Seal Hunt

Wicker Man

Wicker Man

Trooper
I have started this thread to try and educate our little piece of the world. I have just finished watching a debate on CNN's Larry King Live between Sir Paul & Heather Mcartney and the Priemer of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams. It's safe to say that I have never yelled at my TV quite as much as I just did.

Before I say too much about the debate I shall tell you about the seal hunt. Every year Atlantic Canadians go out in their boats and walk out on the ice floes and hunt harp seals. The seals are mostly killed by being shot, 90% but the other 10% are clubbed by a hakapik, a Norwegian club with a hook at the end. The hakapik can be seen as fairly cruel but it is much more humane then it would appear. The seal hunt has been going on for many years, since the days of early settlers. It is a well regulated hunt and stories of the population greatly depleteing is not true. This is a very brief description of the hunt, but I lack the time to go off on a big long history lesson now.

Now then back to the main source of my anger, Paul and Heather. The seal hunt is an easy target for the media, you have white seals on white ice bleeding. The blood is going to show up much more then it would anywhere else. Danny Williams even said that if you were to put white sheets in a slaughter house, you would see a lot of blood. My congratulations go to Danny Williams who gave a very professional appearance, even though he was talking to rude, closed-minded people. Paul Mcartney seemed willing to at least half listen, but his wife would just shake her head and close her eyes every time Danny would say something. In the middle of important poitns she would cut him off and keep talking until he stopped and let her say how what he was saying was wrong. When Danny Williams would try and connect the seal to other animals that were killed they would say he was repeatdly going off topic and that he was such a "politician".
When Danny Williams mentioned the fact that the UN and other societies decarled the seal hunt humane, she had the nerve to say that we simply bribed them into saying that.

I'm not too good at this sort of thing, so I hope someone out there also saw the debate and can stress on my points a bit more. Discuss.
 
I've lived in Atlantic Canada all my life, so I think I'm fairly qualified to comment on this (though I admit some bias.)
First of all, I think I speak for most of Atlantic Canadians when I say to the people condeming us as barbaric killers of cute things: Fuck off. Honestly, just go fuck yourself. You have no goddamned right to tell us how to make a living. You only care because a seal happens to be cute. Nobody gives two shits about boiling a lobster alive or bleeding a chicken to death.

Now that I've said that little indignant rant, let me me move to the specific issue of Mcartney and his wife. Those two must have some nerve. They are among the wealthiest people in the world, and they have the nerve to look Newfoundland's leader in the face and tell him how his people should make a living. Newfoundland is one of the poorest places in the Western world. The people who participate in the hunt don't do it for sport. THey do it so they can sell the pelts to FEED THEIR FAMILIES. If His Highness Mr. Mcartney would put his money where his mouth is and volunteer to pay those men the same amount they'd get from the hunt to sit around down home with a case of Blackhorse beer, you bet your arse many of them would take it.

As for Danny Williams, I have nothing but deep respect for the man. (I actually met him once) He's one of the most well-spoken leaders this country has ever produced. Had he been born in Ontario or Quebec, people would be touting him as th next Prime Minister. He is a genuine patriot. He loves Newfoundland and Labrador and its people. The province has had its ass to the wall for so many generations, barely scartching out an existance, that they have been forced to take drastic actions (which are finally beginning to slowly bare fruit, such as offshore oil and resource management strategies). Premier Williams understands the concerns of people morally opposed to the seal hunt, but he is elected to look out for the interests of his people, not cater to celebrities.

Duke

PS - When I say "fuck off", I mean it. I'm usually a fairly open-minded and easy going dude, but this is a very hot issue for me. Disagree if you want, but don't expect me to hold back any punches.
 
The fundamental flaw in McCartney's thinking on this issue is the idea that animals should have the same rights and protections as humans. Wrong. We humans are on top of both the evolutionary ladder and the food chain. I don't approve of cruelty to animals for the mere sake of cruelty, but hunting generally isn't cruel. Even if it hurts the animal before its death, hunting has a higher purpose which outweighs any animal pain.

Musicians should stay out of politics unless they are willing to do some real productive work. Bob Geldof and Bono are examples of musicians who have been doing real work for their causes, not just spouting off. I'm not saying musicians shouldn't address political issues in their songs; that's fine. But McCartney's style of making a speech and then retreating to his castle is a load of garbage.

