Research Paper: Seal Hunt

[Guest TrueMetis]

That is flat out false. They are no longer "newborns," but they have not yet learned to swim or hunt for themselves. Hardly "fully independent."

They have though. You don't trust me but maybe you will listen to the DFO.

Myth: The Canadian government allows sealers to harvest whitecoat seals.

Reality:

The harvesting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal in Canada and has been since 1987. The seals that are harvested are self-reliant, independent animals.

My link

8. How old must seals be before they can be harvested?

Seals cannot be legally hunted until they have moulted their first coats and are living independently from their mothers. Seals are not usually harvested until they reach about 25 days old.

My link

25 days old more than enough time to get throuh the whitecoat and raggedy jacket stage, and definately independant.

Going to be quite now?

The EU can ban anything it deems cruel, regardless of whether or not the "standards are applied equally." You're in effect saying that a nation cannot ban land mines unless they ban everything that anyone everywhere deems cruel, and that's ludicrous.

No, no it can't since there are actual scientific procedures to show how humane something is. Of course they've been done and show the seal hunt is humane My link.

This article reports the results of observations made by representatives of the Canadian

Veterinary Medical Association at the hunt in recent years and compares them with observations made

by members of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. The conclusion is that the large majority

of seals taken during this hunt (at best, 98% in work reported here) are killed in an acceptably

humane manner. However, the small proportion of animals that are not killed effectively justifies

continued attention to this hunt on the part of the veterinary profession.

[Guest American Woman]

Complete emotional monsense...they are called beaters because they are learning to swim, they beat the water...and they are learning to hunt and have very little time to learn or they starve.

"Learning to swim" equals "fully independent??" In the world of those trying to defend the seal hunt maybe, but "learning to swim" and "fully independent" are two very different things. Not to mention that they don't go directly from being "whitecoats" to "beaters;" there are other stages in between, and they are fair game according to Canadian law right after they are no longer "white coats," which is 12 to 14 days old. And even "beaters" have very poorly developed swimming skills.

25 days old more than enough time to get throuh the whitecoat and raggedy jacket stage, and definately independant.

Even if one wanted to believe that, they are "legal" to "hunt" at 12 to 14 days old. And "hunt" is in quotes because that's hardly my idea of a hunt.

Going to be quite now?

No, I'm not going to be quiet now. I'm going to continue to voice my opinion. I will not be silenced by your claim that 12-14 day old seals, who have not yet learned to swim or hunt, but are legal age for hunting, are not babies.

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Argus]

The EU can ban anything it deems cruel, regardless of whether or not the "standards are applied equally." You're in effect saying that a nation cannot ban land mines unless they ban everything that anyone everywhere deems cruel, and that's ludicrous.

And without a valid, scientific basis they are in violation of the GATT and subject to reprisal.

[Guest American Woman]

And without a valid, scientific basis they are in violation of the GATT and subject to reprisal.

They do have a valid, scientific basis; the fact that they don't ban everything everyone thinks they should has no bearing on that.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Even if one wanted to believe that, they are "legal" to "hunt" at 12 to 14 days old. And "hunt" is in quotes because that's hardly my idea of a hunt.

Just because they can be legally hunted doesn't mean they are hunted. Realize one thing the pelt will be worthless, utterly worthless, until they are at least 25 days old. Why would any hunter kill an animal for a worthless pelt?

No, I'm not going to be quiet now. I'm going to continue to voice my opinion. I will not be silenced by your claim that 12-14 day old seals, who have not yet learned to swim or hunt, but are legal age for hunting, are not babies.

Then keep being a fool. They can swim, they can eat. Really it's a choice between you and the DFO + my eyes, guess who I'm going to listen to.

[Argus]

"Learning to swim" equals "fully independent??" In the world of those trying to defend the seal hunt maybe, but "learning to swim" and "fully independent" are two very different things. Not to mention that they don't go directly from being "whitecoats" to "beaters;" there are other stages in between, and they are fair game according to Canadian law right after they are no longer "white coats," which is 12 to 14 days old. And even "beaters" have very poorly developed swimming skills.

You are reduced to whining that it is too easy for the hunters, that the seals can't get away easily enough. I wonder why you don't insist the slaughterhouses which supply your dinner don't open their doors wide and give the animals the chance to run away before they are killed. It's hardly "fair" the way it is, now is it?

Not that that will stop you from stuffing your face with their bodies, or putting their skin on your feet.

No, I'm not going to be quiet now. I'm going to continue to voice my ignorant opinion.

