able to leave the coast guard vessels by helicopter or small speed boat, but are rarely seen to do so by animal protection groups that document the seal hunt.

Regardless, the handful of enforcement people stationed on coast guard vessels would be unable to monitor the thousands of individuals hunting over hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean this way. The scale of the hunt presents another challenge, with hundreds of thousands of seals slaughtered in just a few days. Not surprisingly, HSUS filmed consistent and serious violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations in 2007, with a Coast Guard vessel stationed nearby. To further complicate the situation, Coast Guard vessels are often called away from monitoring and enforcement of the hunt to perform other duties, such as icebreaking for other vessels (IVWG 2005).

I understand that the statistics of it all are highly debated and I agree that they could probably be way off, just like I agree adding the part about the percentage was largely irrelevant. Just like I questioned the population numbers, but just because they may or may not be correct doesn’t mean we should just discard them. As someone already stated many of these observers go out with the hunters, I’ve read it happens, I have no idea how much it happens but I mean at least that’s a good thing. I’m not trying to say it makes it alright but I think by looking at some form of numbers provides better information then two groups claiming that shit is happening. But I also have to clearly agree that it would be far too much land to cover for every single seal killed to be cleared as properly killed, but I also don’t believe that these sealers knowingly go out to skin seals alive, that would imply that they are mentally unstable. Therefore if we can’t decide on banning it or not…can I just propose that we try to educate these people so they are qualified? Or did you just want to put me down because I may not be as smart/experienced/wise as you, oh great one.

Shouldn't the question be: why the hell doesn't the WTO make provisions for human rights!

Totally agree with you. Maybe it should be: why the hell doesn’t the WTO make provisions for human & animal rights?

Look I just want to add that I don’t want to sound rude in anything I’ve written above but I was just providing information and views that I have found, you countered by providing opinions and facts that I was unaware of or hadn’t looked at, and yes maybe I misinterpreted some of them. But honestly trying to make someone seem dumb because they expressed their views (right or wrong) just makes you seem less and less creditable…

[williat]

I've stated several times that I don't eat veal, lamb, young turkeys, etc., and would support a ban on all of them. As for eggs, no, I don't want to take the debate a step further; I've also clearly referred to animals who have been born just to have their lives ended, which is why I haven't taken "a step further" regarding the hunting/killing of pregnant animals.

Ok and I see how you are dividing the two groups, I dont eat these foods (minus eggs which I must admit but only rarely), I just cant sort of divide between the two. So this particular argument I basically render void in my mind anyway because I believe it can be well fought either way. A draw if you will...

As for farm animals being the equivalent of also 'shooting fish in a barrel,' as I've already pointed out, they are not wild animals. We have different rules/laws for hunting than we do wild animals, just as we have different laws for pets than either farm animals or wild animals.

Right but when I look at it seals sort of fall in a grey area, because you can hunt moose and there is a quota on how many you can take but you cant sell moose commercially. But seals as I seem to understand it are sort of between being a hunt and being commercial if you see what Im saying. But I do get that we have laws distinguishing between farm animals, wild animals and pets.

Farm animals are bought and raised and tended to with the idea of making a profit. The farmer invests time and money into the care of the animals. And again, they should be raised/treated/killed without abuse. But it is a different situation than killing animals in the wild. Even so, I repeat, I still oppose the slaughter of baby farm animals, too.

Again this is true; they are bought therefore putting title to them in a way, as opposed to seals which are wild. See now that is an argument I can live with, you dont need to be all emotional, I think this is an extremely valid point. I just wanted someone to give me reasons to support or not support it.

What would make you think I'm more appalled by the ethics of clubbing a seal that can't swim yet, ie: get away, than I am by shooting it? Clearly if an animal can't swim it's at just as great a disadvantage if the hunter walks up to it.

I assumed that you were appalled by the ethics because the conversation concerned young animals that are learning to swim & fend for themselves…my mistake I got confused and made too broad of an assumption. All I was trying to see was if we changed the hunt to only hunting seals with rifles, would it change your view…clearly your response is no. So were on the same page right?

Ummmmm. I know because I read up on it. Seals have different characteristics/coats at different stages of their lives. Anyone on a seal hunt should be knowledgeable enough to tell the difference, just like anyone hunting deer should be able to tell the difference between a fawn and older deer, for example. Or the difference between a whitecoat and a 12-14 day old seal, for that matter.