In fact, McCartney should retire from public life completely. He hasn't released a good album since the 1970s. I've heard all his albums, and most are crap. He was great with the Beatles because he had the support of Lennon and Harrison. On his own, he's made very few listenable songs.
 
This brings me back to grade six. I had been living in Canada (Southwestern Ontario, closer to the USA than anything else except maybe Baghdad) for the previous three years. I was sent to a village school, so naturally the kids there were very hostile to any new people. When I told them I came from Canada, hell went loose. One brilliant mind came up with the fact that in Canada, they're slaying seals, and "seal butcher" became my new nickname. There were times when the kids shouted it at me every spare minute. The teachers thought I was the problem and sent me to a school psychiatrist. Naturally, that was counter-productive and things got worse until I switched to a higher school two years later with teachers telling me I'd never make it and I shouldn't even try. I'd love to know what the bloody bastards say now.

Although this is usually a topic I care about, I will ignore this thread for these reasons. And if anybody wants to know why I'm an arse, this is part of the explanation.
 
The cows in the slaughterhouses aren't as cute as the seals, but we still kill them for food -- and rightly so, we need this meat. I have no problem with hunting as long if it's a matter of getting food for survival and still respects the ecological balance of the various animal populations. Now, if it's a "sport" and only done for "fun" and "pleasure", then *there* I have a problem.

*looks gr1mly at the fox hunters in the UK* [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/dry.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"<_<\" border=\"0\" alt=\"dry.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=130619:date=Mar 4 2006, 07:35 AM:name=Perun)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Mar 4 2006, 07:35 AM) [snapback]130619[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
One brilliant mind came up with the fact that in Canada, they're slaying seals, and "seal butcher" became my new nickname. There were times when the kids shouted it at me every spare minute. The teachers thought I was the problem and sent me to a school psychiatrist.
[/quote]

This is why I think children need to be beaten on a weekly basis. I went through some similar stuff when I was that age Per, so I sympathise. IN groups, children can be incredibly mean to their chosen target. Like you, it's one of the reasons I'm the introvert that I am today.

[!--quoteo(post=130623:date=Mar 4 2006, 07:45 AM:name=Maverick)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Mar 4 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]130623[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
The cows in the slaughterhouses aren't as cute as the seals, but we still kill them for food -- and rightly so, we need this meat. I have no problem with hunting as long if it's a matter of getting food for survival and still respects the ecological balance of the various animal populations. Now, if it's a "sport" and only done for "fun" and "pleasure", then *there* I have a problem.

*looks gr1mly at the fox hunters in the UK* [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/dry.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"<_<\" border=\"0\" alt=\"dry.gif\" /]
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more with you Mav. I think killing for the sake of killing (I call if "Safari Hunting" for lack of a better term) is just plain retarded. There's just no reason for it. These Newfoundlanders might not eat all the seals they kill, but they aren't killing them for sport. They are a vital source of income, and many of these people wouldn't be able to feed and clothe their families without it.
 
Very little safari hunting occurs in Canada. What hunting we do participate in, such as legal deer hunting, is for things like population control and food. Everyone I know who hunts deer actually eats the damn thing. There's very little wasting of deer, since most hunters report abandoned carcasses and don't care for the waste.

The seal hunt has been expanded in recent years for many reasons. Of course, the first is to help Newfoundland's struggling economy. The pelts do aid them economically. Secondly, baby seals eat cod like noone's business, and we killed off most of the baby seals' natural predators (such as orca whales and walruses) through 19th century hunting and pollution. So let me state this firmly: seals have no natural enemies left on the ice floes. Except humans.

According to the Government of Canada in the newspaper article I read about Sir Paul's Misguided Escapades, the Canadian seal population is increasing, despite the greater numbers of seal cubs being culled every year (275,000). There are around 4.5 million seals now, up from about 1.5 million. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the cod fishery in the Maritimes...well, let's put it this way. There's three cod left, give or take, and the seals want to eat them all. Overfishing has almost destroyed the cod population so the Government of Canada has lowered a moratorium on fishing for cod. We even sent navy ships out to engage Spanish and Portugese fishing vessels that came to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland.

Normally an increased seal population would not be a bad thing, if the cod stocks had the strength they did, say, in 1650. But currently the cod population needs every edge it can get, so extra seals are very very bad. Oh, and because of the cod fishery collapsing, there's a lot of Newfoundlanders that are out of a job, and need to hunt seals, like it's been said.

