Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Werd to ya Mother!

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'...

lmao

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?

It burns! IT BURNS!!!!

Gwar! wrote:

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?

Why are we killing the babies again?

BrookM wrote:Why are we killing the babies again?

You may select from :

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."

Think that covers it.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This doesn't directly hurt me? Yes it does, it directly offends my morality

Concept Fail.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This doesn't directly hurt me? Yes it does, it directly offends my morality

Concept Fail.

Explanation or it isn't true

Gwar! wrote:...Or Veal?

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:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

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 don't support the clubbing of baby seals. I don't buy seal products. I don't need the government to ban their sale.

Also, I don't support Celine Dion. I don't buy her records. But, honestly, I wouldn't mind her music being banned.

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.

ph34r wrote:

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.

Gwar! wrote:

ph34r wrote:

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.

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.)

That video was pretty opinionated.
However, killing something with one hit to the head is a lot harder than killing someone with one shot to the head.

Orkeosaurus wrote:A clean blow to the head will kill them the same a clean shot to the head.

Not an issue.

QFT

Orkeosaurus wrote:A failed clubbing will cause them pain same as a failed shot.

QFT *2

Orkeosaurus wrote:That video was BS. Did you miss the bloody leaf? And the fact that it was a video by PETA?

QFT *3

Orkeosaurus wrote:(Regardless, it's still better than intensive pig farming.)

QFT *9001

On the subject of PETA:



Also... Sea Kittens... really?

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.

A club is Cheaper?

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.

Also, guns are more dangerous to the hunters.

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.

Gwar! wrote:A club is Cheaper?

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.