Well since you read up on it…how different are the characteristics between a 6 month old and a 1 year seal. If just saying how “different” is different, is its something that any person with some form of education in seals would be able to realize, then I’m all for it. Educating people and making it the law only to kill seals that are a year old or more would be good then right? But on the other hand if its something that you’d have to get right next to the seal to notice can’t say that I would think that is reasonable…so it depends is all I’m saying.

And "think logically" is exactly what I've done.

I agree you have. Sorry if it appeared I was suggesting otherwise, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, my bad.

Obviously I'm going to base my decision on my beliefs. And it appears as if you agree with me regarding baby seals:

"I agree with you that it shouldnt happen in seals or any animal for that matter"

If one believes that it shouldn't happen to any animal, I fail to understand how one could support it happening to any animal, including seals.

When did it become wrong to just admitting I dont know…honestly I have no affiliation to the hunt what so ever other then that it takes place in my province. Ive seen seals, theyve never bothered me so Ive never bothered them type of thing. I dont even think I know a person who goes sealing. I dont support the killing of any baby animal but I also cant say well these ones are fine to kill but these ones arent. Basically in my mind I cant really draw the line distinctly between the two, you can. Its just my opinion I realize that I misinterpreted yours, I mean honestly the time between my first couple comments on this post should give you an idea of how much reading I had to catch up with, so my bad if I forgot something you said previously. Im not excusing my ignorance if it was so obvious but seriously if I had to sum up my view its that; I dont know if it should happen, I dont even know if we should be eating any other animal, Im not an expert so I dont think my opinion on it is right or wrong anyway, its just what I think…disagree with what Im saying if you want but seriously I just dont know what the hell I believe. Lol. But I do appreciate you sharing your views, whether you believe I mean that or not!

Edited June 1, 2010 by williat

[WIP]

So I’m just going by how I’m reading it, that apparently I, the “college boy”, instantly have an opinion that is less valuable then yours because I am in college. That’s fine I should just call you Mr. Arrogant for the rest of this post. But I think you probably already know you’re a bit arrogant. Obviously I knew there was going to be confirmation bias, I said Thank You

Stop right there! You stuck one of those stupid rolly eye icons right in front of "Thanks Guys." That either indicates sarcasm, condescension, or insincerity...take your pick! And so that had an influence on my impressions of the rest of your post.

[WIP]

Wow 7, vs the hundreds that have worked for the DFO over the past 60 years.

Like I said before, I am not interested in wading too far into the waters of a debate that has been going on for 40 years. I can agree that pictures and videos of the seal hunt have kept Greenpeace and the WWF going over the last 30 years, but that pales in comparison to the interests of people out to make money from the hunt, including the sealers! And the purchasers of these products are among the wealthiest and most powerful of the world's elite, who will pay any price for unique status symbols.

The Federal Government has financial and political reasons for maintaining the hunt, if possible, and it's foolish to insist that there isn't an incentive to bias data in support of seal hunting. Put it this way, how much confidence do you have right now that our offshore oil developments are safe? They can churn out stacks of reports to back the desired conclusion.

My bias generally runs against the side with the most money to throw around, and a need to buy influence with politicians and civil servants. Like I said before, if the main argument for this hunt was really the harp seal population, they could take steps to reduce it without blending in collecting fur pelts. The fur industry is using this as an excuse to continue skinning seal pups for their fur, and if this argument wasn't available, they would just go down the list to the next excuse to keep their industry going.

Can you say conformation bias? But hey you got your source I've got mine. My linklink 2 link 3

At least my source doesn't depend directly on the seal hunt to make money. It will exsist whether the seal hunt does or not. Ever notice the anti's never actually do anything? It's in their best interest to seem like they're against the hunt when they aren't, it's why the only show up for a few days during the seal hunt but are rarely seen protesting otherwise.

Really, until the Gulf disaster started overturning rocks in U.S. federal monitoring and regulating agencies, the same argument would have been made about fact sheet data from the EPA and the Minerals Management Service. If I had the resources to investigate the Fisheries dept., I suppose there's no chance I would find civil servants who move in and out of government and the industry they are supposed to be regulating!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Like I said before, I am not interested in wading too far into the waters of a debate that has been going on for 40 years. I can agree that pictures and videos of the seal hunt have kept Greenpeace and the WWF going over the last 30 years, but that pales in comparison to the interests of people out to make money from the hunt, including the sealers! And the purchasers of these products are among the wealthiest and most powerful of the world's elite, who will pay any price for unique status symbols.