How DARE they suggest that Newfoundland bribe the UN. With what money!? As the Duke said, there are very few places in the West as poor as Newfoundland. But I'm not surprised. Mr and Mrs McCartney are probably very used to getting their own way, and as we all know, people like that are never interested in intelligent debate.

Declaring Danny Williams a politician? Well, what are they? Paul and Heather chose to pose with some seals for a photo shoot. However, they, like every other activist to protest, get themselves photographed with the brand-new baby seals with their white coats. Anyone who does any reading on the seal hunt knows that clubbing white-coated babies is illegal. You can only kill and cull them once they've matured and lost their white coats. So saying "these are the cute and cuddly things that people kill" is a huge falsehood. They're a lot less cute when they lose the white coating.
 
[!--quoteo(post=130646:date=Mar 4 2006, 12:15 PM:name=LooseCannon)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Mar 4 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]130646[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Anyone who does any reading on the seal hunt knows that clubbing white-coated babies is illegal.
[/quote]

Unfortunatly doing any research on the seal hunt is very difficult. A quick internet search on the seal hunt will give you a few little news articles, but most of your results will be dominated by animal rights web pages full of "facts" about the seal hunt. Last year I gave a speech on the seal hunt, and when I looked for facts one of the first web sites that came up was a mans detailed plan to burn down a fur plant in Dildo (Don't laugh, it's a town).
 
[!--quoteo(post=130670:date=Mar 4 2006, 04:28 PM:name=Wicker Man)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Wicker Man @ Mar 4 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]130670[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Unfortunatly doing any research on the seal hunt is very difficult. A quick internet search on the seal hunt will give you a few little news articles, but most of your results will be dominated by animal rights web pages full of "facts" about the seal hunt. Last year I gave a speech on the seal hunt, and when I looked for facts one of the first web sites that came up was a mans detailed plan to burn down a fur plant in Dildo (Don't laugh, it's a town).
[/quote]
Are you insinuating ther is a cover up by the fur companies etc? It seems a bit strange that for such a hot topic of debate, there aren't that many websites offering facts. Maybe you could create a site with some of the facts... it always takes one person to start the ball rolling. When more and more people start sites like this, the information will all gather up and you will be seen as a pioneer [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cool.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"B)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"cool.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=130596:date=Mar 3 2006, 11:50 PM:name=Wicker Man)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Wicker Man @ Mar 3 2006, 11:50 PM) [snapback]130596[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
I have started this thread to try and educate our little piece of the world. I have just finished watching a debate on CNN's Larry King Live between Sir Paul & Heather Mcartney and the Priemer of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams. It's safe to say that I have never yelled at my TV quite as much as I just did.

Before I say too much about the debate I shall tell you about the seal hunt. Every year Atlantic Canadians go out in their boats and walk out on the ice floes and hunt harp seals. The seals are mostly killed by being shot, 90% but the other 10% are clubbed by a hakapik, a Norwegian club with a hook at the end. The hakapik can be seen as fairly cruel but it is much more humane then it would appear. The seal hunt has been going on for many years, since the days of early settlers. It is a well regulated hunt and stories of the population greatly depleteing is not true. This is a very brief description of the hunt, but I lack the time to go off on a big long history lesson now.

Now then back to the main source of my anger, Paul and Heather. The seal hunt is an easy target for the media, you have white seals on white ice bleeding. The blood is going to show up much more then it would anywhere else. Danny Williams even said that if you were to put white sheets in a slaughter house, you would see a lot of blood. My congratulations go to Danny Williams who gave a very professional appearance, even though he was talking to rude, closed-minded people. Paul Mcartney seemed willing to at least half listen, but his wife would just shake her head and close her eyes every time Danny would say something. In the middle of important poitns she would cut him off and keep talking until he stopped and let her say how what he was saying was wrong. When Danny Williams would try and connect the seal to other animals that were killed they would say he was repeatdly going off topic and that he was such a "politician".
When Danny Williams mentioned the fact that the UN and other societies decarled the seal hunt humane, she had the nerve to say that we simply bribed them into saying that.

I'm not too good at this sort of thing, so I hope someone out there also saw the debate and can stress on my points a bit more. Discuss.
[/quote]

I watched it, I should also mention that I'm from Newfoundland. I too give my conratulations to Danny Williams, he couldn't have done a better job. I also agree that Heather was very ignorant and that Paul was somewhat willing to listen. When the World Wildlife Fund and the U.N. say that something is humane, honestly, how can you argue with that? After watching Larry King Live last night I support the seal hunt more strongly than ever before.
 
