This kind of thing rather grinds my gears. The European Union has banned all seal products from being imported into the EU on the basis that hunting seals is of itself, inhumane. Frankly I think this is a load of crap, and is an incredibly hypocritical thing to do. I seem to remember the HOUR (a Canadian culture/news show) talking about how Germans were concerned about how to get rid of a group of Wolves that had recently roamed in from Poland. (And I think they were supposedly going to kill them but I didn't followup on that story.) and contains France, a place were people put out Glass covered in Honey in the hope that a bear will eat it.
Seriously? What the hell. They say its inhumane but its just as humane as eating horses or bunny rabbits, or any other cute animal that people eat. Parts of Europe hunt Cats for Petes Sake! Quite a bit of the info used by Animal lobbyists like PETA is simply false. We don't even hunt baby seals anymore, which is one of their largest lies and allusions about it! Also, they say that their populaces don't want the fur in the first place. I would dissagree, seeing as they buy it from us anyways. You would think that if they didn't want it they would discontinue its purchase on their own. Secondly, the seals will have to be killed anyways. If the population gets to large the government will be forced to enact a cull or there could easily be a fish shortage. Thirdly, this kind of thing just peeves me off.....
/rant
What do you think? Its no different from hunting Dear or Turkey, and in most cases is a lot less traumatic to the animal.
Well my friend, it's all to do with the way the poor buggers are killed.
Take my objection to the now thankfully banned 'sport' of Fox Hunting in the UK. 20-30 Toffs galavanting about the Countryside, with 4 time their number in hunting hounds, chasing a single fox. Not only a single fox, but often one which had been trapped somewhere, and exported to the hunts patch, thus leaving it with absolutely no idea where it is, then being chased across said alien countryside. Now, if it got away, the 'sport' needn't be over. After all, you can always dig it out, throw it's terrified carcass to the hounds, then 'blood' your over privileged, under educated toff kids with it's remains whilst drinking Brandy.
Bunch of onanists!
Foxes do need their number controlling, as we committed the faux pas of bumping off their competitors and predator (Wolves and Bears) allowing them to thrive, then wind up the easiest prey in the world (chickens) all neatly bunched up in a mahoosive geet shed. Bit like a Fox McDonalds if you will. But why not shoot them? And seeing as trapping does work, why not Trap, THEN shoot them, instead of letting it go then hunting it down?
It's the Clubbing of Seals (no, not in the big fish, little fish, cardboard box style) that people quite understandably find distasteful. Shoot them, sure. But smacking it to death with a club....no ta.
Can't shoot them. If you shoot them they have a terrible habit of sliding off the ice flow before you can get to the carcass. Plus shooting acurately off of a moving boat in the open ocean is not exactly the easiest thing to do. Especially if you need to kill the seal with one shot and not ruin the pelt/meat in the process. And the reason they need controlling is more for the fishermans sake. If they eat all of the fish what will the fishermen do? (Especially as you already took away their other form of income...)
Clubbing a baby seal to death is inhumane. Saying the best way to kill a seal is by beating it's brains out with a stick is a joke. Saying that all the seals will eat the fish is a joke also, whales, lepord seals and bears keep thier numbers in check.
Shooting something is a lot less tramatic than clubbing it.
Ratbarf wrote:And the reason they need controlling is more for the fishermans sake. If they eat all of the fish what will the fishermen do? (Especially as you already took away their other form of income...)
Uh, sorry, but no. The only threat to wild fisheries is the fisherman themselves. The seal population is hardly exploding. It is simply disingenuous to presume that they are even remotely related to any shortfalls in the commercial fishing industries. I don't like PETA either, but if you're going to rant at least rant honestly.
What kind of fethed-up person would beat a baby seal to death? And if it's for the fur, that's even worse because think how many you'd need to make one coat.
I have an issue with people killing pigs by beating them to death. The big problem is not that the seals are cute, but that they're very young animals who have every right to live. I mean, if I came into your house, beat your baby to death, and said 'at least it was quick', would you feel offended?
It has nothing to do with it actually being inhumane, and everything to do with it being a cute animal that's being killed in a way that makes for a bad photo instead of being callously destroyed in a warehouse somewhere.
I don't see how being killed with a club is worse than being killed with a bullet. Both are lethal. Both are liable to cause the same amount of suffering.
What looks sad or scary or mean doesn't enter into it. The animal dies in both scenarios.
::EDIT:: Also, Cheese, if I raised you and your family in a cage and one day decided to line you up and kill you, would you feel glad that at least you didn't get hit with a club?
Personally, i've had a piece of flipper pie -- and never ever want to have it again. however, this banning of seal product imports is indeed a load of... crock. Canada no longer, with the exception of the Inuit (who we pretty much can't do anything against... long story) hunts baby seals.
that said, the most common type of Seal that is hunted in the Canadian Arctic is the ringed seal, and its range is approximately from the arctic to the border of Maine on the east coast and south Alaska on the west. They eat Cod. Cod is more endangered than the seals that hunt them, by two levels in fact -- Least concern vs. vulnerable. Seals are therefore very significant non-human consumers of Cod, as there numbers almost definitely exceed those of Whales (due to insufficient data on Orcas, it cannot be said for certain). It cannot be ignored then, that the numbers of Cod would definitely be increased by a decrease of seals. Seals are NOT ENDANGERED. Cod ARE. there is NO REASON NOT TO HUNT SEALS. It's the equivalent of CHICKENS. the only difference is a club vs a cleaver.
I'm not a huge supporter of the hunt, but it's hardly something worth banning. if anything, ban cod fishing. oh wait, that's right -- that would frack our economy so bad in the Maritime provinces that they would go into a recession they might never come out of -- oh wait. they already are, because they (almost) already did.
sexiest_hero wrote:Saying that all the seals will eat the fish is a joke also, whales, lepord seals and bears keep thier numbers in check.
Most whales don't eat fish. Most eat krill. The most numerous whale in Canadian waters (arctic and north atlantic) are humpback (krill variety) and probably orcas, but probably not nearly as much as seals all the same.
Ratbarf wrote: If they eat all of the fish what will the fishermen do? (Especially as you already took away their other form of income...)
The seal population will have feth all impact on the fish populations, fishing on an industrial scale is what's destroying fish populations.
Clubbing seals to death in this day and age is barbaric and pointless, populations are not high to begin with, guess what, cos they can't find enough fish as a result of humans fishing on an industrial scale. Yours is the same overly defensive and ultimately hollow argument the Japanese are using to continue killing whales.
Please read up on the cod and tuna population collapses.
What an absolute fail of a thread this is. Honestly how can you defend that, what a complete muppet. Canada, grow up.
'Killing seals help fish populations' = utter bollocks.
'Theres no other way to kill a seal' = utter bollocks
And before you blast me for being some animal rights nut, I aint, I'm no vegetarian either and one half of my family used to breed greyhounds for coursing.
Ratbarf wrote: If they eat all of the fish what will the fishermen do? (Especially as you already took away their other form of income...)
The seal population will have feth all impact on the fish populations, fishing on an industrial scale is what's destroying fish populations.
Clubbing seals to death in this day and age is barbaric and pointless, populations are not high to begin with, guess what, cos they can't find enough fish as a result of humans fishing on an industrial scale. Yours is the same overly defensive and ultimately hollow argument the Japanese are using to continue killing whales.
Please read up on the cod and tuna population collapses.
Before there were fishermen, there were seals and whales and plenty of fishes.
It is industrial scale fishing, effectively strip-mining the ocean, which has led to the collapse of essential food fish stocks.
Funnilly enough the words 'trade war' is being thrown around by a fair few media reports I've just read. This being the most hilarious example...
Frank Pinhorn, managing director of the Canadian Sealers Association, said Canada should retaliate by banning a European product. "If we're going to have a trade war, let's go tit for tat," he said.
But it's ok, they have absaloutely no chance whatsoever. The EU have voted overwhelmingly in favour which kind of means the top dogs opinion (the only one needed for this to get the go ahead) fairly predictable. The only way Canada have of combating this is legally via the world trade organisation, and considering they failed when the US banned seal products almost fourty years ago they don't stand much of a chance.
Anyhow, finally the EU do something I can get behind.
Ratbarf wrote:This kind of thing rather grinds my gears. The European Union has banned all seal products from being imported into the EU on the basis that hunting seals is of itself, inhumane. Frankly I think this is a load of crap, and is an incredibly hypocritical thing to do. I seem to remember the HOUR (a Canadian culture/news show) talking about how Germans were concerned about how to get rid of a group of Wolves that had recently roamed in from Poland. (And I think they were supposedly going to kill them but I didn't followup on that story.) and contains France, a place were people put out Glass covered in Honey in the hope that a bear will eat it.
Seriously? What the hell. They say its inhumane but its just as humane as eating horses or bunny rabbits, or any other cute animal that people eat. Parts of Europe hunt Cats for Petes Sake! Quite a bit of the info used by Animal lobbyists like PETA is simply false. We don't even hunt baby seals anymore, which is one of their largest lies and allusions about it! Also, they say that their populaces don't want the fur in the first place. I would dissagree, seeing as they buy it from us anyways. You would think that if they didn't want it they would discontinue its purchase on their own. Secondly, the seals will have to be killed anyways. If the population gets to large the government will be forced to enact a cull or there could easily be a fish shortage. Thirdly, this kind of thing just peeves me off.....
/rant
What do you think? Its no different from hunting Dear or Turkey, and in most cases is a lot less traumatic to the animal.
Finally.
Wussy. If Europe was man enough they would declare war on Canada. Assuming you didn't get your heads handed to you, it would drive Canada to look for aid from the US. In return Canada would have to of course ebcome a protectorate. Canada becomes the 51st-55th states. Then my plan for world maple syrup uber domination will be complete.
MUAHAHAH
Now, let us explore the situation in more detail. All emotions aside, what background do you, the people arguing here, have regarding the hunting and killing of seals and other ocean mammals? I noticed that someone mentioned whale hunting as a similarly distasteful industry.
I shall bring up an example from my home country, The Faroe Islands. Now, the Faroese people have hunted the Long-finned Pilot Whale for several hundred years. In fact, most of the scientific knowledge about this particular whale species comes from the extensive records kept about the whales that have been hunted there. The hunt evolved from a barbaric tradition involving harpoons, spears and guns into a more humane hunt where the kill is always performed with a knife. That's right, the best way to kill this species of whale is to stab right behind the cranium, severing the animal's spine and main arteries in one quick stab and cut. This empties the whale of blood extremely quickly, and it dies within seconds. It also feels no pain after the spine has been severed. However, it looks gruesome. The whales are driven to the shore, where they strand in the shallows. Then they are pulled further up to ensure a quick kill. This means that the surrounding water becomes red, the foam on the waves pink, and the hunters a spectacular palette of shade and highlights in red. Now, a couple of years ago, the Danish Government (who still have some say in the matters of this autonomous country) decided that it was inhumane to stab the whales in the back, and from now on, they should be killed by slashing the throat of the animal. Not only is the throat less accessible, so it was more difficult to reach the main arteries, but also, the spine was no longer reached, and so it turned out to be extremely painful for the animals. The hunters complained. No one wants their prey to be tortured like that. Eventually, the Danes conceded that perhaps the hunters knew more about how to hunt the animals than some snobs in suits that had never even participated in a hunt of any kind.
Why did I tell you that story? Well, the moral is that sometimes, governments that don't know what they're talking about should shut up, and accept that the people conducting the hunts have been following and elaborating on tradition because it is the best way to do things.
This leads us to our dear Hakapik. Has it occurred to you, dear protesters, that it is easier to hit a straight mark at short range, with a well-weighted hunting tool, than to shoot at said target from a boat? And that perhaps the people who have actually been out there, doing this stuff for their entire lives, might know more about the details of the hunt than you do, seeing as your knowledge comes from biased media and startling photographs?
The animal is not even endangered.
What about when kittens are euthanized? Bashing their heads against a wall is a lot more humane than drowning them, yet people seem put off more by the blood on their hands than by the fact that drowning takes much, much longer than a quick snap.
About the baby-seal thing. Seals usually live in colonies. Are you suggesting that the hunters kill most of the colony, and leave the baby seals to die from hunger? How can you be so heartless?
Now, in conclusion, as long as people want to buy the pelts, there is no reason to ban them from doing so. This is a gross infringement of freedoms and it frankly disgusts me. Who are you to say what other people can and can't do as long as it doesn't directly hurt you? But perhaps that is a discussion best kept for other times and places.
In conclusion, perhaps it is best to study your facts in detail before throwing feces at the OP, who seems to know more about the situation than most of the posters in this thread. Also, it is considered correct, in a discussion such as this, to make use of references and links when making claims or counter claims about the situation. The seals in question are not endangered. The over-fishing of our oceans is an off-topic discussion best served if placed in a separate thread, although the claims that cod is, in fact endangered, seem to be correct. Now, please think before you speak, and look up your facts before arguing in cases such as these. By making unfounded accusations and biased statements, all you do is undermine your own credibility. People do not take you seriously if you argue badly, so begin arguing cleverly, and interesting discussions might be the result.