Last time I checked Greenpeace and the WWF didn't oppose the seal hunt. At least not actively.

The Federal Government has financial and political reasons for maintaining the hunt, if possible, and it's foolish to insist that there isn't an incentive to bias data in support of seal hunting. Put it this way, how much confidence do you have right now that our offshore oil developments are safe? They can churn out stacks of reports to back the desired conclusion.

I have a lot of confidence that the regulations on our off-shore wells will do their job actually. Anyway if the government has political reasons (I don't think they have any finicial reasons the seal hunt doesn't seem like a huge source of tax revenue to me) doesn't that mean a lot of people support the seal hunt?

My bias generally runs against the side with the most money to throw around, and a need to buy influence with politicians and civil servants. Like I said before, if the main argument for this hunt was really the harp seal population, they could take steps to reduce it without blending in collecting fur pelts. The fur industry is using this as an excuse to continue skinning seal pups for their fur, and if this argument wasn't available, they would just go down the list to the next excuse to keep their industry going.

Uh, what other option would you have them use? A totally tax-payer funded cull? If there wasn't an industry than we would be paying to have the seal population culled. The industry is an added bonus, but honestly if there wasn't a need for a cull then I would be fine with the industry still exsisting.

Really, until the Gulf disaster started overturning rocks in U.S. federal monitoring and regulating agencies, the same argument would have been made about fact sheet data from the EPA and the Minerals Management Service. If I had the resources to investigate the Fisheries dept., I suppose there's no chance I would find civil servants who move in and out of government and the industry they are supposed to be regulating!

Because U.S. regulations and Canadian ones are so similar.

[williat]

Stop right there! You stuck one of those stupid rolly eye icons right in front of "Thanks Guys." That either indicates sarcasm, condescension, or insincerity...take your pick! And so that had an influence on my impressions of the rest of your post.

So let me get this straight, you’ve understood that by adding an emoticon I was being sarcastic, condescending or insincere. Wow, nothing could be further from the truth, absolutely no reason behind it to be quite honest with you. But I do however find it pretty hypocritical that you among others has accused me of “not listening” or “telling me what my point is” all the while you were completely not listening to me…could we say we’ll chalk it up to the fact that we cannot add gestures/real emotions/facial expressions? I was just saying thanks, nothing more nothing less; seriously you blew that out of proportion.

Like I said before, I am not interested in wading too far into the waters of a debate that has been going on for 40 years. I can agree that pictures and videos of the seal hunt have kept Greenpeace and the WWF going over the last 30 years, but that pales in comparison to the interests of people out to make money from the hunt, including the sealers! And the purchasers of these products are among the wealthiest and most powerful of the world's elite, who will pay any price for unique status symbols.

I suppose you can blame the recession though for the drop in prices no doubt, but I would guess that more then just the wealthiest and most powerful world elite buy this stuff, I don’t know but Jan Arden doesn’t seem like an insanely wealthy or very “powerful” person per se, but she has a full seal skin suit.

The Federal Government has financial and political reasons for maintaining the hunt, if possible, and it's foolish to insist that there isn't an incentive to bias data in support of seal hunting. Put it this way, how much confidence do you have right now that our offshore oil developments are safe? They can churn out stacks of reports to back the desired conclusion.

I disagree, I think the Federal Government is just sort of afraid to go one way or another with it. From what I’ve gathered basically things would just go back to the way they were, with the whole idea of it kind of in limbo. I can’t say that I think the Government is doing this for huge financial or political reasons, I think they might just be like most of us who aren’t sure about it either. I can see where the offshore oil developments would be financial “reasons” for the government to allow risk to take place (tax revenue), but I can’t say I think it’s the same as sealing, I mean I’ve heard such a different range of numbers for how much the market for seal is, oil is well…black gold.

My bias generally runs against the side with the most money to throw around, and a need to buy influence with politicians and civil servants. Like I said before, if the main argument for this hunt was really the harp seal population, they could take steps to reduce it without blending in collecting fur pelts. The fur industry is using this as an excuse to continue skinning seal pups for their fur, and if this argument wasn't available, they would just go down the list to the next excuse to keep their industry going.

I agree they probably could do something else, but some people in Canada participate in it due to cultural and traditional reasons. No matter what you want to believe many of these sealing families have been doing this for generations, it probably goes all the way back to when Cartier landed here and the First Nations taught them, its not like these guys are saying “Hey if we kill those animals we can make some money”, its sort of part of their culture…and I’m not sure I can say that it should be banned all together or at all.

