Research Paper: Seal Hunt

[Guest American Woman]

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 " .

So you say. But regardless of the reasons, the laws do exist. We don't hunt fawns. And if we wanted to make sure there were always deer to kill, we wouldn't be allowed to shoot does.

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.

I know all about hunting and what it involves, ie: "how it really works," thank you very much. And while we're on the topic, I don't support baiting deer et al, either.

[Remiel]

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.

No, I do not, actually. I think eating, killing, and using animals is permissible because I do not put humans so far above animals that what is appropriate behaviour for animals cannot be translated to humans. Other animals freely do as they wish to their fellow creature, killing them, torturing them in some cases. I think the difference that should concern us can loosely be translated to how we do things, not what we do. Animals eat animals, people are animals, and thus people may eat animals. Some may find this objectionable, but in its own way it is a rejection of some of our supposed inherent moral superiority.

Nature does not give one good God damn about how young and fragile a creature is. We do, to some extent, but if we should find ourselves killing young animals, in the grand scheme of things what matters more is how we do it, not how old they are. If the people in the business of conservation and preservation of animals say that the seal hunt is not some kind of torture, then that is good enough, given the other considerations. This is not a case of getting the right, best answer, all that is required is a not wrong answer. And compared to many other practices which most people seem to be fine with, the seal hunt cannot reasonably be judged exceptionally wrong. What we do not need is your trying to rationalize why your okay with other sorts of more everyday cruelty. I do not particularly care what your motive is; the important thing is that when you are saying, " Well, intelligence this, nervous system that, " you are just rationalizing behaviour that you have tacitly condoned your whole life.

Seals are merely a source of something we want and perhaps need, same as every other time we play around with or pollute the ecosystem. And if a seal manages to kill a hunter, or a child, that is tragic. But I am not going to blame the seal for protecting its interests. Neither am I going to blame the hunter as long as he remembers what he is there for: to do a kill seals, not to hurt them more than is necessary for that.

[Guest TrueMetis]

My link

Hell of an article on the seal hunt.

Oh and AW you should really read the DFO site.

My link

Canada's Hunting Practices:

* The Government of Canada acted on the recommendations of the IVWG and implemented a three-step approach as a condition of licence for the 2008 commercial seal hunt.

* DFO licensing policy requires a commercial sealer to work under an experienced sealer for two years to obtain a professional licence. Sealers are also encouraged to take a training course on proper hunting techniques, product preparation and handling. Those taking seals for personal use must have a hunter's capability certificate or big game license and attend mandatory training sessions before a licence can be issued. In 2004, DFO, at the request of sealers, instituted a freeze on new licences to allow industry to pursue professionalization, including education and instruction for new entrants.

* Sealers in the Southern and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, where about 25% of the hunt occurs, use both rifles and hakapiks while sealers on the ice floes on the Front (in the waters north and east of Newfoundland), where 75% of the hunt occurs, primarily use rifles. Hakapiks are only used in about 5-10% of Canada's commercial seal hunt.

* Seal hunting methods have been studied and approved by the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing. The Commission found that the methods used in hunting seals compare favourably to those used to dispatch any other wild or domesticated animal. These methods are designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely.

Edited May 22, 2010 by TrueMetis

[jbg]

Do you agree with the ban? Now before answering please consider other issues, population growth or loss, fish stocks, EU trade obligations.

As an American, I have worried for a long time about the cruelty of the Saskatchewan seal hunt. Their PM, Brad, is off the "Wall" if he thinks we, south of the border don't oppose it vigorously.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I do not, actually. I think eating, killing, and using animals is permissible because I do not put humans so far above animals that what is appropriate behaviour for animals cannot be translated to humans. Other animals freely do as they wish to their fellow creature, killing them, torturing them in some cases.

Well there you go, then. I put humans, who have the brains to be educated, to reason, to think, to empathize, to not act purely on instinct, above animals. I dare say, too, that by far the vast majority of people do. But if you think an animal, who in many instances is not even capable of being trained, much less "think" for itself rather than act on instinct, is not below a human, that explains a lot.