Now if you will kindly excuse me, I have an exam to attend in half an hour, so I must be off.
So your argument is that it is ok because it is the best way to do it? Ignoring the fact it's completely unessary. The seal hunting industry in canada is worth around 16 million a year. I knowa small chain of sandwich shops near me who turnover more than that in a year.
Stating that the over fishing of cod is what is causing their endangerment is not off topic, not when people are claiming seal hunting keeps their population up by lowering the number of seals. That's just you dodging that whole argument.
And as far as I can see the rest of your argument is just assuming nobody on here knows what they are talking about and throwing about words like exagurate, biased and opinionated. Get over yourself.
whatwhat wrote:So your argument is that it is ok because it is the best way to do it? Ignoring the fact it's completely unessary. The seal hunting industry in canada is worth around 16 million a year. I knowa small chain of sandwich shops near me who turnover more than that in a year.
Playing 40k is Also Unnecessary. making Playing Cards is also Unnecessary. Slippery Slope there buddy.
whatwhat wrote:So your argument is that it is ok because it is the best way to do it? Ignoring the fact it's completely unessary. The seal hunting industry in canada is worth around 16 million a year. I knowa small chain of sandwich shops near me who turnover more than that in a year.
Playing 40k is Also Unnecessary. making Playing Cards is also Unnecessary. Slippery Slope there buddy.
Playing cards and 40k arent bludgeoning a seal to death are they?
Or does a 28mm plastic abaddon the despoiler have rights?
whatwhat wrote:So your argument is that it is ok because it is the best way to do it? Ignoring the fact it's completely unessary. The seal hunting industry in canada is worth around 16 million a year. I knowa small chain of sandwich shops near me who turnover more than that in a year.
Playing 40k is Also Unnecessary. making Playing Cards is also Unnecessary. Slippery Slope there buddy.
Playing cards and 40k arent bludgeoning a seal to death are they?
Or does a 28mm plastic abaddon the despoiler have rights?
Well in that Case whatwhat, lets ban Cattle Farming. It is 10 times as cruel but no-one gives a toss.
Or what about Battery Hens? Or Pig Farming? Or Veal? Hell, lets ban Jelly Beans because they have Calf Gelatine (made from their Bones) in them.
The only reason the EU is banning it is because, like the Icelandic gerbrith said (btw, Iceland: Beautiful Country. Been there once for a CCP Fanfest and cannot wait to go again someday), the suits in the EU see cute seals and want to make themselves seem important, with no regard as to how it actually works.
Gwar! wrote:Well in that Case whatwhat, lets ban Cattle Farming. It is 10 times as cruel but no-one gives a toss.
Or what about Battery Hens? Or Pig Farming? Or Veal? Hell, lets ban Jelly Beans because they have Calf Gelatine (made from their Bones) in them.
The only reason the EU is banning it is because, like the Icelandic gerbrith said (btw, Iceland: Beautiful Country. Been there once for a CCP Fanfest and cannot wait to go again someday), the suits in the EU see cute seals and want to make themselves seem important, with no regard as to how it actually works.
I have family members who are cattle farmers, not once have i see them beating a bullock to death with a stick. And neither is it unesecary. Nor is battery farming as much as I hate to say it, we wouldnt be able to feed the population without it.
On the other hand a 16 million pound industry whose only use is supporting a few inuits and whoever the hell buys seal fur isn't really worth the cruelty of the act is it?
gerbrith wrote:Wow, what a fantastic load of very opinionated people with bad arguments. This looks to me like a rage thread.
Now, let us explore the situation in more detail. All emotions aside, what background do you, the people arguing here, have regarding the hunting and killing of seals and other ocean mammals? I noticed that someone mentioned whale hunting as a similarly distasteful industry.
I grew up in a town called Newlyn in Cornwall, I worked on a trawler and was involved in the fishing industry all my early life. The People arguing here are citizens of the planet and ENTIRELY have the right to form an opinion on the matter, either to support it or decry it. Your dismissal leaves you looking more than alittle opinionated and rends your argument in a very poor light, are you suggesting only people who have a background hunting and killing seals get to have a say about the hunting and killing of seals?!? What sort of logic is that?
gerbrith wrote:
I shall bring up an example from my home country, The Faroe Islands. Now, the Faroese people have hunted the Long-finned Pilot Whale for several hundred years. In fact, most of the scientific knowledge about this particular whale species comes from the extensive records kept about the whales that have been hunted there. The hunt evolved from a barbaric tradition involving harpoons, spears and guns into a more humane hunt where the kill is always performed with a knife. That's right, the best way to kill this species of whale is to stab right behind the cranium, severing the animal's spine and main arteries in one quick stab and cut. This empties the whale of blood extremely quickly, and it dies within seconds. It also feels no pain after the spine has been severed. However, it looks gruesome. The whales are driven to the shore, where they strand in the shallows. Then they are pulled further up to ensure a quick kill. This means that the surrounding water becomes red, the foam on the waves pink, and the hunters a spectacular palette of shade and highlights in red. Now, a couple of years ago, the Danish Government (who still have some say in the matters of this autonomous country) decided that it was inhumane to stab the whales in the back, and from now on, they should be killed by slashing the throat of the animal. Not only is the throat less accessible, so it was more difficult to reach the main arteries, but also, the spine was no longer reached, and so it turned out to be extremely painful for the animals. The hunters complained. No one wants their prey to be tortured like that. Eventually, the Danes conceded that perhaps the hunters knew more about how to hunt the animals than some snobs in suits that had never even participated in a hunt of any kind.
And we come to your own agenda in this matter and the cause of your long post, your rushing defence of the whaling industry... the particular details of how the whale is killed are of little interest other than to disturb me with your comment about the 'spectacular palette of shade and highlights in red'... The hunt of whales is a distastful and barbaric practice, your 'quaint' portrayal of an ancient tradition is somewhat let down by the fact I've been up close and personal with a whaling vessal, it's a massive steel bastard with a cannon on the front that fires a harpoon under tremendous pressure into a live animal with one of the highest intellects (and nervous system almost identical to our own) of any creature on earth. and then drags the impaled animal back to the ship, in very great pain where it gets cut into pieces.
gerbrith wrote:
Why did I tell you that story? Well, the moral is that sometimes, governments that don't know what they're talking about should shut up, and accept that the people conducting the hunts have been following and elaborating on tradition because it is the best way to do things.
This leads us to our dear Hakapik. Has it occurred to you, dear protesters, that it is easier to hit a straight mark at short range, with a well-weighted hunting tool, than to shoot at said target from a boat? And that perhaps the people who have actually been out there, doing this stuff for their entire lives, might know more about the details of the hunt than you do, seeing as your knowledge comes from biased media and startling photographs?
The animal is not even endangered.
Lets not piss about, the Hakapik is a gaff hook, it's not about killing so much as about convenience of dragging the animal about, I've used a gaff on adult conger eels, angler fish etc before. The principal behind this weapon's design is not damaging the pelts of baby seals, adults are shot and then dragged by Hakapik. The media are relaying the wishes of the majority, the majority consider the hunt unnecessary and cruel. You further betray your own argument with the words 'dear protesters' since none of us are protesters, we are simply people who believe it an outdated piece of barbarism and cruelty.
The animal is not currently endangered, the harp seal is recovering from all time lows in population (and endangerment) during the 70s... When hunting was more prevelent! The hooded seal population remains low.
gerbrith wrote:
What about when kittens are euthanized? Bashing their heads against a wall is a lot more humane than drowning them, yet people seem put off more by the blood on their hands than by the fact that drowning takes much, much longer than a quick snap.
WTF does drowning kittens have to do with the defence of killing seals? This is emotive and pointless.
gerbrith wrote:
About the baby-seal thing. Seals usually live in colonies. Are you suggesting that the hunters kill most of the colony, and leave the baby seals to die from hunger? How can you be so heartless?
Again, pointless. No one is suggesting that and your argument here is paper thin. We are suggesting NO hunting in the first place.
gerbrith wrote:
Now, in conclusion, as long as people want to buy the pelts, there is no reason to ban them from doing so. This is a gross infringement of freedoms and it frankly disgusts me. Who are you to say what other people can and can't do as long as it doesn't directly hurt you? But perhaps that is a discussion best kept for other times and places.
Infringement of freedoms that are damaging to the planet, harmful and needlessly cruel to people or animals or that seek to cause pain and suffering are infringements I totally support. That's why I can't buy rhino horn or don slippers sown from the skins of children in the 3rd world or walk into a shopping mall and fire rounds into the crowd because I'm having a bad day.
This doesn't directly hurt me? Yes it does, it directly offends my morality and I, along with the rest of the world, may choose to voice my disgust at it and ensure those have been voted into public service hear my disgust and act on it.
gerbrith wrote:
In conclusion, perhaps it is best to study your facts in detail before throwing feces at the OP, who seems to know more about the situation than most of the posters in this thread. Also, it is considered correct, in a discussion such as this, to make use of references and links when making claims or counter claims about the situation. The seals in question are not endangered. The over-fishing of our oceans is an off-topic discussion best served if placed in a separate thread, although the claims that cod is, in fact endangered, seem to be correct. Now, please think before you speak, and look up your facts before arguing in cases such as these. By making unfounded accusations and biased statements, all you do is undermine your own credibility. People do not take you seriously if you argue badly, so begin arguing cleverly, and interesting discussions might be the result.
Sorry, but quoting internet sites for your argument? I am sure I can find a site with a directly opposing view for anything in the world, 'wiki said so' has no validity, the scientific studies you quote are often biased and statistics can be made to angle any point.
The pro seal hunting lobby have been using the idea that high seal populations are adversely affecting the fish stocks, I was merely pointing out, as someone with a fair amount of experience during my life, that such an argument is utter bollocks.
So don't wade in here and tell us to 'look up your facts' when all you've done is quoted whatever you've googled. You've done nothing more than irritate and patronise.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: the particular details of how the whale is killed are of little interest other than to disturb me with your comment about the 'spectacular palette of shade and highlights in red'...
whatwhat wrote:On the other hand a 16 million pound industry whose only use is supporting a few inuits and whoever the hell buys seal fur isn't really worth the cruelty of the act is it?
So, what you are saying is, just because it is not a big industry, it shouldn't be allowed? What about those Inuits who make their livelihood off it. Are you saying they should not be allowed just because you object to it?
As for you claim that Cattle/Pig/Chicken Raising is less cruel, how is keeping an animal locked up for its entire life to then have its throat cut and have it bleed to death crueller than leaving an animal in the wild then dispatching it with one blow to the head?
whatwhat wrote:On the other hand a 16 million pound industry whose only use is supporting a few inuits and whoever the hell buys seal fur isn't really worth the cruelty of the act is it?
So, what you are saying is, just because it is not a big industry, it shouldn't be allowed? What about those Inuits who make their livelihood off it.
Yeh that's what I'm saying. If an entire population rellied on the industry fair enough. But for the sake of a few people forget it. And besides as has been suggested many times by major organisations the tourism that could be opened up in thoses areas would more than acount for the loss of sealing.
Gwar! wrote:As for you claim that Cattle/Pig/Chicken Raising is less cruel, how is keeping an animal locked up for its entire life to then have its throat cut and have it bleed to death crueller than leaving an animal in the wild then dispatching it with one blow to the head?
hoenstly, have you ever been to a cattle farm. Theres thing called a field. Ussually with four acres per cow, far more space than you or I would even need to live.
And please give me the name and number of the abateour whos method of killing is by cutting the throat and letting cattle bleed to death.
And I didn't say battery farming was humane. I just think it's nesecary.
Gwar! wrote:As for you claim that Cattle/Pig/Chicken Raising is less cruel, how is keeping an animal locked up for its entire life to then have its throat cut and have it bleed to death crueller than leaving an animal in the wild then dispatching it with one blow to the head?
Oh and for the record gwar, do you honestly believe all the fuss in this thread has been about a killing method which only takes one blow to the head?
A. "Durn Liberals".
B. " Because G.W. Bush is even more evil than Skeletor!11"
C. "It's Wednesday."
D." Liberal media bias".
E."Gun control."
F."Something to do with God either existing or not existing."
I just want to redirect the subject towards veal for a moment. All self respecting meat eaters should eat as much veal as possible because male calves not consumed as veal are killed and dumped. I cannot stand to see a good meal go to waste.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:This doesn't directly hurt me? Yes it does, it directly offends my morality
Concept Fail.
Explanation or it isn't true
For one, that's not how truth works, sorry to say.
For another, if you think that disliking something means it directly hurts you, I don't know what else I can say.
You clearly don't understand the concept of harm, directness, or both.
I can't help but feel that the furor surrounding this subject is largely emotive and is largely based on the animal in question being 'cute'. That and the fact that the killing occurs in the wild, where it can be filmed as opposed to in a more controlled environment such as a slaughterhouse where cameras rarely stray.
It just seems rather hypocritical to me that people will scream about the horror of Baby Seals being clubbed and about Mink Fur coats before putting on their leather shoes to go and enjoy a Chicken dinner.