[!--quoteo(post=130673:date=Mar 4 2006, 02:08 PM:name=Conor)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Conor @ Mar 4 2006, 02:08 PM) [snapback]130673[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
It seems a bit strange that for such a hot topic of debate, there aren't that many websites offering facts. Maybe you could create a site with some of the facts... it always takes one person to start the ball rolling. When more and more people start sites like this, the information will all gather up and you will be seen as a pioneer [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cool.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"B)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"cool.gif\" /]
[/quote]
As great an idea as that is, I lack the knowledge and professionalism to create such a site. If I tried I would end up turning it into a site revolving around me telling people like Paul and Heather Mcartney to go to hell. I will continue to argue in my own little way about how the seal hunt is humane, as I said earlier I gave a speech on the seal hunt and I wouldn't mind giving another one this time talking about celebrity influence on the hunt.
 
I want to set one thing straight, in any pro sealing argument the person in favor of the hunt will probably mention that the seals eat cod. It is not the centre of that persons argument. It is just one more point as to why we should be allowed to hunt these animals. People against the hunt seem to jump at this oppurtunity way to much, saying that there is no way we can prove that the seals are responsible for the cod fishery closing. No educated person will say that the seals caused the fishery to close, they were just one of many factors, a fairly small factor but a factor none the less. They then stress on and on about this point as if it was the only reason we had to kill them.

[!--quoteo(post=130721:date=Mar 4 2006, 04:21 PM:name=LooseCannon)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Mar 4 2006, 04:21 PM) [snapback]130721[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/infomedia/2005/im01_e.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/

Try these sites. They should give a start, anyway.
[/quote]
Finally some truth.
 
[!--quoteo(post=130736:date=Mar 4 2006, 05:16 PM:name=Wicker Man)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Wicker Man @ Mar 4 2006, 05:16 PM) [snapback]130736[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
Finally some truth.
[/quote]

Not necessarialy. DFO is a government agency, whih has long had a vested interest in appeasing those of us who support the hunt. While I agree with their assesments., it would be irresponsible of me to allow you to think they were entirely neutral.
 
What's nice, though, is they cite independent studies not undertaken by a bunch of hippies too concerned about sating their munchies to do their job properly.
 
[!--quoteo(post=130607:date=Mar 4 2006, 06:19 AM:name=SinisterMinisterX)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(SinisterMinisterX @ Mar 4 2006, 06:19 AM) [snapback]130607[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
We humans are on top of both the evolutionary ladder and the food chain. [/quote]

You cannot say the our species is on top of evolutionary ladder simply because numerous species have been evoluting for longer times than us. They are at least as complex as we are and also older the we are in terms of evolution. Of course we have the power because we have a brain (not to mention journalists) and hands. This is different from evolution stricktly speaking.
What do you mean by "top of the food chain"?
If you define this term as being a top predator then, I believe than it is a misuse of language.
The fact is that our species is omnivorous (as shown by the structure of our teeth) hence we are not top predators stricto sensu. The difference between Homo sapiens and most of other species lies in the ability to breed cattle and use it as food. This isn't being a top predator but it works much better: Look at the density of our species as compared to lions, tigers or any top-predator (even before we started to be able to sharply decrease their abundance with our guns).
[img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"smile.gif\" /]
 
[!--quoteo(post=131289:date=Mar 9 2006, 03:03 PM:name=JackKnife)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(JackKnife @ Mar 9 2006, 03:03 PM) [snapback]131289[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
You cannot say the our species is on top of evolutionary ladder simply because numerous species have been evoluting for longer times than us. They are at least as complex as we are and also older the we are in terms of evolution. Of course we have the power because we have a brain (not to mention journalists) and hands. This is different from evolution stricktly speaking.
What do you mean by "top of the food chain"?
If you define this term as being a top predator then, I believe than it is a misuse of language.
The fact is that our species is omnivorous (as shown by the structure of our teeth) hence we are not top predators stricto sensu. The difference between Homo sapiens and most of other species lies in the ability to breed cattle and use it as food. This isn't being a top predator but it works much better: Look at the density of our species as compared to lions, tigers or any top-predator (even before we started to be able to sharply decrease their abundance with our guns).
style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/smile.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":)\" border=\"0\" alt=\"smile.gif\" /]
[/quote]