Really, until the Gulf disaster started overturning rocks in U.S. federal monitoring and regulating agencies, the same argument would have been made about fact sheet data from the EPA and the Minerals Management Service. If I had the resources to investigate the Fisheries dept., I suppose there's no chance I would find civil servants who move in and out of government and the industry they are supposed to be regulating!

I’m sure it happens. But I doubt in Canada they are affecting many policy decisions, we have decent restrictions in place; we showed that by surviving the financial crisis fairly well. I’m not saying I agree with civil servants who “move in and out of government and the industry they are supposed to be regulating!” because I don’t. But I’m just not sure how much affect they could really have?

Last time I checked Greenpeace and the WWF didn't oppose the seal hunt. At least not actively.

They do not; WWF even stated as long as the hunters do it correctly it is humane. Check Wikipedia sources if you don’t think so.

I have a lot of confidence that the regulations on our off-shore wells will do their job actually. Anyway if the government has political reasons (I don't think they have any finicial reasons the seal hunt doesn't seem like a huge source of tax revenue to me) doesn't that mean a lot of people support the seal hunt?

As do I, I have family that work in the oil business (roughnecks/driller) and they are constantly telling me about regulations in place…they don’t necessarily oppose it they just think sometimes it can be a bit extensive. And you may think that is a bias opinion then, but I rather listen to a couple of guys who grew up on an organic apple orchard who now are working in the oil industry, then what people think the case may be. I agree financial reasons would be almost non-existent in the grand scheme of it all from sealing.

Uh, what other option would you have them use? A totally tax-payer funded cull? If there wasn't an industry than we would be paying to have the seal population culled. The industry is an added bonus, but honestly if there wasn't a need for a cull then I would be fine with the industry still exsisting.

I also want to know the answer: How would we keep the population manageable? I’m not saying we should kill any if nature is going to take care of it, but what if it doesn’t? Then do we get stuck footing the bill to kill off a bunch of seals?

[WIP]

Where did you get these quotes from that are attributed to me? I didn't write this:

WIP, on 01 June 2010 - 04:36 PM, said:

I have a lot of confidence that the regulations on our off-shore wells will do their job actually. Anyway if the government has political reasons (I don't think they have any finicial reasons the seal hunt doesn't seem like a huge source of tax revenue to me) doesn't that mean a lot of people support the seal hunt?

WIP, on 01 June 2010 - 04:36 PM, said:

Uh, what other option would you have them use? A totally tax-payer funded cull? If there wasn't an industry than we would be paying to have the seal population culled. The industry is an added bonus, but honestly if there wasn't a need for a cull then I would be fine with the industry still exsisting.

[williat]

Sorry, those aren't your quotes. I'm not exactly sure what I did to make them show up as yours to be quite honest but it appears that those quotes are TrueMetis's, notice how it goes from your actual response to TrueMetis's and then quotes you as TrueMetis. My apologies to you, but my response is still valid just referring to TrueMetis's comments. I will be more careful when utilizing the quotation button from now on.

Again WIP sorry.

Edited June 2, 2010 by williat

[williat]

So after re-reading the original question and all the posts I have come to the conclusion that: There is large a difference of opinion, both with very valid arguments, although I have decided that I personally believe the ban is wrong and that the hunt should be able to proceed as long as other young animals are also being killed for whatever reason. I'm not saying I think it's an acceptable practice I'm just saying I'm not sure I believe I can fully explain a reason to ban it, other opinions are just as valid as mine but hey thats what I think. Peace out.

[Guest TrueMetis]

New poll on Canadians attitude towards sealing.

6 out of 10 Canadians indicated that they accept seal hunting by any hunter where populations are not endangered and animal welfare is respected.

Less than 2 out of 10 Canadians indicate they will not accept any form of seal hunting.

6 out of 10 Canadians feel that seal hunting is economically important for all who participate.

Only 1 in 10 feel the economic gain for hunters is not significant.

A follow-­‐up question* indicated that Canadians would be more likely to find seal hunting to be economically important for all hunters if they were shown that it is essential for most hunters to continue a rural life based on sustainable hunting and fishing.

94% of Canadians were unable to indicate the correct estimate of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population (the primary resource for most seals hunted in Canada).

In fact, 75% of Canadians think the population is much lower than it actually is.

I would post more but it doesn't lend itself to being copied very well.

My link

Edited June 3, 2010 by TrueMetis