I realise that many may argue that a animal reared for the purposes of slaughter is different than an animal in the wild. But this just a value that has simply been assigned each animal by ourselves. In reality a cute baby seal has no more or less intrinsic 'right' to live or die than a cow in a Dorset farm. We have simply decided that one is there for our own usage and the other must be free to roam.
You either think is acceptable for Animals to be used for mans food or clothing or you don't. unless your a vegetarian who doesn't own a leather jacket I really don't think you have the moral high ground to make a legitimate complaint regarding seal culling.
I have seen good documentaries and programmes on Telly about Farming methods in the UK and Europe.
I quite accept that Cows and Chickens have to die to provide me with tasty meat. I have no problem with this.
Chickens for example, are stunned using electricity, then have their arteries severed, leading a quick and relatively painless death. And the people, is the operative word. Relative. A Bullet to the head is pretty much instananeous, sure, but not always viable from a cost point of view. I get that.
I try to buy my meat so that the animal I am now consuming had a good quality of life. This means no Factory Farmed Chicken. Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall really opened my eyes on that. Free Range or bust for me, same with Eggs. I understand the need for intensive factory farming, because as was said earlier, there is a burgeoning population to feed. But I instead opt out. This is about as much as I can do short of running my own small holding and raising my own food. But I don't have the time, money or most importantly, land to do this.
In the video above from Youtube, we see ships essentially doing drive by clubbings. We also see a Helicopter being used on the Hunt. Now sure, this is a video made to back up one side of the argument, so I shan't pretend for a second all Seals are hunted and killed in that method. But that said method is employed at all is, to my mind, reason enough to want nothing at all to do with it. We can make excellent fake fur these days, so as far as I'm concerned, you have to be some kind of lady garden to demand the real thing. The clubbing of young seals (note how I avoid the overly emotive wording of 'baby' seals...) is barbaric and outmoded. Someone mentioned the body might slide off the ice if shot. True I suppose, ice being notoriously slippery. But why not a tied shot from a crossbow or summat, akin to Seal fishing? Oh of course, that might slightly damage the skin, and the idiots who demand real fur might not pay top dollar for that. Unless of course, there was no choice because thats how it was now hunted and gathered.
What makes death by clubbing more "barbaric" than death by bullet wound? You have to be closer? You have to move your arms more? There's no whirling bits or flashing lights?
Here's some news for you: intensive factory farming is not necessary to support the world's population. Not now, probably not for a bit. Pigs need food, they get this food from crops that could feed far more people than the pigs could. There are tons of plants that are valid substitutes for protein, iron can be added to nearly anything.
The amount of income the average American spends on food is about half of what it was in the 1950s. Americans - and probably the British, as meat eating is fairly common there - consume more meat than they should as it is. America consumes nearly the same amount of meat as China, despite having less than a third of the population. Western Europe is similarly exaggerated.
Meat is a luxury. Not all of the time, but fur isn't a luxury all of the time either. Meat today is consumed far more than is needed for survival, just like fur is worn for fashion more than warmth.
Phew, this post is a long one, in short, it clarifies some misunderstandings and I reply to certain comments.
whatwhat wrote:So your argument is that it is ok because it is the best way to do it? Ignoring the fact it's completely unessary. The seal hunting industry in canada is worth around 16 million a year. I knowa small chain of sandwich shops near me who turnover more than that in a year.
Stating that the over fishing of cod is what is causing their endangerment is not off topic, not when people are claiming seal hunting keeps their population up by lowering the number of seals. That's just you dodging that whole argument.
And as far as I can see the rest of your argument is just assuming nobody on here knows what they are talking about and throwing about words like exagurate, biased and opinionated. Get over yourself.
No, actually, I see how my argument may have been pretty vague, so let me elaborate. I think it is wrong to ban something that we don't know enough about. I think it is wrong to ban something that some people's existence relies upon as long as no one is unduly hurt by it. I can also see that a lot of people have very strong opinions without much actual fact to back up those opinions. I'll get back to that in a bit.
I apologize if my use of words is out of the ordinary or presumptuous in some way, I'm afraid that's just how I talk. I mean... that's how my friend circle communicates, so yeah, didn't mean to act superior or anything.
You're right, nothing I could find indicates that the seals are keeping down the fish population, and so hunting them will do nothing to restore the fish population. I actually just don't have much to add to that particular argument, so I guess perhaps I was neglecting it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I grew up in a town called Newlyn in Cornwall, I worked on a trawler and was involved in the fishing industry all my early life. The People arguing here are citizens of the planet and ENTIRELY have the right to form an opinion on the matter, either to support it or decry it. Your dismissal leaves you looking more than alittle opinionated and rends your argument in a very poor light, are you suggesting only people who have a background hunting and killing seals get to have a say about the hunting and killing of seals?!? What sort of logic is that?
Excellent, great to see that you have some up front experience in the topic. I grew up in the capital of the Faroe Islands, a "city" with a population of around 20k people. I've also lived in Norway and now I am in Iceland. I've been to Greenland, and I wrote a final paper on sustainable hunting of marine mammals in the North Atlantic a few years ago. I just wanted to see if people had any particular reason to state claims for or against, or any experience that might make them a valid source of information. To clarify, in no way would I ever state that people don't have a right to form an opinion on whatever they feel like. Yes, I do find that people involved in the relevant industry (be that as hunters, scientists or whatever) should have more to say than those that don't. The logic is as follows:
We can all make up very strong opinions about all sorts of things. That does not mean that we should all legislate said opinions. Take computer gaming as an example. We all know about the existing hype about how violent games make kids that play them violent, and that there are a lot of people lobbying to ban such games altogether. The games obviously bother these people, and they have every right to their opinions. But as long as those opinions remain just that, unfounded opinions, it is unreasonable to demand that all violent computer games be banned. In context, without knowing more about the situation, without giving it a proper examination, it is unreasonable for people to make laws and legislations to enforce their views. In the scope of this thread, I must admit that I was a little frustrated that so many people voiced strong opinions that did not seem very well explored.
Further, it is very easy for a person to be opposed to and legislate against something that does not adversely affect them. Especially if the problem is far away. Who cares if it's only hurting a few thousand Inuits right? ...as long as the seals get to live peacefully?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:And we come to your own agenda in this matter and the cause of your long post, your rushing defence of the whaling industry... the particular details of how the whale is killed are of little interest other than to disturb me with your comment about the 'spectacular palette of shade and highlights in red'... The hunt of whales is a distastful and barbaric practice, your 'quaint' portrayal of an ancient tradition is somewhat let down by the fact I've been up close and personal with a whaling vessal, it's a massive steel bastard with a cannon on the front that fires a harpoon under tremendous pressure into a live animal with one of the highest intellects (and nervous system almost identical to our own) of any creature on earth. and then drags the impaled animal back to the ship, in very great pain where it gets cut into pieces.
I honestly don't really have an agenda as far as this is concerned, though I do have opinions. I brought up the story because I thought it was a fitting example of the adverse affects of unsuitable laws regarding sensitive issues.
I should have been more careful to mention that there is a major difference between the cultural, communal whale hunts of the Faroese people and the industrial scale harpooning, in that it is easier to ensure that rules are followed in regards to minimalizing the pain of the animals and all that. (Also the methods used are entirely different. For example, it's illegal to go whaling for profit in the Faroes. For more details, please look it up, it's actually quite interesting, I just don't want to go further off topic here. ^^)
MeanGreenStompa wrote:... The media are relaying the wishes of the majority, the majority consider the hunt unnecessary and cruel. You further betray your own argument with the words 'dear protesters' since none of us are protesters, we are simply people who believe it an outdated piece of barbarism and cruelty.
The media is often very biased, and that they relay the opinions of the majority does not mean that they relay the truth. When I say biased, I do not mean that the newspapers shouldn't have opinions, but rather that they tend to skew data to suit their purposes, and that they are therefore wont to display facts based on air and theory. Also, aren't you in essence protesting that the hunt be allowed to continue? I'm sorry, didn't mean to offend. Do you have a more fitting term? You believe it an outdated piece of barbarism and cruelty... other people see it as their livelihood. Doesn't seem so outdated to me, but then again, that is just my opinion.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The animal is not currently endangered, the harp seal is recovering from all time lows in population (and endangerment) during the 70s... When hunting was more prevelent! The hooded seal population remains low.
Okay, I didn't know that about the hooded seals. Where did you get the information? See this is where I wish you had provided a link or something so I could go and learn more about the situation.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:WTF does drowning kittens have to do with the defence of killing seals? This is emotive and pointless.
It was intended as an extension of the "don't club them" counter-argument. Bringing into focus the fact that just because a method looks and seems cruel and grizzly it isn't necessarily so.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Again, pointless. No one is suggesting that and your argument here is paper thin. We are suggesting NO hunting in the first place.
Oh, sorry, my bad then. Why is the outcry "stop clubbing baby seals" if what is meant is actually "stop clubbing any seals"? Is it a publicity thing? Never mind, I guess I just misunderstood that part.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Infringement of freedoms that are damaging to the planet, harmful and needlessly cruel to people or animals or that seek to cause pain and suffering are infringements I totally support. That's why I can't buy rhino horn or don slippers sown from the skins of children in the 3rd world or walk into a shopping mall and fire rounds into the crowd because I'm having a bad day.
This doesn't directly hurt me? Yes it does, it directly offends my morality and I, along with the rest of the world, may choose to voice my disgust at it and ensure those have been voted into public service hear my disgust and act on it.
You know, I agree with what you said on acceptable infringements on freedom, so I suppose that what we disagree on is whether or not the seal hunts fall into that category. You seem, if I may, to think that it does, while I feel rather strongly that it does not. I can see no evidence that it is damaging to the planet, nor that it is needlessly cruel to the animals, and it certainly does not appear to seek to cause pain and suffering.
Also, I wonder what makes you feel that your hurt morality justifies damaging the lives of thousands of people?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Sorry, but quoting internet sites for your argument? I am sure I can find a site with a directly opposing view for anything in the world, 'wiki said so' has no validity, the scientific studies you quote are often biased and statistics can be made to angle any point.
The pro seal hunting lobby have been using the idea that high seal populations are adversely affecting the fish stocks, I was merely pointing out, as someone with a fair amount of experience during my life, that such an argument is utter bollocks.
So don't wade in here and tell us to 'look up your facts' when all you've done is quoted whatever you've googled. You've done nothing more than irritate and patronise.
Now, I suppose I could bring up one of the books I've read on the topic at hand, but since most of my material is written in Faroese or Danish, very few people would be able to make any use of it. Also, web pages are the most readily available source of knowledge. By bringing up the sites and databases that I base my arguments on, I show you where I retrieved my facts, allowing you to point out the bias of these sources or to see what I base my perspective on.
I had no clue that you has that experience, because you made no mention of it. By mentioning it, your argument has gained validity. I respect your experience. I apologize, but most of the posts at the start here seemed like shouts of unfounded rage. I am glad that you proved me wrong in the case of your post.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh that's what I'm saying. If an entire population rellied on the industry fair enough. But for the sake of a few people forget it. And besides as has been suggested many times by major organisations the tourism that could be opened up in thoses areas would more than acount for the loss of sealing.
Actually a lack of interested tourists is a huge problem in Greenland. Last summer, I visited a small village in Greenland called Kulusuk. The village traditionally relied mostly on hunting and selling the products of the hunt, but have recently turned to tourism as their main source of income. The village is only a few kilometers from an international airport. However, the trickle of tourists has been so slow, that the flight company that I went there with has since discontinued the trips, so as far as I have experienced, the tourism attraction of the region is not very high. It's beautiful, don't get me wrong, but it's ridiculously expensive since reaching the areas is difficult and it is difficult to run a hotel in the region because maintaining running water during winter is nearly impossible. (Or so the people that live there told me.)
I doubt that any conclusion can be found in a thread like this, because it is an opinion based topic.
It's too bad that my post, which was intended to increase the level of discussion and thought on the topic spurred something negative, but I guess that happens sometimes.
I'll be keeping an eye on the thread, but I am in the middle of my exams, so replies will have to be delayed until I have more time to think of something other than finance and statistics. =P
Orkeosaurus wrote:What makes death by clubbing more "barbaric" than death by bullet wound? You have to be closer? You have to move your arms more? There's no whirling bits or flashing lights?
Death by clubbing is more "barbaric" because with a bullet would you can either wait for them to bleed to death, or shoot them in the head. With clubbing no matter what they are going to suffer a lot of pain.
gerbrith wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:WTF does drowning kittens have to do with the defence of killing seals? This is emotive and pointless.
It was intended as an extension of the "don't club them" counter-argument. Bringing into focus the fact that just because a method looks and seems cruel and grizzly it isn't necessarily so.
Watching the video posted earlier in the thread, seal clubbing does not look "not necessarily grizzly" to me. The seal is moving around, clearly still alive, while being beat several times until it stops moving. If seal clubbing actually was "one clean hit on the head and they die" I would have no problem with it. I have no issues with the (lack of) detachment of the person to the killing in seal clubbing. The problem I have is that what could be accomplished by stabbing them in the neck, shooting them in the head, etc, is done instead by beating them to death slowly and painfully.