Since this has moved away a bit from the initial discussion, I would like to comment on this:

1) [i]Humans are on top of the evolutionary ladder[/i]. I consider this true because mankind has managed to survive in conditions he is not naturally designed for; furthermore, he is the animal species with most control over his environment (claiming he has taken control over the planet is wrong). He has developed means to defeat all other animal species and is therefore the only animal with "no enemies" (the zoological term "no natural enemies" cannot apply because most other predators have no natural enemies, but they have man as an enemy).
I do not believe man's level of evolution to be the highest level of evolution, but it is the highest any animal species has ever reached, to our knowledge.
I believe most other animal species could reach man's level of evolution if they were let to. However, this does not mean we would see lion businessmen or elephant football players; this would mean these animals would develop ways to communicate with each other, use tools and start thinking outside of their natural patterns. Perhaps they will also begin to develop abnormal physical features as man has done. We probably will never know.

2) [i]Man is at the top of the food chain[/i]. This is almost true. However, there is at least one other animal species known which considers man a possible source of food, the polar bear. It prefers seals and fish, but it has been known to "deliberately" kill humans for food. As far as I know, no other species has done so without an explicit temptation of its instinct (sharks will only kill when they taste blood, and tigers will only kill if they feel they/their territory are/is threatened). Since many Inuit groups traditionally hunt polar bears for food, I believe that polar bears and humans share the top spot.

[img src=\"http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/AWI/KAH97/Pics/eisbaer.jpg
 
[!--quoteo(post=131289:date=Mar 9 2006, 02:03 PM:name=JackKnife)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(JackKnife @ Mar 9 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]131289[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
You cannot say the our species is on top of evolutionary ladder simply because numerous species have been evoluting for longer times than us. They are at least as complex as we are and also older the we are in terms of evolution. Of course we have the power because we have a brain (not to mention journalists) and hands. This is different from evolution stricktly speaking. [/quote]

Is it? Our brain evolved to allow us to use tools for the sole purpose of controlling and dominating our environment. This is something that no other species is capable of doing to the extent we do. While some species like certain chimps, apes, and even a type of bird use rudimentary tools to manipulate their environment, they are as of yet incapable of the one major advance that will allow their brains to grow - the purposeful creation of fire. Fire is the single most important discovery in the history of human science. One of the first, mind you, but the most important. The ability to purposely create fire sets us apart from the animals. Except dragons.

While some species may be older and in the case of aquatic mammalia may even have the ability to communicate, they do not enjoy the privileges and responsibilities we do for altering the environment we exist in. The human species has no further need for evolution - we can simply make a better tool to do it for us. This is why we're at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Because we are done with evolution altogether. Once upon a time in order to move into a new environment we would have needed hundreds of thousands of years to grow new resistances - thicker hair, thicker fat layers, less so, different skin colours, and so forth. Now we simply invent a better coat, or make air conditioning. Or, a self-contained atmosphere that can travel 250,000 miles from the earth to the moon. We're done evolving, and no other species on the planet can say that.

[!--quoteo(post=131289:date=Mar 9 2006, 02:03 PM:name=JackKnife)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(JackKnife @ Mar 9 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]131289[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
What do you mean by "top of the food chain"?
If you define this term as being a top predator then, I believe than it is a misuse of language.
The fact is that our species is omnivorous (as shown by the structure of our teeth) hence we are not top predators stricto sensu. The difference between Homo sapiens and most of other species lies in the ability to breed cattle and use it as food. This isn't being a top predator but it works much better: Look at the density of our species as compared to lions, tigers or any top-predator (even before we started to be able to sharply decrease their abundance with our guns).
[/quote]

It's true. But once again, you have to consider that we control the entire environment. Even before the introduction of gunpowder man was able to defeat lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! whenever we absolutely needed to. It just took teamwork, skill, and a bit of luck. We are not a carnivorous species because sustaining the population levels required to sustain humanity would be impossible if meat was our only food. One of the things we needed was numbers in order to defend ourselves from the other creatures in the wild, and in order to saturate the areas most suited to human evolution (I'm looking at you Africa), we needed to be omnivorous, so we could sustain ourselves on both meat and plant - and also so that we would not need to overhunt.

The simple fact that we can pick pretty much any animal in the world and find a restaurant that serves it suggests that we are at the top of the food chain. An artificial food chain, yes. But just like every other piece of nature we've touched, we've broken it to our demands.

Wow, wait till Maverick comes down on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top