Canada Seal Slaughter begins

[Fitter]

My question is, can we eat the meat? Seems like a waste to just kill them for the fur alone.

Yes. Yes we can, and I do.

 

[Lonewulf]

Seriously, I want a sealskin jacket. I saw them in Iceland a few years back, they are nice. As for the baby seals. Hardly unwarranted, they make great jackets!

boo freaking who.

Tell you what, when the sharks and polar bears sign a non aggression pact with the cute little seals, then I will think otherwise.

So if animals act a certain way, it's okay for humans to act a certain way.

Cool.

I'll go eat my children and rape some women; I know some animals that are into that.

If the seals looked like baby anteaters no one would give a damn.

Wrong.

But hey, you know so much. You must, otherwise you wouldn't be proclaiming that "no one" would give a damn, which would indirectly refer to me.

If I care about things only based on appearance, and I consider crocodiles and alligators to be un-cute and un-attractive animals, then why am I arguing in this thread?

If you cannot give a good argument, please retract the statement. Because you are obviously wrong.

 

[andyandy]

If I care about things only based on appearance, and I consider crocodiles and alligators to be un-cute and un-attractive animals, then why am I arguing in this thread?.

the statement no one would give a damn is easily falsified, but would you agree that substantially less people would give a damn?

 

[Lonewulf]

the statement no one would give a damn is easily falsified, but would you agree that substantially less people would give a damn?

I would agree that it's very possible, though that was not the statement. Though as far as I know, humane treatment of animals means humane treatment of animals; there are few "exceptions" (legal-wise and logic-wise) just because an animal happens to look ugly or not, even if there may be a personal biase.

However, even if substantially less people would give a damn, that does not refute the point that animals should be treated humanely, nor does it refute criticism of seal hunting. It's a reverse "appeal to popularity", or something along those lines. And it's also, for many groups, wrong. Those that promote animal rights do so for many animals, not just "those that are cute".

 

[Dr. Lao]

So, what I need to know, since all animals are equal. What about driving? My car hits gnats all the time, I must be a murderer.

I had the house sprayed for termites, I suppose I should just let them eat in peace.

I washed with antibacterial soap today and killed untold thousands of peaceful little microbes, I must be so evil.

I love animals, I love my dog. But, I see nothing wrong with the Canadian seal hunt, its a way to make a living for folks who don't have a hell of a lot.

But, I don't see as much outrage at the practice of "finning" sharks. That is an outrage. Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny? I scuba dive, I like to see the sharks when I'm underwater. Pity that sharks don't have cute little faces and eyelashes.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, what I need to know, since all animals are equal.

Strawman. I never stated that all animals are equal. I stated that animal rights are not decided (nor should it be decided) based on appearance.

What about driving? My car hits gnats all the time, I must be a murderer.

Question based on strawman.

I had the house sprayed for termites, I suppose I should just let them eat in peace.

Based on strawman.

I washed with antibacterial soap today and killed untold thousands of peaceful little microbes, I must be so evil.

Based on strawman.

I love animals, I love my dog. But, I see nothing wrong with the Canadian seal hunt, its a way to make a living for folks who don't have a hell of a lot.

Did you even read through this thread before you posted? Just in case you, say, mentioned something that has already been mentioned before? Multiple times? And dealt with thoroughly?

I accepted that, but I do not consider the seal hunts to be ideal. I'd rather the folks that do the hunting have other job opportunities available to them. I'm not quite sure what you find so wrong with that position.

Others question the methods used during the hunt. Some criticize how the hunt could be made more humane.

But, I don't see as much outrage at the practice of "finning" sharks. That is an outrage. Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?

That is an outrage, and I agree with you. I'm sure that if you brought it up with many animal rights groups, they would agree with you.

I scuba dive, I like to see the sharks when I'm underwater. Pity that sharks don't have cute little faces and eyelashes.

Once more, I agree that sharks should be treated humanely and not hunted wastefully.

 

[andyandy]

But, I don't see as much outrage at the practice of "finning" sharks. That is an outrage. Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?

[nitpick]
it's a popular Chinese delicacy rather than Japanese....and somewhat erroneous to interpret its popularity due to percieved aphrodisiac qualities.
[/nitpick]

 

[Dr. Lao]

Actually they eat it in Japan, China, Thailand, etc.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Seriously, I want a sealskin jacket. I saw them in Iceland a few years back, they are nice. As for the baby seals. Hardly unwarranted, they make great jackets!

boo freaking who.