Orkeosaurus wrote:What makes death by clubbing more "barbaric" than death by bullet wound? You have to be closer? You have to move your arms more? There's no whirling bits or flashing lights?
Death by clubbing is more "barbaric" because with a bullet would you can either wait for them to bleed to death, or shoot them in the head. With clubbing no matter what they are going to suffer a lot of pain.
You know, apart from the part where they go unconscious because of said blow to the head? And bullets are no Better, I have seen times where it has taken a good 3 or 4 shots to take down a deer (and of course if you miss the first ranged shot, the poor animal runs about with a bit of lead in it screaming and bleeding) which means you then have to chase the thing and try and get a few headshots in.
Orkeosaurus wrote:What makes death by clubbing more "barbaric" than death by bullet wound? You have to be closer? You have to move your arms more? There's no whirling bits or flashing lights?
Death by clubbing is more "barbaric" because with a bullet would you can either wait for them to bleed to death, or shoot them in the head. With clubbing no matter what they are going to suffer a lot of pain.
You know, apart from the part where they go unconscious because of said blow to the head? And bullets are no Better, I have seen times where it has taken a good 3 or 4 shots to take down a deer (and of course if you miss the first ranged shot, the poor animal runs about with a bit of lead in it screaming and bleeding) which means you then have to chase the thing and try and get a few headshots in.
Huh, that's funny. I did not know that seals could flop around and try to escape while unconscious, which they can be clearly seen doing in that video.
I'm no marksman myself, but I know I could hit a seal in the head with a pistol from clubbing range.
Orkeosaurus wrote:A clean blow to the head will kill them the same a clean shot to the head.
Not an issue.
A failed clubbing will cause them pain same as a failed shot.
That video was BS. Did you miss the bloody leaf? And the fact that it was a video by PETA?
(Regardless, it's still better than intensive pig farming.)
I'm not fond of the way people treat mass-farmed animals either.
Making a clean blow to the head is harder than making a clean shot to the head. Failing to make a clean blow to the head is more painful than failing to make a clean shot to the head, and shooting can be done much more rapidly than winding up and bashing with a club. I see no reason to use a club/hammer over a pistol.
And as Pointed out with the example of the whales, for all you know using a pistol might just make things worse. These people have done it for generations, you have not the slightest clue about it, so it obviously works. If using a pistol is better than the way they do it, then why do they keep the old way? It's not because of tradition and I am sure its not out of a sadistic Pleasure.
How exactly is a shot that doesn't kill worse than a clubbing that doesn't? And by kill I should really mean knock unconscious, which is easier to do with a bludgeon.
The pistol reduces the value of the kill. You would have to kill more seals to turn the same profit.
Not to mention the fact that a Pistol Causes a huge shockwave that could very well trigger an ice breakage (the same way it can cause an avalanche). A Club Cannot.
And as Pointed out with the example of the whales, for all you know using a pistol might just make things worse. These people have done it for generations, you have not the slightest clue about it, so it obviously works. If using a pistol is better than the way they do it, then why do they keep the old way? It's not because of tradition and I am sure its not out of a sadistic Pleasure.
Ah, the greatest argument, "you do not know anything about what you are talking about therefore everything you say is wrong and your counterarguments are also wrong! victory!" Obviously it works. I could throw rocks at seals until they died, and it would work. I could beat seals with a club and it would work. Or, I could shoot seals with a pistol, which would not only reduce negative feelings towards the hunters as seal clubbing videos can be simply dismissed, but a even a merely semi-skilled hunter would only require one shot and the seal would not suffer at all. Even if you could kill a seal in 1 swing of the club, when you are close to it it is more likely to try to evade an attack and cause your hit to not kill. A seal can't try to escape a bullet.
Orkeosaurus wrote:How exactly is a shot that doesn't kill worse than a clubbing that doesn't? And by kill I should really mean knock unconscious, which is easier to do with a bludgeon.
The pistol reduces the value of the kill. You would have to kill more seals to turn the same profit.
Also, guns are more dangerous to the hunters.
I did not say that a clean shot that doesn't kill is worse than a club to the head that doesn't kill/knock out. I said the opposite.
Stabbing the seal with a hakapik reduces the value too.
I would expect a professional hunter to be capable enough with his weapon to not harm himself with it.
In fact, most seal hunting is done with rifles. According to numerous references cited on wikipedia (as in, not just pulled out of a wikipediar's ass) adult seals are more often just shot with a rifle, while baby seals are killed with a hakapik.
It seems that I was correct about using a rifle being a better way of hunting, as you both seem to disagree strongly with. Because that is what people do. If seal clubbing is used specifically on baby seals while rifle use is also an option, then there must be a specific reason for it. I do not know what this reason is, but I guess that there must be one. I would prefer if clubbing was not used in any case.
Oh, and checking for new posts I see
Gwar! wrote:Not to mention the fact that a Pistol Causes a huge shockwave that could very well trigger an ice breakage (the same way it can cause an avalanche). A Club Cannot.
Rifles are used in seal hunting.
I am going to stop posting at this because I do not wish to contribute further to Gwar!'s 100 posts per day.
EDIT:
Clarified a point that Gwar! misinterpreted to be his only point of counter-argument.
I was honestly not expecting much but I expected more than a post consisting of more than "You are a baby for not replying any more to my posts!" and a criticism of a part of my post that he did not read as I intended. This has been fixed.
Second clarification, I originally did not know whether or not firearms were used. I argued that it would not make sense to not use them. I looked up this fact. I was right: people do use firearms.
Gwar! wrote:Not to mention the fact that a Pistol Causes a huge shockwave that could very well trigger an ice breakage (the same way it can cause an avalanche). A Club Cannot.
Rifles are used in seal hunting.
I am going to stop posting at this because I do not wish to contribute further to Gwar!'s 100 posts per day.
Oh wow. Seriously, grow up. "I'm not gonna post because Gwar! posts too much Waaaa Waaa!" Really? That's the best you can come up with?
Also your claim that Pistols make it easier for "Semi Skilled Hunters" to do it is a logical Fallacy. The people who hunt the seals are not hicks who go up for a weekend to kill some stuff, these are people who's livelihood revolve around it. They know what they are doing.
ph34r wrote:I did not say that a clean shot that doesn't kill is worse than a club to the head that doesn't kill/knock out. I said the opposite. Stabbing the seal with a hakapik reduces the value too. I would expect a professional hunter to be capable enough with his weapon to not harm himself with it.
In fact, most seal hunting is done with rifles. According to numerous references cited on wikipedia (as in, not just pulled out of a wikipediar's ass) adult seals are more often just shot with a rifle, while baby seals are killed with a hakapik.
It seems that I was correct about using a rifle being a better way of hunting, as you both seem to disagree strongly with. Because that is what people do. If seal clubbing is used specifically on baby seals while rifle use is also an option, then there must be a specific reason for it. I do not know what this reason is, but I guess that there must be one. I would prefer if clubbing was not used in any case.
So... you were wrong?
Okay.
I knew adult seals were commonly shot with rifles, tracked down, and finished off with a hakapik if the shot failed to kill them. (In Norway at least.) When did I say they weren't used? I just said that there were reasons they aren't used exclusively.
Young seals are killed with a hakapik because of the fur value, I'm pretty sure. The hammer end is the one primarily used.
Using a gun is more dangerous than a club. Being familiar with a weapon helps, but accidents happen even to those well trained in the use of firearms. It's better to not use them if you can help it.
Alright, it was silly of me to say that I would not respond any more just because of one user. I will just not respond to Gwar! any more. I would not ignore a user entirely, but I am not going to keep giving a user reason to post when those posts are not constructive.
@Orkeosaurus:
Sorry for mixing what Gwar! said with what you said.
Of course using a firearm always has some danger to it, but I expect professionals to be capable enough to use them without a high risk of accident.
I don't see what you are trying to say with "So... you were wrong?"
You posted "How exactly is a shot that doesn't kill worse than a clubbing that doesn't? And by kill I should really mean knock unconscious, which is easier to do with a bludgeon. "
I posted "I did not say that a clean shot that doesn't kill is worse than a club to the head that doesn't kill/knock out."
How am I wrong at saying that something that I did not argue, I did not argue?
EDIT: I also cleared some confusion in my previous post.
ph34r wrote:I don't see what you are trying to say with "So... you were wrong?"
That was snide of me, I apologize.
You posted "How exactly is a shot that doesn't kill worse than a clubbing that doesn't? And by kill I should really mean knock unconscious, which is easier to do with a bludgeon. "
I posted "I did not say that a clean shot that doesn't kill is worse than a club to the head that doesn't kill/knock out."
How am I wrong at saying that something that I did not argue, I did not argue?
You said "Failing to make a clean blow to the head is more painful than failing to make a clean shot to the head" on page 2. I was disagreeing with that.
However, my "you were wrong" comment was actually in response to "If seal clubbing is used specifically on baby seals while rifle use is also an option, then there must be a specific reason for it. I do not know what this reason is, but I guess that there must be one."
Of course, you then say you would still prefer the club isn't used even though you don't know why it is used, which seemed to get back at what gerbrith was saying about people without any experience in the trade commenting on the best way to do it...
Also, this thread has gone on too long without:
I KILL BABY SEALS WITH MY BARE HANDS! I DO WHAT I WANT!
Now, I'm not trying to be mean or single anyone out, but I just wanted to mention that just because some of those seals keep moving after the first hit to the head, doesn't mean they are actually still conscious or even still alive. I know a lot of people watch videos like the ones PETA puts out, and sees an animal moving around during the killing process and think "OMG, it's moving! It must still be alive!", when really that's not always (or even often) the case.
Having said that, I'm not condoning seal clubbing, and I think a rifle would in most cases be the preferable weapon.
I'm curious though - to the people who think seal hunting in general is barbaric and pointless, no matter the weapon used - are you okay with any kind of hunting? If so, what animals and what methods?
Excuse me here but I am going to butt in on the convo I started.
In fact, most seal hunting is done with rifles. According to numerous references cited on wikipedia (as in, not just pulled out of a wikipediar's ass) adult seals are more often just shot with a rifle, while baby seals are killed with a hakapik.
It seems that I was correct about using a rifle being a better way of hunting, as you both seem to disagree strongly with. Because that is what people do. If seal clubbing is used specifically on baby seals while rifle use is also an option, then there must be a specific reason for it. I do not know what this reason is, but I guess that there must be one. I would prefer if clubbing was not used in any case.
Oh, and checking for new posts I see
Fallicy numero uno. In Canada, using a rifle or firearm to hunt seals is highly illegal. The governement actually regulates this stuff you know, as it is a major part of the Newfoundland fisheries economy. The way they are generally killed is smacked with a hakapik, then they have their throats cut once they stop trying to get away. (which they can't as they are stunned/out cold from the blow to the noggin) Once the seal is dead the carcass is hooked by the throat and brought to the boat for skinning.
Why are we killing the babies again?
We arn't, this is the biggest lie propagated by the enemies of the seal hunt. In Canada, It Is Illegal To Kill Baby Seals. Its a practice that has been stopped for decades! (since 1987) What they tell you are lies.
PS: For clarification, a baby seal is only a baby for roughly 14 days after it is born. After which it's fur sheds and is no longer dependant on the mother and is left to fend for itself in the wild.
Fallicy number 3, Sealing is not just limited to Inuit and is actually undertaken by Newfoundlanders for the most part. A culture that has been hunting seals for hundreds of years.
Thirdly, and I really should have given this out with the original post. Here is the link to the CBC'c faq page about the Seal Hunt in Canada. And its not biased as much as it is possible to be without bias. (as I know if I said its not biased, which it basically isn't, would nail on the technicality that everything told by humans is slightly biased...)
Fourthly, that video that was shown was over 30 years old. How do I know this? Every year it is shown by Animal Groups, and every year CBC does a peice on those movements and describes what they get right and what they get wrong. That video is one of them.
Fifthly, those movements that the seal make after they ahve been clubbed? Ever heard of a chicken running around after you cut its head off? Well its the same princicpal, the strong swimming reflex in seals is still active even after death.
Lastly, and this part is slightly off topic. Factory farming isn't really that bad. My dad is a pig farmer. And is currently the Swine representative for OMAF for all of ontario. He knows what hes talking about when it comes to humane practices in farming or slaughtering. (He also worked on the University of Guelphs kill flour during University.) The proper killing of a seal is no worse or painful than the proper slaughter of a pig or cow. Factory farming produces a high meat to resources level, its cheap effective. And as long as people eat meat, most of it will come from factory farms.
People can quote facts and figures, and go on about what they believe constitutes humane killings or not until the cows come home.
Let's just reduce this to it's bare bones.
-Some people in Canada kill seals, skin them, and use the proceeds to support their families.
-The EU has banned people from buying these sealskins, as they believe that it is an unnecessary industry, that inflicts pain and death upon wild animals.