I think the difference that should concern us can loosely be translated to how we do things, not what we do. Animals eat animals, people are animals, and thus people may eat animals. Some may find this objectionable, but in its own way it is a rejection of some of our supposed inherent moral superiority.

So since people may eat animals, and we are animals, by your way of thinking, we should be able to eat people.

"What we do" is definitely of concern.

Furthermore, I've never said people shouldn't eat animals. I've said I object to the seal hunt for the reasons given.

Nature does not give one good God damn about how young and fragile a creature is.

"Nature" has nothing to do with the seal hunt. Man's actions have everything to do with it.

We do, to some extent, but if we should find ourselves killing young animals, in the grand scheme of things what matters more is how we do it, not how old they are.

I disagree. I think an animal in the wild should at least be old enough to have the full capacity to get away when it's being hunted. Furthermore, I'll repeat again, that I'm against the killing of lambs, piglets, calves, etc.

If the people in the business of conservation and preservation of animals say that the seal hunt is not some kind of torture, then that is good enough, given the other considerations.

Good enough for you, but not for me, and not for many others. I think killing an animal that has no means of escape due to it's age is "torture."

This is not a case of getting the right, best answer, all that is required is a not wrong answer. And compared to many other practices which most people seem to be fine with, the seal hunt cannot reasonably be judged exceptionally wrong.

Sure it can. Just because other wrongs are committed, that doesn't mean this isn't wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, and usually one wrong is tackled at a time. Perhaps, hopefully, this ban will lead to other wrongs being addressed. Certainly no one is saying that this is the only wrong being committed in the world.

What we do not need is your trying to rationalize why your okay with other sorts of more everyday cruelty.

What every day cruelty have I said I was ok with?? That's a totally false accusation.

I do not particularly care what your motive is; the important thing is that when you are saying, " Well, intelligence this, nervous system that, " you are just rationalizing behaviour that you have tacitly condoned your whole life.

Ummm. No. When I'm saying that, I'm stating a fact.

Do fish feel pain?

The world's foremost expert on the subject is Dr. James D. Rose of the University of Wyoming. He's spent 30 years working on questions of neurology, examining data on the responses of animals to painful stimuli. In 2003 Rose published a landmark study in the journal Reviews of Fisheries Science, concluding that animals need specific regions of the cerebral cortex in order to feel pain. And fish do not have them. link

Seals are merely a source of something we want and perhaps need, same as every other time we play around with or pollute the ecosystem. And if a seal manages to kill a hunter, or a child, that is tragic. But I am not going to blame the seal for protecting its interests. Neither am I going to blame the hunter as long as he remembers what he is there for: to do a kill seals, not to hurt them more than is necessary for that.

That's your view, and you're entitled to it, just as I'm entitled to mine and the EU is entitled to theirs. And the U.S. and Mexico are entitled to theirs. And Russia is entitled to theirs. And they all have bans on seal products.

[Argus]

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.

And at least 2 of the vote of approval are Americans.

Just who in the world do you think is more intimately familiar with all the evidence, information and arguments about the seal hunt than Canadians?

[M.Dancer]

"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.

They are weaned and abandoned by their mothers....please educate us on how these motherless babies are fed? I suspect even you can figure this out...

[jbg]

Just who in the world do you think is more intimately familiar with all the evidence, information and arguments about the seal hunt than Canadians?

Regina, Saskatchewan residents who watch MLA's shoot seals on the beach outside Parliament every day.

[M.Dancer]

"Nature" has nothing to do with the seal hunt. Man's actions have everything to do with it.

Man is also part of nature....we have been hunting seal since the dawn of time....

I disagree. I think an animal in the wild should at least be old enough to have the full capacity to get away when it's being hunted.