Tell you what, when the sharks and polar bears sign a non aggression pact with the cute little seals, then I will think otherwise.

If the seals looked like baby anteaters no one would give a damn.

Your argument is so full of holes I don't even know where to start...

Firstly, Killing an animal simply for a "cool jacket" is unwarranted. You could substitute it with a fabric such as cotton or polyester.

Secondly, The fact that polar bears kill seals is irrelevant to how we treat them.
1. They MUST kill them for food. I have already stated that I don't oppose the small groups of natives killing the seals purely for food for their families. I oppose the commercial slaughter of them for their fur.
2. Humans are more intelligent than polar bears and thus have more responsibility to be ethical to our fellow animals.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Firstly, Killing an animal simply for a "cool jacket" is unwarranted. You could substitute it with a fabric such as cotton or polyester.

You fail to realize that this is just a value judgment on your part.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You fail to realize that this is just a value judgment on your part.

I've explained in detail how that's absolutely false. I really don't like repeating myself but here's a little bit of how you're wrong. The only thing that puts Humans at a higher level of moral value from other animals is their intelligence, thus their ability to appreciate moral or immoral treatment. This is all there is. Humans have no magical quality that makes them more important than other animal species. The only measurable thing they have is their intelligence. However other animal species also have intelligence. Other animal species also feel sense pain and are able to suffer. This means that they must be afforded moral rights as well, if humans are to be afforded moral rights. Humans have no need for fur coats. It's simply an item they like to have. They could easily buy cotton or polyester coats. Killing animals for the shallow desires of humans is unjustifiable.


The moral rights of other animal species won't be equal to humans simply because they aren't equal to humans in their ability to appreciate treatment of them. They can't appreciate a right to vote so they shouldn't get such. Humans should. Each species should be afforded moral rights corresponding with their intelligence. This is the only non-arbitrary and rational measure for moral treatment. That's all there is. Any other ascriptions to humans of some "superiority" above other animals or disenfranchising other animals of their basic rights isn't rational. The sole rubric for human moral treatment is also shared by other animal species.

Claims that somehow humans deserve everything and the interests of all other species should be ignored is simply ignorant chauvinism. Baseless.

This means that the amount of harm caused by killing an animal is much more severe than the harm caused by someone not getting a fur coat, which they could replace with a cotton or polyester coat or other fabric. The amount suffering caused from killing animals for their fur is compared to the potential suffering caused by someone not getting a fur coat is laughable. Anyone who really believes that getting a fur coat is more important than the lives of several animals needs to seriously re-evaluate their beliefs.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's just a value judgment on your part that the more intelligent a creature is, the more humane is should be treated. No matter how you try to justify it, there is no scientific evidence to support your philosophy that intelligent creatures need to be treated better than non-intelligent ones. Really, Dustin, you have failed to realize that it ultimately comes down to a value judgment. Intelligence is your arbitrary value to make judgments on. Cuteness might be other person's arbitrary values, while species are another arbitrary value to make these decisions.

 

[Jas]

I care about the seals because the practice of killing them is overtly cruel.

How is it cruel?

My question is, can we eat the meat? Seems like a waste to just kill them for the fur alone.

The meat is eaten, I don't see why you would throw it out.

That is an outrage, and I agree with you. I'm sure that if you brought it up with many animal rights groups, they would agree with you.

Finning of sharks has been going on for years. Yet there is no international legislation to prevent it, and the only group that has done anything about it is Sea Shepherd, until very recently.

Aside from the fact that finning them alive and throwing them away is clearly much more morally reprehensible than killing seals, especially from an environmental perspective, the seal hunt is publicly condemmed, yet there is very little done in defense of sharks.

 

[Jas]

Bullets cost money. The Bioindustry will do anything to keep the costs for killing animals down.

Do you know anything about hunting? You do realize that bullets are dirt cheap, and that shooting an animal from afar is much more efficient than walking up to it and physically clubbing it, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting

It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed.