Depleting the fish is neither here nor there. If Canadian fishermen club seals to death, they're doing it unnecessarily to increase fish stocks by an infinitesimal amount. It really has little impact. Fish stocks the world over are suffering through unsustainable fishing, and it's not because of seals.
Everyone has their own moral code here. The Canadian seal hunters make a living off of it, and will be hard pressed to support themselves and their families without this source of income. Before you start moaning how barbaric it is, think of how hard it you would be if you, and everyone in your town suddenly became unemployed, but had no benefits system.
Humans exploit animals in various cruel and humane ways for meat, and industrial farming processes on a day to day basis worldwide. If you're prepared to eat meat, you must be prepared to accept that humans impose their will on how animals live and die. Which animal it is is irrelevant semantics. The real crux of the issue here, is whether you think on a global scale, or a local one.
On the global scale, the EU feels that it can ban the seal fur trade, as furs in general, are no longer considered appropriate. Killing an animal simply for the fur is seen as cruel and wasteful. There's a reason people don't wear lionskin, or mink fur coats. Taking another creatures life so that you can use it as a fashion garment is now seen as the mark of a morally corrupt person. Whilst it might be acceptable to kill another creature to prolong our own existance( so for food for example), killing for such a frivolous reason is disgusting. It's as bad as fox hunting. If seal meat was part of the industry, it was seen as an accepted delicacy outside of the local area, and you had, 'seal farms' going, there wouldn't be such an outcry, as it would be seen as a major industry that did its part to sustain humanity, and NOT using the skins for something would be wasteful
On the local scale, the seal hunters hun seals because its a source of income. They don't think on the morality of it, as far as they're concerned, they're just fulfilling the customers needs, so that they and their families can survive. The humaneness of the killing is irrelevant. Which do you value higher, the lives of your family, or the lives of animals? Killing off this industry kills off their means of survival.
The main problem here is simple if you read between the lines. The EU has banned its members from buying sealskins. That means that they were buying them beforehand. Those EU customers of the sealskin coat are the reason the industry exists. Without them, the seal hunters would not be doing it, as there would be no money in it. So for the EU to turn around and say that it is cruel is hypocritical at best. The only reason the market exists is because they were buying them in the first place.
So where to go from here?
Well, the killing of an animal unnecessarily just so you can wear its skin as an accessory is revolting morally speaking. If it's for people who live in the cold, who need those skins to help them survive on a day to day life, fair enough. But if it's for rich Europeans who want it merely because they 'like the feel' of it or whatever, it's wrong. It's as wrong as Otter skin handbags. Humaneness of killing is a recent moral concept, and one that has arisen mainly with increased public awareness of battery farming. Because I do not agree with the methods of battery farming, I only eat free range meats. At the end of the day though, that's a personal morality, as opposed to the slightly more global scale on the morality of selling sealskin.
The solution is that hunting seals for their skins should be outlawed. It's a barbaric and unnecessary practice. But the EU should not ignore the fact that IT is the reason this industry exists, and the reason why these Canadian people must now suffer hardship. Therefore they should shoulder their responsibility in the matter, and help to create new industries to replace the one that they are removing.
if you expect them to do that then you would also have to expect them to give up foods like Foie Gras. Pretty much I really don't like it cause they are simply being ignorant and extremely hypocritical. If you can make a living literally stuffing food down a ducks throat until it dies so you have a really tasty meal then turn around and say that us killing baby seals, (which isn't even allowed now) is just wrong.
Ratbarf wrote:Fallicy numero uno. In Canada, using a rifle or firearm to hunt seals is highly illegal. The governement actually regulates this stuff you know, as it is a major part of the Newfoundland fisheries economy. The way they are generally killed is smacked with a hakapik, then they have their throats cut once they stop trying to get away. (which they can't as they are stunned/out cold from the blow to the noggin) Once the seal is dead the carcass is hooked by the throat and brought to the boat for skinning.
Really? I guess it was just scandinavian seal hunting I was looking at.
Ketara wrote:Killing an animal simply for the fur is seen as cruel and wasteful. There's a reason people don't wear lionskin, or mink fur coats. Taking another creatures life so that you can use it as a fashion garment is now seen as the mark of a morally corrupt person. Whilst it might be acceptable to kill another creature to prolong our own existance( so for food for example), killing for such a frivolous reason is disgusting.
People say this, but it's not true.
Human beings can survive without eating meat, and they can certainly survive eating much less meat than they often do. For rich Europeans, meat is a luxury just like fur. People don't need to kill for food any more than they need to kill for warmth.
Plus, I notice there's not nearly as much uproar over leather, which is just as much the skin of an animal as fur.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Plus, I notice there's not nearly as much uproar over leather, which is just as much the skin of an animal as fur.
Because cows are ugly and we use "all" the cow. We Use the skin for leather, the meat for people food, the bones to make sweeties and the Brains to make Cow Food!
Ratbarf wrote:Fallicy numero uno. In Canada, using a rifle or firearm to hunt seals is highly illegal. The governement actually regulates this stuff you know, as it is a major part of the Newfoundland fisheries economy. The way they are generally killed is smacked with a hakapik, then they have their throats cut once they stop trying to get away. (which they can't as they are stunned/out cold from the blow to the noggin) Once the seal is dead the carcass is hooked by the throat and brought to the boat for skinning.
What I was referencing was talking about these practices in countries other than Canada.
Ketara wrote:Well, the killing of an animal unnecessarily just so you can wear its skin as an accessory is revolting morally speaking. If it's for people who live in the cold, who need those skins to help them survive on a day to day life, fair enough. But if it's for rich Europeans who want it merely because they 'like the feel' of it or whatever, it's wrong. It's as wrong as Otter skin handbags. Humaneness of killing is a recent moral concept, and one that has arisen mainly with increased public awareness of battery farming. Because I do not agree with the methods of battery farming, I only eat free range meats. At the end of the day though, that's a personal morality, as opposed to the slightly more global scale on the morality of selling sealskin.
Agreed.
However, my "you were wrong" comment was actually in response to "If seal clubbing is used specifically on baby seals while rifle use is also an option, then there must be a specific reason for it. I do not know what this reason is, but I guess that there must be one."
Before I was under the impression that rifles were not used, so I thought that rifles should be used. If rifles are used, but specifically not on baby seals, there must be some reason, and I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the entire thing.
if you expect them to do that then you would also have to expect them to give up foods like Foie Gras. Pretty much I really don't like it cause they are simply being ignorant and extremely hypocritical. If you can make a living literally stuffing food down a ducks throat until it dies so you have a really tasty meal then turn around and say that us killing baby seals, (which isn't even allowed now) is just wrong.
Once again, why is fur morally corrupt but not meat, for a person who can live without either?
And more importantly, if the seals are being eaten, do you still oppose their deaths, and if so why? You get more meat from a seal than you do a chicken.
What I was referencing was talking about these practices in countries other than Canada.
Canada has the biggest seal hunt in the world.
I eat meat, and I wear leather, I have eaten Seal Burgers, and my family has a mink fur coat in its closet. (though admittedly it was my greatgrandmothers) Are we evil? I don't think so, to each culture its own I say. I don't really care that in Korea or China they think dogs are tasty. Just don't try to eat mine and its all cool.
Ratbarf wrote:Are we evil? I don't think so, to each culture its own I say. I don't really care that in Korea or China they think dogs are tasty. Just don't try to eat mine and its all cool.
I am against eating dogs/cats. They are a species specifically bred to be pets, and they should stay as pets. One of my friends who grew up in china had 3 of his pet cats kidnapped and sold to be food. This was not an uncommon thing in his town.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Once again, why is fur morally corrupt but not meat, for a person who can live without either?
And more importantly, if the seals are being eaten, do you still oppose their deaths, and if so why? You get more meat from a seal than you do a chicken.
You yourself said it already, we have plenty of meat already. Meat from seals is a byproduct of killing them for fur.
ph34r wrote:You yourself said it already, we have plenty of meat already. Meat from seals is a byproduct of killing them for fur.
So you think the people eating seal are eating it in addition to all their other food, and if they stopped hunting seals they wouldn't eat anymore meat?
Of course not. So what if meat is a byproduct? What does that matter? If someone is eating a pound of seal they're not eating a pound of another meat. That reduces the demand for meat, which means less will be raised. Basic economics. Seal meat takes the place of other types of meat, it's not randomly added on. If more of one kind of meat is eaten less of another will be eaten.
Do you really think to kill an animal for meat and fur is worse than to kill an animal for meat and throw the skin away?
Oh wait, even that doesn't work because people make things from cow skin all the time.
Maybe someone could eat vegetables instead, but that doesn't make eating turkey any better than seal. At least with seal you get another product from its death.
Gwar! wrote:Not to mention the fact that a Pistol Causes a huge shockwave that could very well trigger an ice breakage (the same way it can cause an avalanche). A Club Cannot.
Rifles are used in seal hunting.
I am going to stop posting at this because I do not wish to contribute further to Gwar!'s 100 posts per day.
Oh wow. Seriously, grow up. "I'm not gonna post because Gwar! posts too much Waaaa Waaa!" Really? That's the best you can come up with?
I don't know, i think he may have a point. You've already proven you have little idea what your actually going on about when you thought we were talking about a hunting method whiich took one blow to the head.
Orkeosaurus wrote:That video was BS. Did you miss the bloody leaf? And the fact that it was a video by PETA?
Yeh the video, the video, the video. I only posted it to show gwar wht the hell seal clubbing was. Was the best I could find in the time I had.
Orkeosaurus wrote:A clean blow to the head will kill them the same a clean shot to the head.
Not an issue.
A failed clubbing will cause them pain same as a failed shot.
You seem to forget that a hakapik, the hunting tool used for this is used because it doesn't damage the pelts because thats more important to the hunters. It's not made in order to give a quick kill.
EDIT: tbh, I've had my time with this thread. It's obvious anything said will just meet with a load of counter points as some people are more about disagreeing with rather than considering the other side of the argument. End of the day this ban is going to pass, that's highly predictable now.
ph34r wrote:You yourself said it already, we have plenty of meat already. Meat from seals is a byproduct of killing them for fur.
So you think the people eating seal are eating it in addition to all their other food, and if they stopped hunting seals they wouldn't eat anymore meat?
No.
Of course not. So what if meat is a byproduct? What does that matter? If someone is eating a pound of seal they're not eating a pound of another meat. That reduces the demand for meat, which means less will be raised. Basic economics. Seal meat takes the place of other types of meat, it's not randomly added on. If more of one kind of meat is eaten less of another will be eaten.
A cow weighs much more than a seal. It is very efficient to raise and slaughter cattle if meat is the issue.
Do you really think to kill an animal for meat and fur is worse than to kill an animal for meat and throw the skin away?
No.
Oh wait, even that doesn't work because people make things from cow skin all the time.
I don't see what you are trying to say here. Of course people use cow leather.
Maybe someone could eat vegetables instead, but that doesn't make eating turkey any better than seal. At least with seal you get another product from its death.
Using "we get some meat from it" to justify hunting an animal primarily for its fur does not fly with me. If meat was a concern at all the same amount could be gained from much fewer cattle. You get a product from them, too.
Perhaps because cattle are killed humanely in an abetour and not beaten with a hakapik. Then theres the meat, most cattle seel for over £1000 to an abetour, thats £1000 worth of meat. Then theres the fact that cattle are the biggest ferteliser provider.
Oh and then there's a barely profitable seal hunting industry which provides fur which we don't even need and meat who know one eats. Pointless. It's not the fact that they are killed inhumanely which gets me, it's the fact that they are killed inhumanely for barely any reason at all.
So, your saying slaughtering animals for their fur/hides is OK, as long as they do it in a way that you don't have to see?
@ph34r: Seal Meat is a Biproduct of slaughtering Seals for furs. Or are you saying its ok to have Skins as a "Biproduct" but not ok for meat to be a Biproduct?
Gwar! wrote:@ph34r: Seal Meat is a Biproduct of slaughtering Seals for furs. Or are you saying its ok to have Skins as a "Biproduct" but not ok for meat to be a Biproduct?
When you kill a seal you gain a small amount of meat and the main goal of seal fur to be made into luxery items.
When you kill a cow you gain a large amount of meat and a biproduct of leather which is made into a wide variety of items.
The main point of killing a cow is to get meat. The leather is a bonus.
The main point of killing a seal is to get the fur. This I do not support. The meat is an insignificant amount compared to how much we can get from cattle.
Thats how it goes everytime, if they get it wrong the meat is adversely effected therefore it is in the abattoir's interest to get it right.
+thats an intstrument designed for killing cattle as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Unlike a ahakapic which is designed with no respect to the speed or pain of the death, but to not damage the fur.
Then as ph34r is saying, cattle are a highly efficient animal. They provide for us in more ways than you know. Seals aren't much good for anything.
Oh and then there's a barely profitable seal hunting industry which provides fur which we don't even need and meat who know one eats.
Again, go to Newfoundland and some parts of Quebec. They eat quite a bit of Seal Meat there.
As to the guy who wanted some Seal Jerky, sorry, I don't know of anyone who sells seal jerky around here. You might be able to order some from Newfoundland, or possibly Norway, but it would probably cost alot to ship it in small quantities.