Polar bears, who are part of nature, disagree with you. Orca couldn't give a shit for your smug buy your meat opinion either....why should Canadian hunters care?

[Guest American Woman]

And at least 2 of the vote of approval are Americans.

You don't know that, but you're likely right. But that goes along with what I said, that it's not surprising that the majority of posters on a Canadian board would oppose a ban against Canada.

Just who in the world do you think is more intimately familiar with all the evidence, information and arguments about the seal hunt than Canadians?

Unless you've actually been on a seal hunt, witnessed it firsthand, or personally know seal hunters, you'd know no more about it than I do. But I'm not even arguing that I know as much about it as Canadians do. I oppose the hunting of seals that aren't old enough to swim or hunt yet, and it's legal to kill them at 12-14 days, so I know all I need to know to oppose the hunt and support the ban. I oppose hunting an animal too young to fend for itself, too young to be able to escape.

Edited May 23, 2010 by American Woman

[Molly]

Unless you've actually been on a seal hunt, witnessed it firsthand, or personally know seal hunters, you'd know no more about it than I do.

I'm in. I suspect a few others here are as well.

However, I figure anyone who has raised animals for commercial purposes would tend to have a realistic handle on the morality vs. emotionalism of it, too. That would, no doubt, include several others.

I've yet to hear a criticism of the seal hunt that wasn't irrational, irrelevant, or false. Nothing here has altered that perfect record.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Molly

[Guest American Woman]

I'm in. I suspect a few others here are as well.

Then you know more about it than I do, and as I said, I've never claimed to know as much as, or more than, Canadians. What I claim is that I know enough to object on the basis that I believe it's wrong to kill defenseless babies.

However, I figure anyone who has raised animals for commercial purposes would tend to have a realistic handle on the morality vs. emotionalism of it, too. That would, no doubt, include several others.

My view, whether you agree with it or not, is "realistic." It's not unrealistic, irrational, or emotional to be against hunting an animal that is too young to have the ability to escape. I think it's very rational and realistic to think prey should be old enough to have the chance to escape. I don't think it's moral to go after an animal that hasn't yet reached that stage of development.

I've yet to hear a criticism of the seal hunt that wasn't irrational, irrelevant, or false. Nothing here has altered that perfect record.

Your disagreeing with the criticism doesn't make it irrational and/or irrelevant. It is relevant and rational to those who believe killing babies who have not yet learned to swim or hunt for themselves is wrong. Even Canada gave in a bit on that belief when the government banned the killing of whitecoats.

Edited May 23, 2010 by American Woman

[Molly]

I think it's very rational and realistic to think prey should be old enough to have the chance to escape.

That is true only if you are killing for entertainment.

[Guest American Woman]

That is true only if you are killing for entertainment.

That's your opinion, and I find it difficult to understand.

Edited May 23, 2010 by American Woman

[Argus]

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

So is it your position that cows, chickens, lambs, etc., suffer no pain?

Edited May 23, 2010 by Argus

[jbg]

That's your opinion, and I find it difficult to understand.

On this rare occasion I disagree with you. I see little principled distrinction between killing seal pups because they are helpless or killing equally helpless beef cattle or fattened hogs.

[Argus]

You don't know that, but you're likely right. But that goes along with what I said, that it's not surprising that the majority of posters on a Canadian board would oppose a ban against Canada.

The ban is against seal products. Only a minute number of Canadians have any stake in that. Yet Left, Right and Centre are all adamant in support of the seal hunt. Why do you believe that is?

Unless you've actually been on a seal hunt, witnessed it firsthand, or personally know seal hunters, you'd know no more about it than I do. But I'm not even arguing that I know as much about it as Canadians do. I oppose the hunting of seals that aren't old enough to swim or hunt yet, and it's legal to kill them at 12-14 days, so I know all I need to know to oppose the hunt and support the ban. I oppose hunting an animal too young to fend for itself, too young to be able to escape.