Fixed that for ya, honey.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

Just because they can be legally hunted doesn't mean they are hunted. Realize one thing the pelt will be worthless, utterly worthless, until they are at least 25 days old. Why would any hunter kill an animal for a worthless pelt?

Riiiiight.

If that were true, Canada would make it illegal to kill a seal before it becomes self sufficient. But it hasn't. It's legal to hunt them at 12 to 14 days. Why do you think that is?

Then keep being a fool. They can swim, they can eat. Really it's a choice between you and the DFO + my eyes, guess who I'm going to listen to.

No, they can't swim, they can't eat, before it's legal to "hunt" them. And yes, I'm sure you and the DFO will continue to push what you do. Doesn't mean people are buying it. Fact. It's legal to kill them as soon as they shed their white coats, and that's 12 to 14 days old. And seals live up to 30 years. But of course they are "fully independent" before they learn to swim and hunt.

What a "hunt;" clubbing seals who either haven't learned to swim yet, or haven't mastered it.

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Argus]

They do have a valid, scientific basis; the fact that they don't ban everything everyone thinks they should has no bearing on that.

That the seals are "pretty" is not, however much you might wish it, a valid scientific basis. Given the lack of evidence of cruelty compared to how the EU treats some of its own animals the GATT will conclude that any trade ban is against their regulations.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Riiiiight.

If that were true, Canada would make it illegal to kill a seal before it becomes self sufficient. But it hasn't. It's legal to hunt them at 12 to 14 days. Why do you think that is?

It isn't illegal to hunt them because they are to young it's illegal because people bitched about the cute little seals being killed. It's still legal to hunt whitecoats as long as it isn't for commercial reasons. Why do you think that is? Maybe it is because some people still realize that when it comes right done to it there isn't an animal that isn't helpless in the face of a rifle.

No, they can't swim, they can't eat, before it's legal to "hunt" them. And yes, I'm sure you and the DFO will continue to push what you do. Doesn't mean people are buying it. Fact. It's legal to kill them as soon as they shed their white coats, and that's 12 to 14 days old. And seals live up to 30 years. But of course they are "fully independent" before they learn to swim and hunt.

Once again they can swim and hunt, some even before they shed their first pelt. Again though what does it matter? We have rifles they don't doesn't matter how old the seal is it's not going to be able to outrun a bullet.

What a "hunt;" clubbing seals who either haven't learned to swim yet, or haven't mastered it.

Shot, 95% of seals are shot. You might as well say a moose or deer or any other hunt isn't a hunt because once you spot the animal it's a good as dead. There isn't an animal in the world that is equiped to defend itself against a highpowered rifle.

[Guest American Woman]

double post

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

It isn't illegal to hunt them because they are to young it's illegal because people bitched about the cute little seals being killed. It's still legal to hunt whitecoats as long as it isn't for commercial reasons. Why do you think that is? Maybe it is because some people still realize that when it comes right done to it there isn't an animal that isn't helpless in the face of a rifle.

Some are more helpless than others, and not being able to swim would fall into that category, and I can't for a minute believe even you don't realize that. Which do you think would provide more of a challenge, for example: a deer that can detect a human and run from it while the hunter gets it in its site, or a paralyzed deer that can't make any attempt at an escape?

There's a reason why a single seal hunter kills as many seals as he does while a deer hunter doesn't always get even one kill.

Once again they can swim and hunt, some even before they shed their first pelt. Again though what does it matter? We have rifles they don't doesn't matter how old the seal is it's not going to be able to outrun a bullet.

Once, again, not they can't. That's a fact, in spite of your claims to the contrary. And it matters because they have no chance at escape. And again, many a deer has "outrun a bullet."

Shot, 95% of seals are shot. You might as well say a moose or deer or any other hunt isn't a hunt because once you spot the animal it's a good as dead. There isn't an animal in the world that is equiped to defend itself against a highpowered rifle.

Your 95% statistic doesn't jive with what I've read, but that makes no difference for the sake of argument, because your claim that "once you spot the animal (deer, moose) it's as good as dead" is not true. Many an animal senses the hunter and runs. Successfully. Furthermore, if the hunter misses with the first shot, the deer is long gone. Not so a seal that can't swim. A seal that one can go right up to, close enough to club. Try that with a deer. You won't be successful. That's what makes it a "hunt."

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

That the seals are "pretty" is not, however much you might wish it, a valid scientific basis. Given the lack of evidence of cruelty compared to how the EU treats some of its own animals the GATT will conclude that any trade ban is against their regulations.