Gwar! wrote:Not to mention the fact that a Pistol Causes a huge shockwave that could very well trigger an ice breakage (the same way it can cause an avalanche). A Club Cannot.
Oh my god, cows, cows, cows. There are animals besides cows, you know, and they get eaten a lot.
So, let me get this straight, ph34r.
In addition to opposing the slaughter of seals, you also oppose the death of: chickens, turkey, pigs, fish, or anything else smaller than a seal?
Get over the "but this is a byproduct of this" thing, if you get more meat from a seal than you do a turkey it's a better source of food per death regardless of the value of its pelt.
The idea: happens all the fething time.
The reasons: bollocks.
a club? fething come on, there are much better ways to kill something and make it painless.
they are eating all the fish?
bs.
if they were then by this day and age the fish wouldnt exist, nature has its own balance, its us that feths that up.
this has only been brought to attention due to being all cute and fuzzy.
animals get killed like this alot, but its allways in the backround and no one is interested.
its just another one of those things in life.
and lets face it, who here actually eats seal for feth sake?
or infact uses a seal product?
In Greenland every part of the seal is used. The meat and blubber is eaten, the bones are made into artwork or toys, the fur is cured and the claws are used for necklaces and ornamentation.
Ratbarf is correct. All animals have reflexes which kick in after death. I've seen it myself in geese, ducks, chicken, sheep, fish and whales, and mostly the reflexes are something fundamental to the animal, like running, flapping of wings, swimming etc.
I can't personally verify that the animals in the video are dead, but in all likelihood they are.
Edit: I bet seal meat is delicious. Too bad most of us won't have a chance to taste it. (Those of us that would want to)
Orkeosaurus wrote:Oh my god, cows, cows, cows. There are animals besides cows, you know, and they get eaten a lot.
So, let me get this straight, ph34r.
In addition to opposing the slaughter of seals, you also oppose the death of: chickens, turkey, pigs, fish, or anything else smaller than a seal?
Get over the "but this is a byproduct of this" thing, if you get more meat from a seal than you do a turkey it's a better source of food per death regardless of the value of its pelt.
That is just a comparison of cows vs seals. Chickens, turkey, pigs, fish, etc. are farmed, you know, for food. Seals are hunted, for their fur.
EDIT: and so what, you get more meat from a seal. That is obvious. Guess what? Chickens are mass farmed efficiently. The goal of farming chickens is to get meat, and it accomplishes this well. The goal of hunting seals is to get fur, the meat is a very insignificant byproduct. Don't trick yourself into thinking that seals somehow provide a significant amount of meat and that they are justified by that. Oh, and baby seals? almost no meat. Do you seriously think that hunting baby seals has a justification other than the fur?
ph34r wrote:That is just a comparison of cows vs seals. Chickens, turkey, pigs, fish, etc. are farmed, you know, for food. Seals are hunted, for their fur.
EDIT: and so what, you get more meat from a seal. That is obvious. Guess what? Chickens are mass farmed efficiently. The goal of farming chickens is to get meat, and it accomplishes this well. The goal of hunting seals is to get fur, the meat is a very insignificant byproduct. Don't trick yourself into thinking that seals somehow provide a significant amount of meat and that they are justified by that.
So it's morally justified because it costs less money? Fail. The cost of the seal's meat is offset by the money received from selling the pelt. That makes hunting seals for meat profitable, more so than raising them in farms.
You are saying it's okay to kill more animals if it's more profitable to do so, and you then condemn people who kill animals for profit.
You are hypocrite. Sorry to say it, but it's true. You pretend like killing seals is immoral because animals should only be killed for meat. When it's pointed out that killing a seal gives you more meat than killing many other animals, you suddenly think it's immoral to kill animals that are less profitable to kill. Too bad, profit is the reason seals are killed in the first place. You say it's immoral to turn a profit by selling part of a dead animal that would otherwise go to waste, and claim it's more ethical to raise an animal in a cage for it's entire life to make a profit instead.
This is nothing but purposefully ignorant, "MUR IS FURDER!" bs. Killing a seal is more profitable than raising a chicken, because the fur is sold. That is why the people who kill seals are not raising chickens. A seal living in the wild is in better conditions than most livestock is, and the method used to kill them isn't particularly brutal when you compare it to, say, castration without any pain killers.
There is no reason to oppose the deaths of seals and not any of the other animals that are killed and eaten. No reason at all. You flip flop between "they should be killed for meat" and "they should be killed for profit", when they are killed for both and it is superior to most animals in both regards.
Let me break this down, nice and easy:
You have a chicken. You raise it in confinement and cannibalism, all of it's life. You kill it. You gain a small amount of meat, from the death of the chicken. Because you raised it in a cage, raising it has cost you less money than you got from selling the meat. You turn a profit.
You have a seal. It spends it's life in the wild, doing seal things. You kill it. You gain a large amount of meat, from the death of the seal. Because you can also sell it's fur, you make more profit than you could from the meat alone. You turn a profit.
The seal is better off before it's death. The seal feeds more people with it's death. The seal gives more profit to the hunter.
End of story.
Yes, more meat worldwide is gained from chickens than seals. Too bad there's also more chickens killed than seals. The difference in deaths is greater than the difference in meat is. Killing animals is bad, or else you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That makes your defense of chicken farming a failure. Killing a seal is better than killing a chicken.
Oh, and baby seals? almost no meat. Do you seriously think that hunting baby seals has a justification other than the fur?
It's illegal to hunt baby seals in Canada. Where most seals are hunted, and where this thread is concerned specifically. Apparently you haven't been following the thread.
Regardless, a seal that's unable to fend for itself will starve and die, painfully, if it doesn't have any parents. Killing it then would be a necessity.
(Still better than it living it's life in a cage, in my opinion.)
I only support killing animals for food, because without meat humans would be much worse off.
Killing seals is killing them for fur, not killing them for meat. I do not support killing animals for anything other than meat. Seals are not an efficient way to gain meat. Killing animals for meat is a necessary evil, there is no reason to do it in a less efficient way.
There, I have stated what I have been saying as simply as possible so that you might be able to understand. I am not a hypocrite, I am not flip flopping.
YOU are putting words in my mouth and twisting everything I say. Stop assuming, stop misinterpreting, stop overreacting.
Well, ph34r, looks like you didn't even read my post. Fine. At first I was hesitant to call you a hypocrite, now I have no doubts.
Have fun covering your ears and watching videos by PETA while other people think about things.
ph34r wrote:I only support killing animals for food, because without meat humans would be much worse off. Killing seals is killing them for fur, not killing them for meat. I do not support killing animals for anything other than meat. Seals are not an efficient way to gain meat.
I've already proved that they are.
One seal gets more meat than a chicken. Hunting a seal is more profitable than raising a number of chickens that gives off the same amount of meat.
The industry is inherently limited by the number of seals available, it doesn't have the potential to take the place of chicken. That doesn't matter, because it still does feed people, and if people eat more seal they eat less of other types of meat.
Killing animals for meat is a necessary evil, there is no reason to do it in a less efficient way.
Wrong. It is possible to survive without meat. Not that this is relevant anyway. You have admitted yourself that killing a seal produces more meat than killing many other animals. I have proved that it is also more proffitable.
Your arguments about efficiency are null. They are not valid. They are incorrect. You are wrong.
There, I have stated what I have been saying as simply as possible so that you might be able to understand. I am not a hypocrite, I am not flip flopping. YOU are putting words in my mouth and twisting everything I say. Stop assuming, stop misinterpreting, stop overreacting.
I have made no assumptions, I am misunderstanding nothing, I am not overreacting anymore than you. You are a hypocrite, you do flip-flop to whatever dogma validates your prejudices.
I know exactly what your argument is, and it is illogical and childish. You argument is that it is wrong to kill something for fur, and you close your eyes to the fact that killing a seal for fur also produces more food than "killing an animal for meat" does. Then you go into some absurd theory on how killing something is better if it's more profitable. Which is the whole point of seal hunting.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, ph34r, looks like you didn't even read my post. Fine. At first I was hesitant to call you a hypocrite, now I have no doubts.
Your personal attacks only undermine your argument.
Have fun covering your ears and watching videos by PETA while other people think about things.
Your personal attacks only undermine your argument.
ph34r wrote:I only support killing animals for food, because without meat humans would be much worse off.
Killing seals is killing them for fur, not killing them for meat. I do not support killing animals for anything other than meat. Seals are not an efficient way to gain meat.
I've already proved that they are.
One seal gets more meat than a chicken. Hunting a seal is more profitable than raising a number of chickens that gives off the same amount of meat.
The industry is inherently limited by the number of seals available, it doesn't have the potential to take the place of chicken. That doesn't matter, because it still does feed people, and if people eat more seal they eat less of other types of meat.
You have said that we have enough meat already.
If we have enough meat already, then we do not need to hunt a wild species that is relatively low in number than a species that we grow more of ourselves. You are wrong.
Killing animals for meat is a necessary evil, there is no reason to do it in a less efficient way.
Wrong. It is possible to survive without meat. Not that this is relevant anyway. You have admitted yourself that killing a seal produces more meat than killing many other animals. I have proved that it is also more proffitable.
Your arguments about efficiency are null. They are not valid. They are incorrect. You are wrong.
You are just saying the same thing over and over again.
Did I say that it is impossible to survive without meat? No, I did not, but I'm sure you are having fun arguing with what you think I am saying instead of what I actually am saying.
There, I have stated what I have been saying as simply as possible so that you might be able to understand. I am not a hypocrite, I am not flip flopping.
YOU are putting words in my mouth and twisting everything I say. Stop assuming, stop misinterpreting, stop overreacting.
I have made no assumptions, I am misunderstanding nothing, I am not overreacting anymore than you. You are a hypocrite, you do flip-flop to whatever dogma validates your prejudices.
I am not the one writing huge rants in response to short, concise posts. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You have made assumptions about me, this much is clear, and you obviously do not understand what I am saying to you.
I know exactly what your argument is, and it is illogical and childish. You argument is that it is wrong to kill something for fur, and you close your eyes to the fact that killing a seal for fur also produces more food than "killing an animal for meat" does. Then you go into some absurd theory on how killing something is better if it's more profitable. Which is the whole point of seal hunting.
We have giant meat producing industries. Getting fur from an animal does not justify the otherwise unworthwhile amount of meat that is gained. Would people hunt seals for meat if the fur was worthless? No, they would not.
Killing a cow is not better because it is more profitable. It is more efficient. I never said that it was more profitable. This is a great example of you putting words in my mouth. You should take some time to reflect and actually read my posts, you will realize that you are jumping on me for things that I did not say, and how this is a great example of you misinterpreting me. It is more efficient to farm animals that we have entire industries set up for, more efficient to gain meat, not to gain money. Gain meat, which I think should be the reason for killing an animal, not whatever luxury products are gained from it.
Calling me childish does nothing to further your argument.
You are wrong.
ph34r wrote:Seals are not an efficient way to gain meat. Killing animals for meat is a necessary evil, there is no reason to do it in a less efficient way.
Actually, if we only wanted to eat the meat that is most efficient, we would only be eating sheep or goats. They provide loads of meat and can subsist on much less than a cow. The reason why we don't limit ourselves to only kill what gives us the most meat per unit of effort is because we want variety. Actually, our bodies need variety.
Although there are free-range farms that treat their animals well, there are also massive "farms" which raise chicken in absolutely disgusting ways. The animals are drugged and genetically altered to grow up faster, overfed until they can't even waddle and killed without ever breathing fresh air. If that is what you consider "efficient", I think this argument is over.
What I tried to shed some light on, but what was also ignored, is that in many places, the entire seal is used. Nothing goes to waste. The seals are not just killed for fur. They are killed for their tasty meat, for their fur, for their bones, claws, blubber...
Stating, indirectly, that you know the intentions of every hunter out there seems a bit odd. "Seals are killed for their fur." Who told you that? The hunters? Or is it just your personal opinion? Because if it is, why are you stating it as if it were fact? There's a store in Reykjavik called Kulusuk, where they only sell goods made by the inhabitants of Kulusuk, a village in Greenland. That place sells all sorts of goods made from seals and other animals. They can't sell meat, because the import laws on foodstuffs in Iceland are so strict, but they've got toys, furs, artwork and musical instruments.... it is quite remarkable. What I'm trying to point out here, is that you're wrong. Seals are not just killed for the fur. They're killed because pretty much anything in them can be used for something. The fact that the fur is also beautiful just makes it sell better.
And a general shout out, please douse the flames a bit? No reason to get personal here.
ph34r wrote:Your personal attacks only undermine your argument.
Nope. They may not add to my argument, but it's equally fallacious to say they detract from it
You have said that we have enough meat already.
If we have enough meat already, then we do not need to hunt a wild species that is relatively low in number than a species that we grow more of ourselves.
If there is a demand for something, and low supply, the price increases. Suppliers respond by increasing the amount of the good they supply. If the demand decreases, suppliers respond by decreasing their excessive supply, as it is no longer as profitable.
