Seal hunting, what's the big deal?

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » 28 Mar 2006 05:53

Animals dont have rights. There are laws protecting them but it doesnt say One animal under god int he constitution its man not animals. Animals are slaughtrered humanley so they cant feel anything while its happening.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 28 Mar 2006 06:52

Do we persecute polar bears for hunting seals? NO!!! So why should we persecute people. We won the survival game, and now are at the top of the food chain. Unless we are causing a possible extinction, there is no reason not ot hunt anything (as long as its being eaten or used for a purpose).

JoFa · Post by **JoFa** » 28 Mar 2006 07:56

What about homosexual seals? Bestial seals? Should they get as many rights as the normal seals?

professor · Post by **professor** » 28 Mar 2006 09:39

Most animal rights activists are inconsistent. They scream and cry for baby seals being killed, but when's the last time you've seen an activist chain themselves to a dock with a sign saying, "BE KIND TO CARP!"?

Why? Because they only care about the cute, fluffy animals. Think about how cruel fishing actually is. You stab a hook up into a fishes mouth. Pull them out of the water by the hook jabbed into their skull and then have them suffocate on the deck of your ship. If that's not cruelty to animals, I don't know what is. Yet, nobody cares because they are ugly fish. If they were cute, people would care.

If activists are going to protest about something, I think it should be about the millions of PEOPLE dying needlessly every year around the world, not some seals.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 28 Mar 2006 12:12

What about the canadian seafood boycott? should the whole industry suffer because people don't like bloody fluff?

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 28 Mar 2006 18:10

JoFa wrote:What about homosexual seals? Bestial seals? Should they get as many rights as the normal seals?

LOVE IT!!!!!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 28 Mar 2006 21:36

professor wrote:Most animal rights activists are inconsistent. They scream and cry for baby seals being killed, but when's the last time you've seen an activist chain themselves to a dock with a sign saying, "BE KIND TO CARP!"?

Why? Because they only care about the cute, fluffy animals. Think about how cruel fishing actually is. You stab a hook up into a fishes mouth. Pull them out of the water by the hook jabbed into their skull and then have them suffocate on the deck of your ship. If that's not cruelty to animals, I don't know what is. Yet, nobody cares because they are ugly fish. If they were cute, people would care.

If activists are going to protest about something, I think it should be about the millions of PEOPLE dying needlessly every year around the world, not some seals.

I don't think this arguement is true. Certainly in my dealings with animal rights activists they have been consistant in their opposition to all "cruelty" to animals no matter what kind of animal they are. I have countless got in trouble for killing flies or misquitos (sp?) that I've killed when they land on me. In fact I once got in trouble for asking if I could kill a fly that had landed on the tv screen while we were watching some silly movie. If you stand up for the rights of a fly in Australia then I think there are no animals they won't stand up for. I think it's important to realise that they focus their campaigns onto issues that will get a lot of support outside of the crazy zone. - Protesting about carp simply won't get any support. When all the more likely to win things are won then they'll probably move onto that. I think although I'm not into animal rights at all that focusing on the issues that they do focus on is a very good tactical move.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 28 Mar 2006 22:00

I don't think this arguement is true. Certainly in my dealings with animal rights activists they have been consistant in their opposition to all "cruelty" to animals no matter what kind of animal they are. I have countless got in trouble for killing flies or misquitos (sp?) that I've killed when they land on me. In fact I once got in trouble for asking if I could kill a fly that had landed on the tv screen while we were watching some silly movie. If you stand up for the rights of a fly in Australia then I think there are no animals they won't stand up for. I think it's important to realise that they focus their campaigns onto issues that will get a lot of support outside of the crazy zone. - Protesting about carp simply won't get any support. When all the more likely to win things are won then they'll probably move onto that. I think although I'm not into animal rights at all that focusing on the issues that they do focus on is a very good tactical move.

I quite enjoyed reading this post.

RawSko · Post by **RawSko** » 31 Mar 2006 16:16

I don't know about this whole "if they're not about to go extinct, kill'em" idea... If I were to go and cut off your ears, burn the hair off your back and rip off a few fingers; you're not in danger of dying, so I guess I should keep going... right?

I realize that it's not exactly the same thing but, frankly, this "service to the environment" by keeping animal populations to a minimum is Bull... Nature would be doing SOOOOOOOOO much better if we could just respect it, rather then try to fix it. ...This Mother Nature lady knows what she's doing...

Sadly, it may be too late to do that. Things have gotten so complicated with the advancment of technology! We've already screwed around with nature so much that just leaving her alone could lead to an early end to the world.

My suggestion, for Canada at least: VOTE GREEN PARTY!!
...as a start.

-Put her back in a position to heal herself
-Take ONLY what we need (...minimalist styles)
-...keep Green Party in power...