Your position is logically insupportable unless you also oppose the killing of animals like chickens, sheep and cattle who have no means of protection or escape. But you don't oppose that. As for youth - do you oppose collecting eggs and eating them before they've had a chance to grow up into chickens that can run away? No. Therefore, your position is entirely based on emotion, just like the rest of the seal hunt opponents. It's not rational, but merely based n "big puppy dog eyes".

Edited May 23, 2010 by Argus

[Molly]

My view, whether you agree with it or not, is "realistic." It's not unrealistic, irrational, or emotional to be against hunting an animal that is too young to have the ability to escape. I think it's very rational and realistic to think prey should be old enough to have the chance to escape. I don't think it's moral to go after an animal that hasn't yet reached that stage of development.

My reference was to a 'realistic' sense of morality vs. emotionalism wrt the killing of animals. Those who have raised animals have generally explored their souls wrt which animals to save, which to kill and WHY. They may have privately wept over the necessity of offing a sickly piglet... recognizing that morality demands it even while emotionality recoils.

So... I put it to you that imposing some necessity for an animal to have the option of escape is very specifically not rational. It is, first of all, more costly and difficult to chase animals around in order to kill them-- and it is far less humane, being both extremely traumatic to the animals, and much more likely to result in injury instead of quick death.

The only thing I can see that might be enhanced by such a requirement is 'the thrill of the hunt' aka killing for entertainment.

Folks have played semantics with slaughter vs. hunt, but a more apt word would be 'harvest'.

[Sir Bandelot]

Just came across this bit of information-

The government is looking for ways to monitor online chatter about political issues and correct what it perceives as misinformation. The move started recently with a pilot project on the East Coast seal hunt. A Toronto-based company called Social Media Group has been hired to help counter some information put forward by the anti-sealing movement.

The seal hunt pilot project was set up in part "to establish foundations and recommendations for future programs and campaigns to use social media as another way to listen to, inform and engage with Canadians," MacAndrew added.

The commercial seal hunt might be an ideal test case for government involvement in online debate. The issue has polarized Canadians.

Opponents call the hunt cruel and needless and say seals are sometimes skinned alive or killed as whitecoated newborns. Supporters point out that regulations governing the hunt forbid both tactics and the hunt is heavily monitored. They accuse opponents of spreading lies by having celebrities such as Paul McCartney pose with whitecoat seals, pleading for their protection.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/20100523?hub=QPeriod

So is anyone here a federal employee, or working for the government on a related contract?

[Argus]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/20100523?hub=QPeriod

So is anyone here a federal employee, or working for the government on a related contract?

I think this topic shows that you don't need a paid employee to correct misinformation - and that people set in their opinions aren't going to pay an attention to facts anyway.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The commercial seal hunt might be an ideal test case for government involvement in online debate. The issue has polarized Canadians.

No it hasn't what crap.

hey accuse opponents of spreading lies by having celebrities such as Paul McCartney pose with whitecoat seals, pleading for their protection.

The ironic thing there is those photos could have resulted in the death of that pup. They would have had to chase away its mother (if it was there) which may have lead to it's mother abandoning it early. Depending on how early that would result in a dead whitecoat.

Edited May 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

No it hasn't what crap.[\quote]

I haven't seen any polling to back that up but I agree...

at one time when the hunt was first recieved widespread media attention in the 60's many Canadians myself included were shocked by it...but I think common sense has taken hold and most Canadians see it as just another harvest like cattle, sheep, chikens or pigs...these animals are not endangered, the hunt is as humane as any other and certianly more humane than how we harvest fish and a thousand times more humane than how the euro's still butcher bulls for entertainment...

[Guest TrueMetis]

I haven't seen any polling to back that up but I agree...

I have seen some the ones that aren't using emotional charged words and unclear statement always show support for the seal hunt. This article says 60% of Canadians agree with the seal hunt. It also talk about an IFAW that says "its surveys have consistently found two thirds of Canadians oppose the commercial hunt." But these are the same scumbags that payed someone to skin a seal alive to prove that seals are skinned alive. So you can decide whether to trust their poll or not.