What does this mean for seal hunting? It means that if people stop eating seals, they will want another source of meat instead. Such as chicken. Thus, if less people eat seal, more will eat other kinds of meat. I don't know how to make this any simpler than that.
This isn't Age of Empires. Food isn't stockpiled in your Town Square. If you destroy one source of meat, people will get it from another source. Chicken is a less efficient source of meat than seal is. You get more money from hunting a seal, you get more meat from hunting a seal.
You are just saying the same thing over and over again.
Did I say that it is impossible to survive without meat? No, I did not,
What did "necessary" mean than?
We have giant meat producing industries. Getting fur from an animal does not justify the otherwise unworthwhile amount of meat that is gained. Would people hunt seals for meat if the fur was worthless? No, they would not.
Would people raise chickens if it was too expensive to do so and make a profit?
No. Same thing. Seal hunters make profit by selling other parts of the seal. Chicken farmers make profit by packing them together like sardines.
Killing a cow is not better because it is more profitable. It is more efficient. I never said that it was more profitable. This is a great example of you putting words in my mouth.
Okay, please, please, PLEASE tell me what you are talking about than.
What is this imaginary "efficiency" you are talking about? Can you tell me? I have no clue.
What makes chicken farming less efficient than seal hunting? You get more for meat for your________. Fill in the blank, because I sure as hell don't know what you're trying to say.
You get more for meat for your Death of an Animal?
No, you admitted that a seal has a lot more meat on it than a chicken, or many other types of animal.
You get more for meat for your Dollar?
I thought this was what you were talking about before, but apparently it's not about profit.
What do you get more meat for? It doesn't matter if the chicken farming industry gives you more meat overall, that's not the definition of efficiency.
So please, fill in the blank here. What is it about chicken farming that makes it better then seal hunting? What? What is it that you get more meat from for less? I'm stumped. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
We seem to be repeating ourselves here. Except chickens have replaced cows. For the record, raising bunnies provides more meat for the amount of food fed to them than cows, but for some reason we don't farm the cute little things...
Did I say that it is impossible to survive without meat?
Um yes?
Killing animals for meat is a necessary evil
No. We could survive without it, but we would not be as healthy. That's why I would say it is necessary, for humanity's health.
Orkeosaurus wrote:[very basic economics]
Everyone knows that. If seals were not hunted, then there would be an increase in other animals eaten.
This isn't Age of Empires. Food isn't stockpiled in your Town Square. If you destroy one source of meat, people will get it from another source. Chicken is a less efficient source of meat than seal is. You get more money from hunting a seal, you get more meat from hunting a seal.
I know. I don't often eat chicken. If I do buy chicken it is free range chicken because I dislike the horrid conditions that the chickens are subjected to.
You are just saying the same thing over and over again.
Did I say that it is impossible to survive without meat? No, I did not,
What did "necessary" mean than?
We could survive without it, but it wouldn't be healthy. I think it is necessary for this reason. Of course we could survive without it. Should we? If we want to be healthy, no.
Would people raise chickens if it was too expensive to do so and make a profit?
No. Same thing. Seal hunters make profit by selling other parts of the seal. Chicken farmers make profit by packing them together like sardines.
No, they would not. I don't think that an animal should be hunted for its fur, if that is the reason that you make a profit. You can make a profit with cattle just using the meat (not that other parts aren't used in some way, they are).
As to the packing chickens together like sardines, I try not to eat chicken for this reason.
Killing a cow is not better because it is more profitable. It is more efficient. I never said that it was more profitable. This is a great example of you putting words in my mouth.
Okay, please, please, PLEASE tell me what you are talking about than.
"Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort"
Hunting seals requires more time and effort. It is still done without being efficient for meat production due to the non-meat gains. I think that the only reason to justify killing an animal is to gain the meat which is healthy and we need to live the best we can. We do not need animal fur.
As Crazy_Carnifex seems to not be on either side of the issue, I think we should both take his advice. I myself doubt that I will get you to understand my point of view. At this rate I doubt that you will convince me to change that.
My neighbours raise rabbits for pets. (by ngihbours they live two farms down, about a mile down the road) Though if you bought a bunch you could probably eat them without much hassle. My Grandma makes a mean rabbit soup come to think of it.
ph34r wrote:"Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort"
Hunting seals requires more time and effort.
People spend their time and effort to make money. Seal hunting makes more money than chicken farming, at least for the people who have seals to hunt. Someone who hunts seals - living in the places where they're hunted - will have to spend less time and effort doing so to make the same amount of money someone who farms chickens would. They make more meat per dollar. They also produce more meat per animal they kill. There's no downside, besides a limit on the size of the industry.
Now, if you're thinking "but an hour of seal hunting produces less meat than an hour of chicken farming", it's an illogical road to go down, (whether or not it's true, I don't know). Barely any jobs produce food at all. It's not wrong to spend time not producing food. People do other things, including the manufacture of luxury goods; tiny plastic space soldiers, for instance. It may be wrong to kill animals without producing food (according to many), but that's irrelevant because seals produce more food per death.
It is still done without being efficient for meat production due to the non-meat gains. I think that the only reason to justify killing an animal is to gain the meat which is healthy and we need to live the best we can. We do not need animal fur.
But you get more meat from a seal than you do from a chicken or turkey. Probably around the same as a pig.
Your argument is circular. You're saying it's bad to hunt for fur, because fur is a bad thing to have, because you get from hunting for fur, because it's bad to hunt for fur. It's not bad to hunt for fur, if nothing bad comes from it. Seal hunting results in more food per death than the raising of many other animals. The fur makes it profitable. Selling fur is no different from anything else someone might do to offset the cost of getting food; no different from building farms so that they can have more "efficiency", which means less cost per animal.
Fur is not bad. Wearing fur is not inherently evil. If you think it's bad to kill an animal for fur but not food, why do you care if an animal is killed that produces more food than most others? Where does the fur enter into it? It makes it profitable, you say. Who cares? How is it wrong to turn a profit when in doing so you do nothing wrong?
I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal. On the other hand, if we zoom that far in, we can skew all arguments to support our case.
ph34r, I think by now we all know what you mean. You think that the primary reason for killing an animal should be to eat it, regardless of any by-products it may or may not produce, but frankly, I don't get the feeling that people here agree with that view.
In my opinion, there are so many reasons for killing animals, and none of them are any better or worse than the rest. Really, furs are just another resource. In the same way as we no longer need to chop down forests, we don't need to eat meat. We could all eat a heap of lentils a day and be perfectly healthy. The reason why we don't is because we don't want to. Meat is tasty! Meat is delicious! Meat makes us feel strong and good... and furs are soft, warm, beautiful and excellent to work with.
Some of the most beautiful pieces of clothing I've seen have been made with fur ornamentation. Fake fur? Please, that gak is disgusting. The pollution created by that industry probably indirectly kills of as many animals as the fur industry does and in a much less controlled way at that.
Some of the scientific papers i perused on North Atlantic marine mammals actually theorized that more animals die because of the heavy pollution that because of hunting. So if you want to shake a stick at something, try having a go at industrial scale pollution. =P
Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "EU moves to increase poverty and despair in the Eastern Canada." or perhaps "EU moves to finish the job colonists failed to do right by destroying the native industry in the North Atlantic region."
efarrer wrote:Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "EU moves to increase poverty and despair in the Eastern Canada." or perhaps "EU moves to finish the job colonists failed to do right by destroying the native industry in the North Atlantic region."
Hmm, sounds you are a victim of baby seals and now you're in the business just to take revenge, only to get laid off because we're making a stand against it. How close am I to a TV?
gerbrith wrote:I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal.
The problem with that is that people aren't in a meat-producing caste. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to spend part of their time in the production of a luxury good and part of their time in the production food, just as it's acceptable to spend all of your time in the manufacture of a luxury good. "Efficiency" only makes sense in the context that a person has an imperative to produce as much food as they can in an hour. Producing as much food as they can in one animal's death makes some sense, producing as much food in as little time as possible doesn't.
Let's say Jim and Joe are two guys. Jim is a seal hunter, Joe is a high-end fashion designer, but he farms pigs on the side. I don't know why.
So, at the end of the day, both Jim and Joe have spent 9 hours working. Jim has spent 9 hours hunting seals, Joe has spent 3 hours tending to his pigs, and 6 hours designing clothes that only an idiot would actually try to wear.
Now, Jim has killed 10 seals, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. Joe has killed 10 pigs, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. The seals were killed quickly and efficiently, the pigs were raised decently, neither one has more animal cruelty than the other. The pig's feed came from a good farm and their waste was disposed of well. The seals were numerous enough to be hunted without endangering their population. Neither act is an environmental concern.
Now, this 200 pounds of meat sells for $500, for both Jim and Joe. Then Jim sells his seal pelts for $1,000. Joe sells his expensive dress for $1,000.
What has Jim done in this situation that is wrong? What harm has he caused that Joe didn't?
BrookM wrote:This really, really reminds me of the big discussion of why raping a woman who is a dangerous criminal is still a bad thing..
Jesus H. Christ... there was actualy someone who argues that this wasn't a bad thing?
Also, how does this thread bear any resemblance to that? All this thread is about is "Hypocrites vs. People who recognise Killing a Cow and Killing a Seal are the exact same thing and to ban one product because the suits in power have no idea how it actually works is idiotic to the extreme. Also one animal is cute and the other isn't."
efarrer wrote:Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "EU moves to increase poverty and despair in the Eastern Canada." or perhaps "EU moves to finish the job colonists failed to do right by destroying the native industry in the North Atlantic region."
efarrer wrote:Could a mod please change the title of this thread to "EU moves to increase poverty and despair in the Eastern Canada." or perhaps "EU moves to finish the job colonists failed to do right by destroying the native industry in the North Atlantic region."
gerbrith wrote:I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal.
The problem with that is that people aren't in a meat-producing caste. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to spend part of their time in the production of a luxury good and part of their time in the production food, just as it's acceptable to spend all of your time in the manufacture of a luxury good. "Efficiency" only makes sense in the context that a person has an imperative to produce as much food as they can in an hour. Producing as much food as they can in one animal's death makes some sense, producing as much food in as little time as possible doesn't.
Let's say Jim and Joe are two guys. Jim is a seal hunter, Joe is a high-end fashion designer, but he farms pigs on the side. I don't know why.
So, at the end of the day, both Jim and Joe have spent 9 hours working. Jim has spent 9 hours hunting seals, Joe has spent 3 hours tending to his pigs, and 6 hours designing clothes that only an idiot would actually try to wear.
Now, Jim has killed 10 seals, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. Joe has killed 10 pigs, and got 200 pounds of meat from them. The seals were killed quickly and efficiently, the pigs were raised decently, neither one has more animal cruelty than the other. The pig's feed came from a good farm and their waste was disposed of well. The seals were numerous enough to be hunted without endangering their population. Neither act is an environmental concern.
Now, this 200 pounds of meat sells for $500, for both Jim and Joe. Then Jim sells his seal pelts for $1,000. Joe sells his expensive dress for $1,000.
What has Jim done in this situation that is wrong? What harm has he caused that Joe didn't?
Nothing, however you made a bunch of assumptions that make the situation even for both guys. Which assumptions could be incorrect.
True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.
(This example was mostly in response to ph34r's claim that it was wrong to spend more time producing less food. I disagree with this, as most people produce no food whatsoever.)
gerbrith wrote:I would mention that both definitions of efficiency are correct. Efficiency means getting the most output for the least input. In a business sense, that would mean getting the most profit for your work or investment. It also applies to other subjects though. In the sense of inputs per output of meat, the chicken industry does beat the seal industry, in that it takes less effort/work/money to slaughter ten caged chicken than it takes to hunt a wild seal.
The problem with that is that people aren't in a meat-producing caste. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to spend part of their time in the production of a luxury good and part of their time in the production food, just as it's acceptable to spend all of your time in the manufacture of a luxury good. "Efficiency" only makes sense in the context that a person has an imperative to produce as much food as they can in an hour. Producing as much food as they can in one animal's death makes some sense, producing as much food in as little time as possible doesn't.
And I only pointed out that both definitions of efficient were correct. I actually agree with you.
In my eyes, Jim and Joe are exactly equal.
BrookM wrote:This really, really reminds me of the big discussion of why raping a woman who is a dangerous criminal is still a bad thing..
Jesus H. Christ... there was actualy someone who argues that this wasn't a bad thing?
Also, how does this thread bear any resemblance to that? All this thread is about is "Hypocrites vs. People who recognise Killing a Cow and Killing a Seal are the exact same thing and to ban one product because the suits in power have no idea how it actually works is idiotic to the extreme. Also one animal is cute and the other isn't."
True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.
