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:@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.

Honestly how can you even compare the two things?

This is a bullock being stunned...



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.

Thats funny right there.

Maybe a freaking 102mm rocket, but I doubt my piddly 9mm revolver is capable of that.

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?

JD21290 wrote:and lets face it, who here actually eats seal for feth sake?

Apparantly in Newfoundland and some parts of Quebec they eat quite a bit of Seal Meat.

But it's wrong, they should eat pigs because pigs don't have as many useful byproducts.

..like Flu !

..oh, hang on...

Has anyone tried Seal ? What does it taste like ?

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:Oh, and baby seals? almost no meat. Do you seriously think that hunting baby seals has a justification other than the fur?

Have you read anything that Ratbarf has been saying? No one is killing any baby seals anymore. That was a problem once, but not anymore.

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.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:[a huge rant]

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.

I apologize if this has already been said but clubbing is fairly humane, I believe based on current knowledge, its one quick blow and its over

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.

**nevermind** thread on fire

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.

Also

Did I say that it is impossible to survive without meat?

Um yes?

Killing animals for meat is a necessary evil

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...

Ratbarf wrote:

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?

Orkeosaurus wrote: How is it wrong to turn a profit when in doing so you do nothing wrong?

Because the seals are cute and Cows are Ugly!

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?