...sadly I don't think this kind of stuff is in human nature at all. Oh well!! Things will unfold as they should... (<--my religion)

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Mar 2006 17:00

RawSko wrote:I don't know about this whole "if they're not about to go extinct, kill'em" idea... If I were to go and cut off your ears, burn the hair off your back and rip off a few fingers; you're not in danger of dying, so I guess I should keep going... right?

I realize that it's not exactly the same thing but, frankly, this "service to the environment" by keeping animal populations to a minimum is Bull... Nature would be doing SOOOOOOOOO much better if we could just respect it, rather then try to fix it. ...This Mother Nature lady knows what she's doing...

Sadly, it may be too late to do that. Things have gotten so complicated with the advancment of technology! We've already screwed around with nature so much that just leaving her alone could lead to an early end to the world.

My suggestion, for Canada at least: VOTE GREEN PARTY!!
...as a start.

-Put her back in a position to heal herself
-Take ONLY what we need (...minimalist styles)
-...keep Green Party in power...

...sadly I don't think this kind of stuff is in human nature at all. Oh well!! Things will unfold as they should... (<--my religion)

I think that's a really bad analogy. I also think that you're incorrect in saying: "this mother nature lady knows what she's doing". Humans have a really significant role in our environment and what we do or don't do definitely has an influence. We are part of nature and if we removed ourselves from the environment this would result in many negative outcomes (and I'm sure plenty of good ones too). The evironment works best if things are in a balance. Of course in reality things are never perfectly balanced but they're usually fairly close. Killing seals isn't about keeping their numbers to a minimum - it's about keeping their numbers balanced. If they start rapidly increasing than the amount of whatever they eat will start decreasing and their will be a degree of environmentally instability before things are balanced again. This could result in extinctions. One of the big lessons that has been learned from environmental managment over recent years is that protecting a species or an area of land can often cause more problems and there needs to be more involvement beyond that step.

Larson · Post by **Larson** » 31 Mar 2006 17:46

About 99% of all species to ever live are extinct. This is just a fun fact that is somewhat relative to the topic.

Species usually go extinct because they are killed and ate by other animals, or their food sorce runs out. Like Jeremy said it is a very delicate balance, but their arn't supposed to be a certain number of species. We are the only species that actually cares about the survival of other species, well some of us at least. If anything, I think it would be going against mother nature to try and preserve every species. Animals go extinct, that's just what happens.

I'm not saying we should kill off different species; little seals are pretty cute. I"m just saying that we are a part of nature, so what we do is natural.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 31 Mar 2006 18:45

I disagree. In the grand scheme of things - yes extinction is inevitable and also isn't a good or bad thing. In fact in the scheme of things there is pretty much nothing we could do the planet to wipe out all life on earth and in a few hundred million years after we tried it's doubtful that you'd be able to tell at a glance that such a big extinction had occured - life would almost certainly grow back to cover the planet and flourish. However as said - life on earth is about balance. A large rate of exctinctions - such is occuring now - is definitely putting things out of balance. In fact it's not even about the extinctions - just the dwindling numbers of some species and the growing numbers of others is definitely shifting the balance. This is significantly important for maintaining our exisitence. If we do want to maintain the existence of our species than changing the balance is definitely a bad thing. Environmental factors have a huge influenence on our lives in both the short term and the long term. Now in the scheme of things our existence is neither a good or bad thing - but from our point of view the vast majority of us obviously want to exist and see our species continue to exist. Allowing animals to become extinct or endangered is a definitely counter productive to our species continued existence.

Larson · Post by **Larson** » 01 Apr 2006 14:27

Allowing animals to become extinct or endangered is a definitely counter productive to our species continued existence. If we do want to maintain the existence of our species than changing the balance is definitely a bad thing.

I agree that species becomeing extinct, in the long run, will effect the human population, but It would not wipe us out. I think that the human population needs to decrease. Large human populations is what caused the extinctions in the first place.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Apr 2006 19:51

The extinction of one species won't wipe us out - but the extinction of many species may. In any event I think the areas of the world that are significantly over populated are certain to face serious problems in the near and distant future. Countries with much more sustainable population will still face lower standards of living from mass extinctions - probably as more species become extinct the number of people that can sustainably live on the earth will drop. Because at the moment we are so far above that amount it's easy to imagine this having a very significant effect on the future standards of living and population of our species when the resources that we cannot sustain are used up.

andr00 · Post by **andr00** » 04 Apr 2006 20:28

okay im not comin in here like a hardon about this topic, but you guys are all (every single one of you) mistaken.

nobody in this thread knows whats up, so here's the scoop.