Gee, yet there's this whole section there that says this:

According to recent studies done by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the hakapik, when used properly, kills the animal quickly and painlessly. Several American studies carried out from 1969-1972 in the Pribilof Islands of Alaska came to the same conclusion.[30] The Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada, also known as the Malouf Commission, claims that properly performed clubbing is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, and according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), these studies "have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely."
A study of the 2001 Canadian seal hunt conducted by five independent veterinarians came to the conclusion that although the hakapik is a humane means of hunting, many hunters were, in fact, not using the hakapik properly. This improper use, they said, was leading to "considerable and unacceptable suffering", and in 17% of the cases they observed, there were no detectable lesions of the skull whatsoever. In numerous other cases, the seals had to be struck multiple times before they were considered "unconscious".[31] These claims are supported by the CVMA report itself, which states that 87% of the hunters whom they had observed had violated Canada's hunting regulations by "fail[ing] to palpate the skull or check for the corneal reflex before proceeding to hook or bleed the seal or go to another seal."
While hunters sometimes begin the process of bleeding out seals prior to skinning, video evidence shows sealers do not often allow any time to pass between cutting the seals open and skinning them - thus it is unlikely seals are bled out properly prior to skinning. It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed. Video evidence exists that shows seals moving as if alive at the time of skinning;[citation needed] the CVMA and Malouf Commission studies, while conceding that some incidents of live skinning may occur, have stated that seals have a swimming reflex that causes muscle contraction to continue even after death. In 2005 the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) prompted the Independent Veterinarians Working Group(IVWG) Report, with reference to video evidence, the report states, "Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion, and on visual images that are often difficult even for experienced observers to interpret with certainty. While a hakapik strike on the skull of a seal appears brutal, it is humane if it achieves rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness leading to death."
The 2001 report contained a number of recommendations on how sealing could be conducted more humanely. They did not, however, recommend the disuse of the controversial hakapik.

Hmm, the portion stating that there is video evidence of them being skinned alive is needing a citation.

 

[armageddonman]

Funny, but I do.

I feel sorry for you too -- for having that attitude toward your fellow man.

Nobody forced them to go slaughtering animals. But I stand corrected: I feel sorry for everyone who has such an attitude toward their fellow creatures as those people have.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

How is it cruel?

Cruel-1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering.
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain

Suffering-1 : to endure death, pain, or distress

www.m-w.com

Do you know anything about hunting? You do realize that bullets are dirt cheap, and that shooting an animal from afar is much more efficient than walking up to it and physically clubbing it, don't you?



Gee, yet there's this whole section there that says this:


Hmm, the portion stating that there is video evidence of them being skinned alive is needing a citation.

All of that has been addressed. Read the thread.

 

[andyandy]

Actually they eat it in Japan, China, Thailand, etc.

the statement

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?"

is rather derogatory - some japanese guy is a poor choice for the target of that derision. You may as well say some English guy - for there's a trade in Shark fin soup in London's China town. If you want to slur a nation you could at least get the county right

 

[Lonewulf]

the statement

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some Japanese guy can get horny?"

is rather derogatory - some japanese guy is a poor choice for the target of that derision. You may as well say some English guy - for there's a trade in Shark fin soup in London's China town. If you want to slur a nation you could at least get the county right

Indeed. Though allow me to change the statement to get the proper indignation out:

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some guy can get horny?"

 

[andyandy]

Indeed. Though allow me to change the statement to get the proper indignation out:

"Killing a 500 lb shark for 6 lbs of fin meat so some guy can get horny?"

yes that's a bit better....

 

[Dr. Lao]

Your argument is so full of holes I don't even know where to start...

Firstly, Killing an animal simply for a "cool jacket" is unwarranted. You could substitute it with a fabric such as cotton or polyester.

Secondly, The fact that polar bears kill seals is irrelevant to how we treat them.
1. They MUST kill them for food. I have already stated that I don't oppose the small groups of natives killing the seals purely for food for their families. I oppose the commercial slaughter of them for their fur.
2. Humans are more intelligent than polar bears and thus have more responsibility to be ethical to our fellow animals.

I'll buy whatever freaking jacket I want, I don't need some whiney guilt pusher to tell me what king of jacket I must have. I already have a great 60 year old goat skin jacket, I like it very much, and the goat would have been long dead anyway if they hadn't turned it into a nice jacket.

That is why many people have a negative opinion of animal rights activists, they act all holier than thou, and feel as if they have the authority to tell others what to wear or eat.

Humans are more intelligent! Very good. Humans also have the right to kill, eat and wear a seal, even a really cute one.

I admire your passion, but, you need to realize that, for all your self righteousness and passion, its not your call. Others have their opinions too, so you should respect that.

Do they sell sealskin jackets in Ireland? I'll be there in a few weeks, I'll look.