I highly doubt it. You do realize the U.S. and Mexico have long had bans against Canadian seal products, right?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Some are more helpless than others, and not being able to swim would fall into that category, and I can't for a minute believe even you don't realize that. Which do you think would provide more of a challenge, for example: a deer that can detect a human and run from it while the hunter gets it in its site, or a paralyzed deer that can't make any attempt at an escape?

There's a reason why a single seal hunter kills as many seals as he does while a deer hunter doesn't always get even one kill.

The Deer is in a forest or near a forest where it can get cover and it's a lot harder to find the deer in the first place. The seal is on an open ice pack where you can spots in 100's of metres away.

Once, again, not they can't. That's a fact, in spite of your claims to the contrary. And it matters because they have no chance at escape. And again, many a deer has "outrun a bullet."

I've cited my source, you haven't put up or shut up.

Your 95% statistic doesn't jive with what I've read, but that makes no difference for the sake of argument, because your claim that "once you spot the animal (deer, moose) it's as good as dead" is not true. Many an animal senses the hunter and runs. Successfully. Furthermore, if the hunter misses with the first shot, the deer is long gone. Not so a seal that can't swim. A seal that one can go right up to, close enough to club. Try that with a deer. You won't be successful. That's what makes it a "hunt."

I know people who have tried it, not with a club but a spear, they are succesful. Millions of deer are killed each year, apparently deer aren't as able to get away as you think.

[Remiel]

Once, again, not they can't. That's a fact, in spite of your claims to the contrary. And it matters because they have no chance at escape. And again, many a deer has "outrun a bullet."

And yet, the seal with swimming issues still has a better chance of escape than any farm animal on the way to the slaughterhouse. And the trip to the slaughterhouse is never pleasant, which wild animals are spared. For wild animals, nature is also a far more brutal killer than we are.

[Guest American Woman]

The Deer is in a forest or near a forest where it can get cover and it's a lot harder to find the deer in the first place. The seal is on an open ice pack where you can spots in 100's of metres away.

Yes, and the seal can also spot the hunter. But if it can't get away, it's like shooting a paralyzed deer. If you think it's a "hunt" to go after an animal that can't get away, so be it. But apparently lots and lots of people disagree. Thus the bans.

I've cited my source, you haven't put up or shut up.

I've already cited sources, and won't continue to do so ... over and over again. And I won't be shutting up, either. Sorry.

I know people who have tried it, not with a club but a spear, they are succesful. Millions of deer are killed each year, apparently deer aren't as able to get away as you think.

Millions of deer are killed each year by many millions more hunters. In other words, there are many more hunters than there are deer killed. Can't say that about the seal hunt, can you?

[Remiel]

But if it can't get away, it's like shooting a paralyzed deer. If you think it's a "hunt" to go after an animal that can't get away, so be it.

You know, if you were actually to find a paralyzed deer while hunting, you may be doing it a favour by killing it quickly. Because if you do not kill it, starvation, dehydration, the wolves, the coyotes, or the bears will.

[Guest American Woman]

You know, if you were actually to find a paralyzed deer while hunting, you may be doing it a favour by killing it quickly. Because if you do not kill it, starvation, dehydration, the wolves, the coyotes, or the bears will.

True. But it would hardly be a "hunt," would it? And that has been my point.

[Remiel]

True. But it would hardly be a "hunt," would it? And that has been my point.

I think you are far too focused on the semantics of the word " hunt " here. If we were to just call it the seal " slaughter ", half of what you have been arguing would be shown to be pointless, because " slaughter " is exactly what I would call what happens to ever domesticated animals destined for the abattoir, a.k.a. " slaughterhouse " . No one complains that how " unsporting " fishing nets are.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yes, and the seal can also spot the hunter. But if it can't get away, it's like shooting a paralyzed deer. If you think it's a "hunt" to go after an animal that can't get away, so be it. But apparently lots and lots of people disagree. Thus the bans.

How many animals run when something is hundreds of metres away? There are animals that will let you get withing a few metres of them. Also lots of people don't disagree, show me a survey that doesn't use emotionally laden words that show this. The EU used a survey that was open to the entire world yet only got 70000 people to take it. Even assumeing that all were against the hunt which they weren't that shows that people just don't care about the seal hunt. Hell look at the poll in this thread all of 17 people bothered to vote with 12 of them being against th EU ban.

I've already cited sources, and won't continue to do so ... over and over again. And I won't be shutting up, either. Sorry.

Your "sources" weren't.

Millions of deer are killed each year by many millions more hunters. In other words, there are many more hunters than there are deer killed. Can't say that about the seal hunt, can you?

If the deer showed up every year in the same place at the same time every year out in the open you wouldn't need very many hunters either. I can just imagine it, some guy 200 metres away, boom one deer, boom two deer, boom three deer, etc.