Most baby seals are killed within the first 3 weeks of being alive.
Baby seals are killed for the SOLE PURPOSE of fashion and their furs.
Baby seals' carcasses, after being skinned (most of the time skinned alive, as the clubbing only paralyzes them usually...), carcasses are left to rot on the ice floes.
The reason for boycotting the canadian fish market is because the canadian fishermen are the seal killers. They kill the seals because they get paid, and there is a ((VERY small)) market for baby seal fur.
Fishermen earn 5% of their annual income from seal clubbing. Without that 5%, they'd certainly be fine. The seal hunting is NOT out of dependancy or livelihood.
Seals grow up to be the prey of polarbears. The polar bear herd is growing thinner and thinner, and with more and more seals being slaughtered the polar bears (and obviously, all the rest of the arctic ecosystem) are getting fucked.

If you see my message in this post, please tell me what you think.

Boycot the canadian fish market and stop the seal slaughter. What's the point?

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 05 Apr 2006 12:35

andr00 wrote:okay im not comin in here like a hardon about this topic, but you guys are all (every single one of you) mistaken.

nobody in this thread knows whats up, so here's the scoop.

Most baby seals are killed within the first 3 weeks of being alive.

at which point they are independant of their mothers and they have shed their cute white furry coat that the activists always picture. It's illegal to kill infant seals.

Baby seals are killed for the SOLE PURPOSE of fashion and their furs.

and seal oil rich in Omega 3 fatty acid, and seal meat is sold as well. What is left over from the seal carcass after the meat, skin and oil is removed is left and becomes a source of food for artic scavengers like seabirds, crustaceans and fish

Baby seals' carcasses, after being skinned (most of the time skinned alive, as the clubbing only paralyzes them usually...), carcasses are left to rot on the ice floes.

It's also illegal to skin or process seals that are alive. Much footage used by activists is deceiving because seals have an active swimming reflex after they die, similar to chickens.

The reason for boycotting the canadian fish market is because the canadian fishermen are the seal killers. They kill the seals because they get paid, and there is a ((VERY small)) market for baby seal fur.
Fishermen earn 5% of their annual income from seal clubbing. Without that 5%, they'd certainly be fine. The seal hunting is NOT out of dependancy or livelihood.

do you know how much coastline is in canada? Do you know how many fishers have never stepped foot in Newfoundland? Labelling all Canadian fishermen seal hunters is wrong and the whole industry shouldn't be hurt because people don't like seals being hunted.

Also, 2004 seal hunt brought in $16 million in revenue.. in like two weeks of work!! that's a very significant income, especially for artic hunters. $70 a seal skin is good money.

Seals grow up to be the prey of polarbears. The polar bear herd is growing thinner and thinner, and with more and more seals being slaughtered the polar bears (and obviously, all the rest of the arctic ecosystem) are getting fucked.

The seal herd is nearly triple what it was in the 70's the amount of seals allowed to be hunted is a fraction to what is out there, seals are in no way endangered nor should people think the polar bears are being that deprived of seal meat.

If you see my message in this post, please tell me what you think.

Boycot the canadian fish market and stop the seal slaughter. What's the point?[/quote]

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Apr 2006 00:14

I don't really care about the other arguements but the issue of polar bears is definitely something that should be of concern. My question is this - are the seal numbers going up, down, or staying the same. If they're staying the same then I don't think it's accurate to blame baby seal clubbing as a reason for diminishing polar bear numbers. If polar bear numbers are diminishing it means something in their environment is changing - which means there is either less food, more competition or less habitat.

footbinc · Post by **footbinc** » 06 Apr 2006 14:54

RawSko wrote:
My suggestion, for Canada at least: VOTE GREEN PARTY!!
...as a start.

-Put her back in a position to heal herself
-Take ONLY what we need (...minimalist styles)
-...keep Green Party in power...

Are you high?

If the east had any common sense, you would simply make Ralph Klein the supreme high emperor of Canada

More Oil Cheques!!!

More Seal Furs for me!!!

funklovesfootbag · Post by **funklovesfootbag** » 10 Apr 2006 23:53

Seath wrote,

What school do you go to??

Bovine university.

Mmmmm animals. Interestingly enough, I have a sticker on my car, I club my baby seal. Except, theres a picture of a cute seal and a club. Killing animals and slaughterhouses suck but humans have earned the right to raise and murder animals in inhumane ways because we're at the top of the mothafuckin food chain.

On a sidenote, I don't eat red meat or fast food, but I WOULD eat a seal.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 12 Apr 2006 17:48

And Jeremy about your concern for polar bears, from some research I have concluded that the major factor in the thinning of the polar bear population is global warming and the decreasing of the polar caps. Though Polar bears eat mainly seals, the seal hunt has in no way hindered their ability to eat. Polar bears are the most carnivorous of all bear species and will eat any meat they can find, including carrion, another use for the seal carcases left to rot on the ice...