The part where you got only 200 pounds of meat on 10 pigs... If memory serves, the current price for one pig to slaughter is ~145$, which is offset by the feeding and housing costs. (Which goes up in effeciency the more pigs you have.) So total net gain for the farmer should be around 100-40 $ if the market is healthy. (not sure on the numbers right now will check with my dad in the morning.) Currently the sealer makes ` 15$ a seal fur. (down from 108 in 2003) and lets say 20 bucks for meat. The expenses of killing that seal are transportationg and storage. (again costing less themore you kill) Lets assume an average of 10 bucks a carcass. If you both slaughter 10 animals at peak effeciency, the pig farmer would probably make more. (But thats only due to the current market value of a seal fur due to bans and other protests against the hunt.) And the hog farmer would produce more money per animal. Likely 50$ more. But, go back to when the seal fur cost 108 $ each if you slaughtered 10 seals you would get both the meat from the seal and the fur and then both animals sell for roughly the same price, and seals have a lower operating cost. Leaving the sealer with a higher profit bracket than the hog farmer.
True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.
The part where you got only 200 pounds of meat on 10 pigs...
Ah, good point, I just made up the numbers there.
However the actual amount of meat you get doesn't matter so much as the fact that you can get a similar amount of meat from a seal. The animal being a hog doesn't really matter either, it could just as easily be switched out with a turkey, or a chicken, or anything else that doesn't produce more meat than a seal.
Mostly what I'm trying to say is that if you wouldn't condemn someone for spending a third of their time producing meat and two-thirds of their time producing luxury goods, there's no reason to condemn someone for spending all of their time producing 1/3 food and 2/3 luxury goods. The net result is the same. Same number of animals killed, same number of people fed, the person in the industry is able to stay in business and support himself.
It's supposed to be more of an ethical analysis than a simulation.
True. Tell me which assumptions are illogical, then.
The part where you got only 200 pounds of meat on 10 pigs...
Ah, good point, I just made up the numbers there.
However the actual amount of meat you get doesn't matter so much as the fact that you can get a similar amount of meat from a seal. The animal being a hog doesn't really matter either, it could just as easily be switched out with a turkey, or a chicken, or anything else that doesn't produce more meat than a seal.
Mostly what I'm trying to say is that if you wouldn't condemn someone for spending a third of their time producing meat and two-thirds of their time producing luxury goods, there's no reason to condemn someone for spending all of their time producing 1/3 food and 2/3 luxury goods. The net result is the same. Same number of animals killed, same number of people fed, the person in the industry is able to stay in business and support himself.
It's supposed to be more of an ethical analysis than a simulation.
That's why I said it was fine as it stood.
The whole argument is about the perception of inhumane killing. Your theoretical analysis says that if the killing of the seals is not inhumane, there is nothing wrong.
The key thing is, the EU has judged that the manner of killing the seals is inhumane. I don't know how this was decided, I assume it was based on the lack of stunning before killing.
Orkeosaurus wrote:But then you go into, once again, the hypocrisy concerning the conditions that chickens and pigs are frequently raised in, etc, etc.
Now we're back at the beginning of the thread again.
Not precisely. The EU has a lot of regulations governing the conditions in which farm animals can be raised, transported and slaughtered, which are intended to reduce their suffering and make the whole thing humane. This is consistent with growing popular opinion in the EU that factory farming methods are ethically wrong and also unhealthy (see mad cow disease, etc.)
It's pointless to say that seal clubbing is all right because the EU has battery chicken farms. The EU is trying to get rid of battery chicken farms, and has a right to make the same point about imported produce.
There is an argument about what does actually constitute inhumane treatment.
Perhaps it would be easier to accept the decision made by the EU suits if all of them went to seal-hunting areas, spoke to the people doing the hunting and saw for themselves whether it is humane or not.
As long as they don't, it is very difficult to believe that they know what they're doing. If they are allowed to make decisions which can devastate entire regions that aren't under their jurisdiction without even giving that region a chance to defend itself, that is a hostile act. In a business sense it is in fact incredibly hostile to ban imports. Also, placing restrictions such as tolls, embargoes, tariffs, bans, price- floors and -ceilings is always detrimental to both the sellers and the buyers. (I am studying business and this is part of our curriculum) By imposing these artificial barriers, both sides loose.
I am not saying that this will have any significant effect on the EU economy, but it brings up the proverb: "Many small streams will make a river" also in my opinion it is yet another thing to resent about the whole organization.
Over the course of this thread, we've established that hunting the seals is not a key part of maintaining the ecosystem, via the cod argument.
Then, we've established, that as far as we can know, the seals are being killed in a way as humane as possible.
It has been heavily debated whether it is alright to kill animals for any reason other than the meat, and the majority of posters seem to agree that it is in fact fine to kill animals to obtain other products than meat.
This raises the question of whether the policy makers, the "suits", in question, have given the matter as much debate as we have here, whether they have explored the situation in detail or whether they actually have any clue about what they're doing.
A likely answer is that they have not given this more than a moment's thought. They vote to ban seal imports because it will make them popular with all the misinformed people out there who have strong opinions about things they know nothing about.
I get the feeling that the whole thing is about politics. I find that incredibly sad.
BrookM wrote:Ha, good one! Let's go on an excursion to a glacier and watch a guy plant his hook into a seal. Yeah that's really going to win over hearts and minds.
The main problem is that the big Agri companies have Bought Politicians, much the same as the Music and Movie Industries do
BrookM wrote:Ha, good one! Let's go on an excursion to a glacier and watch a guy plant his hook into a seal. Yeah that's really going to win over hearts and minds.
Actually, it probably would. Seeing as they would have a chance to see exactly how things work and whether the hunt is humane, rather than just being fed news that may or may not be biased. Then being able to talk to the hunters, see if they really are the demonic animal torturers they're made out to be. Then perhaps seeing the villages or cities these people live in, and the effect the hunt has on the region. And Bamm! It stops being a remote issue that they can win votes over and is turned into an issue of whether to sacrifice people's livelihood or not.
Only by knowing all the facts in a situation can a good judgment be passed.
Kilkrazy wrote:Not precisely. The EU has a lot of regulations governing the conditions in which farm animals can be raised, transported and slaughtered, which are intended to reduce their suffering and make the whole thing humane. This is consistent with growing popular opinion in the EU that factory farming methods are ethically wrong and also unhealthy (see mad cow disease, etc.)
It's pointless to say that seal clubbing is all right because the EU has battery chicken farms. The EU is trying to get rid of battery chicken farms, and has a right to make the same point about imported produce.
Even conventional farming practices are worse than hunting, much of the time. Food choices somewhat unsuited to the animal, castration without anesthetic, beak trimming, etc. Nothing horrific, but there's nothing horrific in seal hunting either. Usually it's immediate unconsciousness from a blow to the head. At worst there's a three second interval of pain and dizziness before the second one connects.
Battery farming is much worse than seal hunting. The fact that battery farming is allowed to continue while seal hunting is not is hypocritical. I don't know if this is the fault of EU, the member states, stupid protesters or what, but it is hypocrisy on someone's account.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Even conventional farming practices are worse than hunting, much of the time. Food choices somewhat unsuited to the animal, castration without anesthetic, beak trimming, etc. Nothing horrific, but there's nothing horrific in seal hunting either. Usually it's immediate unconsciousness from a blow to the head. At worst there's a three second interval of pain and dizziness before the second one connects.
Battery farming is much worse than seal hunting. The fact that battery farming is allowed to continue while seal hunting is not is hypocritical. I don't know if this is the fault of EU, the member states, stupid protesters or what, but it is hypocrisy on someone's account.
It isn't hypocritical at all. Battery farming has a discreet purpose; feeding the glut of humans on this planet. While seal hunting is generally a matter of population control for the sake of population control.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Even conventional farming practices are worse than hunting, much of the time. Food choices somewhat unsuited to the animal, castration without anesthetic, beak trimming, etc. Nothing horrific, but there's nothing horrific in seal hunting either. Usually it's immediate unconsciousness from a blow to the head. At worst there's a three second interval of pain and dizziness before the second one connects.
Battery farming is much worse than seal hunting. The fact that battery farming is allowed to continue while seal hunting is not is hypocritical. I don't know if this is the fault of EU, the member states, stupid protesters or what, but it is hypocrisy on someone's account.
It isn't hypocritical at all. Battery farming has a discreet purpose; feeding the glut of humans on this planet. While seal hunting is generally a matter of population control for the sake of population control.
LMAYONAISE! You clearly have not read any part of this thread. Seal Hunting is NOT for population control at all! It's so they can sell the meat and furs.
Gwar! wrote:LMAYONAISE! You clearly have not read any part of this thread. Seal Hunting is NOT for population control at all! It's so they can sell the meat and furs.
Oh no, I've read the thread. Seal hunting amongst indigenous people has a great deal to do with meat and fur. However, seal hunting of the kind which actually degrades the population via kill quotas, the kind which this thread has been discussing, has nothing at all to do with sales or profit.
dogma wrote:However, seal hunting of the kind which actually degrades the population via kill quotas, the kind which this thread has been discussing, has nothing at all to do with sales or profit.
Ratbarf wrote:The European Union has banned all seal products from being imported into the EU on the basis that hunting seals is of itself, inhumane.
I think it does have something to do with sales and profit.
Sadly, the existence of sanctions does not indicate that profit is the driving force behind the hunt. Japan still hunts whales even though Greenpeace actions long ago made it unprofitable. Try again.
dogma wrote:Sadly, the existence of sanctions does not indicate that profit is the driving force behind the hunt. Japan still hunts whales even though Greenpeace actions long ago made it unprofitable. Try again.
You know, your User name is a perfect fit. Whale hunting is VERY profitable, because of Greenpeace making the supply so hard to deliver.
dogma wrote:Sadly, the existence of sanctions does not indicate that profit is the driving force behind the hunt.
Okay then, what is?
(Let me guess: hunting seals is their religion.)
Japan still hunts whales even though Greenpeace actions long ago made it unprofitable.
Nice oversimplification you got there.
Japan is no longer allowed to hunt whales commercially. Their hunts are (officially) for scientific research, with the hopes of getting their foot in the door so they can resume whaling commercially.
Aren't you cute. No, it isn't their religion. Though I've heard of several tribes that treat hunting as a religious experience, so the conception is not invalid, just not necessarily appropriate to this conversation. There are many factors that go into the seal hunt. Direct subsistence is the most obvious one, as the majority of seal meat is consumed by the hunters themselves. The rest of the carcass is sold to whatever broker the state has contracted to act as the quota agent. That contractor agrees in advance to purchase whatever can be collected, primarily in terms of pelts, up to a set amount. This quota is generally set by state funded conservation agencies, and has very little to do with how much the pelts will fetch on the open market. Instead, the primary motivational factor is population control.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Nice oversimplification you got there.
Japan is no longer allowed to hunt whales commercially. Their hunts are (officially) for scientific research, with the hopes of getting their foot in the door so they can resume whaling commercially.
Try again.
I don't need to, you didn't refute anything I said. Japan hunts whales. They do so despite the fact that there is little profit in the endeavor. So little that they have had to progressively cut back on the size of their whaling fleet despite the presence of a great deal of demand in the Japanese market. They want to whale commercially, but will not be permitted to do so at their current quota level. So they'll cut quota, cut the fleet, and see a reduction in profit as a result of a general price hike.
Gwar! wrote:]Just because the fleet decreases it doesn't mean it is not profitable. it just means the eco-warriorsTerrorists are having an effect.
The effect of reducing the overall profitability of whaling.
The key thing is, the EU has judged that the manner of killing the seals is inhumane.
Actually, they stated that any killing of seals is inhumane. Regardless of the method.
Instead, the primary motivational factor is population control.
The main purpose for the hunt is so that some Newfoundlanders can do something they have been doing for hundreds of years and make a profit in the process. This years quota is 225 000 seals out of a population of 5.9 million. Thats roughly 5% of the total seal population. That is by no means a hunt purely for conservational purposes. In fact, the government has said that if the hunting won't be done for commercial reasons they may have to cull the population to keep it from exploding. So while the hunt does indeed help to control the population it is not it's main purpose. Im pretty sure that the Newfoundlanders woke up one moring and thought, "We have to keep the seal population down!" instead of, "We can eat these tasty tasty animals and then sell the pelts to Europeans and Chinese people on the side! Bonus!"
dogma wrote:There are many factors that go into the seal hunt. Direct subsistence is the most obvious one, as the majority of seal meat is consumed by the hunters themselves.
With you so far. However, remember that food costs money. If they save money by eating the food the hunt, they are indeed motivated profit.
It's merely a difference of money saved instead of money received.
The rest of the carcass is sold to whatever broker the state has contracted to act as the quota agent. That contractor agrees in advance to purchase whatever can be collected, primarily in terms of pelts, up to a set amount. This quota is generally set by state funded conservation agencies, and has very little to do with how much the pelts will fetch on the open market.
The quota doesn't matter.
The 2009 harvest is expected to be significantly under the quota, due to the low potential to turn a profit on seal pelts.
That because some people keep saying the same thing over and over and over again without realising what they are saying is misinformation propagated by people who think wearing leather shoes is a crime against the earth.
Lets just throw this in here for good measure.
Bu the reason we argue on the internet is its fun to argue! That and we get to flex out intellectual muscles and hone arguments so that they can be used in real life when an argument similar to this one might come up and actually matter. Plus, we get o properly inform the misinformed masses.