ETA just because of the semantics.

Hunt:1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.

2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.

3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.

My link

Slaughter:1. The killing of animals especially for food.

My link

They're the same thing.

Edited May 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Guest American Woman]

I think you are far too focused on the semantics of the word " hunt " here. If we were to just call it the seal " slaughter ", half of what you have been arguing would be shown to be pointless, because " slaughter " is exactly what I would call what happens to ever domesticated animals destined for the abattoir, a.k.a. " slaughterhouse " . No one complains that how " unsporting " fishing nets are.

If you were to call it a slaughter, you'd have an even bigger objection to deal with. I would bet my life on that. And comparing mammals to fish is the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges.

[Argus]

How many animals run when something is hundreds of metres away?

I suspect you're talking to someone whose idea of "nature" is the parkette outside her condo.

[Guest American Woman]

How many animals run when something is hundreds of metres away? There are animals that will let you get withing a few metres of them. Also lots of people don't disagree, show me a survey that doesn't use emotionally laden words that show this. The EU used a survey that was open to the entire world yet only got 70000 people to take it. Even assumeing that all were against the hunt which they weren't that shows that people just don't care about the seal hunt. Hell look at the poll in this thread all of 17 people bothered to vote with 12 of them being against th EU ban.

Wow. 12 people out of 17 on a Canadian board are against a ban on Canadian seal products. Not too much of a shock there.

Your "sources" weren't.

???

If the deer showed up every year in the same place at the same time every year out in the open you wouldn't need very many hunters either. I can just imagine it, some guy 200 metres away, boom one deer, boom two deer, boom three deer, etc.

But it isn't that way, is it? Making it different from the seal hunt. Furthermore, how many hunters spot a deer compared to how many actually get one? I'm guessing the odds are much more favorable in the seal hunt, and I'm guessing you already know that. Furthermore, deer hunters aren't going after fawns, much less fawns that haven't learned to run yet.

ETA just because of the semantics.

Hunt:1. To pursue (game) for food or sport.

2. To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.

3. To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.

My link

Slaughter:1. The killing of animals especially for food.

My link

They're the same thing.

No, they're not the same thing. Notice in the definition of "hunt," "searching" and "pursuing" are part of the definition. Not so in the definition of "slaughter."

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Remiel]

If you were to call it a slaughter, you'd have an even bigger objection to deal with. I would bet my life on that. And comparing mammals to fish is the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges.

What is your point?

If the relevant comparisons are, " Is it a fruit? " , " What kind of seeds does it have? " , and , " Is it good to eat? " , then why is the comparison invalid? Jeremy Bentham famously said that we should ask not whether a creature thinks, but whether it suffers. That does not arbitrarily stop at the difference between mammals and fish any more than it stops at the difference between humans and anything else. Besides, where does that leave reptiles and amphibians? Or do you think it perfectly okay to pull off a turtles shell?

[Remiel]

Furthermore, deer hunters aren't going after fawns, much less fawns that haven't learned to run yet.

All of our laws regarding the killing of fawns have to do with making sure there are just as many full grown deer to kill next year. It has nothing to do with being, " nice " .

No, they're not the same thing. Notice in the definition of "hunt," "searching" and "pursuing" are part of the definition. Not so in the definition of "slaughter."

You need to stop romanticizing how most " hunts " really work. It is not one guy tracking an animal by the trail it leaves, cornering it by use of stealth and guile. It is a bunch of guys going into the bush to scare any animals to run in the direction of a bunch more guys just waiting for them to come out so they can shoot them. Or sitting around in a lookout all day hoping something comes by. " Searching " and " pursuing " do not play nearly as big a part as you think.

[Guest American Woman]

What is your point?

My point is that the comparison isn't relevant.

If the relevant comparisons are, " Is it a fruit? " , " What kind of seeds does it have? " , and , " Is it good to eat? " , then why is the comparison invalid? Jeremy Bentham famously said that we should ask not whether a creature thinks, but whether it suffers.

Not all living creatures suffer to the same extent. They don't all have similar nervous systems.

That does not arbitrarily stop at the difference between mammals and fish any more than it stops at the difference between humans and anything else.

But as I pointed out, differences do exist. Furthermore, this isn't a thread about fishing nets, it's a thread about the seal hunt and whether or not we approve of the EU ban. Which I do. For the reasons stated.

Besides, where does that leave reptiles and amphibians? Or do you think it perfectly okay to pull off a turtles shell?

I think the more appropriate question is do you think it's perfectly ok to pull off a turtle's shell, since you are the one not supporting this ban.