I think I've put out these qoutes before but what the hell.

"The Gulf of St. Lawrence seal hunt as it is now conducted and as far as the young seals are concerned, is without a doubt one of the most humane slaughtering operations I have ever witnessed."

Tom Hughes, Executive Vice-President of the Ontario Humane Societies and former British Columbia SPCA executive

"Conservation is not an issue with the east-coast seal fishery. The Federal Government should be congratulated on their management policies in relation to harp seals."

Canadian Wildlife Federation

"I have examined the craniums of thousands of seal pups and I have never observed one that did not have massive hemorrhage in the brain which is an indication that the animal was rendered unconscious and therefore incapable of feeling any pain."

Dr. Harry Rowsell, D.V.M., D.V.P.R., PH.D

Department of Pathology, University of Ottawa, Canadian Council of Animal Care

"The greatest immorality in the seal hunting controversy has been the reckless, indiscriminate, deliberate campaign of racial discrimination and hatred which has been deliberately fostered against the people of Newfoundland and of Canada by groups and individuals whose primary aim is to raise funds, particularly in the United States and in Europe."

Tom Hughes, Executive Vice-President of the Ontario Federation of Humane Societies (1978) and former British Columbia SPCA executive

Mr. Hughes was an outspoken critic of the seal hunt.

"The harp seal question is entirely emotional. We have to be logical. We have to aim our activity first to the endangered species. Those who are moved by the plight of the harp seal could also be moved by the plight of the pig, with which we make our bacon."

Jacques Cousteau (1978)

"We do not support the killing of any animals but we consider the slaughter of the seals in Newfoundland to be humane."

Trevor Scott, Executive Director of International Society for the Protection of Animals (ISPA)

The ISPA is now World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). This statement was made when there were less regulations and less enforcement personnel.

"We believe that the Atlantic harp seal herd is now not only stable, but probably growing. The simple fact is that there is no possible chance that the animal is in any danger of extinction, and it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest that it is in danger. My personal concern, at this time is that the herd might grow too much."

Tom Hughes, Executive Vice-President of the Ontario Federation of Humane Societies (1978) and former British Columbia SPCA executive

Mr. Hughes was an outspoken critic of the seal hunt and made this statement when the harp seal population was just under 2 million, it is now almost 7 million.

"We have confidence in the data and management competence of our Canadian neighbors and in their judgment as to whether the harvest level may be damaging to the Harp seal population. Also, the method of killing has been examined by a number of independent groups and found to be the most effective as well as the most humane."

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies(1982)

I could go on.

Edited May 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Argus]

I have seen some the ones that aren't using emotional charged words and unclear statement always show support for the seal hunt. This article says 60% of Canadians agree with the seal hunt. It also talk about an IFAW that says "its surveys have consistently found two thirds of Canadians oppose the commercial hunt." But these are the same scumbags that payed someone to skin a seal alive to prove that seals are skinned alive. So you can decide whether to trust their poll or not.

I wouldn't trust them to give the time to of day accurately. You don't need polls. All you need to know is there is no significant political opposition to the seal hunt in Canada, from any major political party, left right or centre. The media is not against it, and as you can see from this, a reasonably typical web site, not much grass roots opposition either. The opposition is almost all from abroad, from the ignorant and hypocritical.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I wouldn't trust them to give the time to of day accurately. You don't need polls. All you need to know is there is no significant political opposition to the seal hunt in Canada, from any major political party, left right or centre. The media is not against it, and as you can see from this, a reasonably typical web site, not much grass roots opposition either. The opposition is almost all from abroad, from the ignorant and hypocritical.

It's not even from abroad all that much. The real "opposition" comes from animal right groups that make money off of it. Ironically if they ever actual manage to end the hunt they will lose their biggest source of income. Your average person couldn't care less about the seal hunt in Canada of otherwise.