Mass'Debator
Posts: 4,282 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 21st, 2008, 11:47 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/
Does it seem more biased one way or another?
Is there something you disagree with in this FAQ?
Is there something here you didn't know about before?
Are you still for or against it?
Is there anymore additional information you think could be added?
I figured since this was going around in a few other threads, that perhaps a general debate on the above, which seems to be the common beliefs of this topic, would be a better approach for debate rather then focusing on fragmented reports or arguments on the subject and then going around in circles. Based on the above information, there should be a decent foundation for all in the debate to start off from.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/
Quote:
Do you agree with this "General Assesment?" Does this seem to explain the overall conflicts of the topic at hand?
There are few issues more controversial in Canada and around the world than the annual hunt of seals that takes place in the waters and on the ice floes off Atlantic Canada.
The bloody images, the heated rhetoric, the impassioned defences — they all combine in a familiar rite that pits governments and sealers against animal rights groups that decry the hunt, even as they use it as a primary fundraising tool.
Few facts in this debate go unchallenged. All sides agree on where and when. But how, why, and even how many aren't dealt with as cleanly.
Even the language is chosen carefully — words become instruments of reassurance or weapons of outrage. Hunt or slaughter. Harvest or cull. Sea mammals or baby seals. Cherished tradition or economic disaster. Cod-eating nuisance or adorable innocent.
Words, of course, are only some of the tools. The images of the hunt can be much more powerful and seal hunt opponents know it. Most people find the pictures difficult to watch. Supporters say the same kind of thing happens in slaughterhouses — places where cameras aren't allowed.
But there's no question that those with an interest in the debate have studied the arguments and methods of the other side well, refuting the opposing argument to persuade the undecided or reconvert the converted.
Answers to frequently asked questions on this issue often begin from the same starting point before veering off in opposing directions. Here are a few of those questions and how the big stakeholders respond:
1. How big is the Atlantic seal hunt, where is it taking place, and what exactly is being hunted?
There are federal quotas for three types of seals: harp seals, hooded seals and grey seals. Most of the hunt is for harp seals. The hunt usually opens in March in the "Gulf" areas around the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island. The main hunt on the so-called "front" usually begins in April off the east coast of Newfoundland. It's pretty much over by May.
The 2008 harp seal total allowable catch has been set at 275,000, up slightly from 2007. That's down from the 2006 quota, 325,000, and about the same as the quota set from 1997 to 2002.
Seal hunters do not always catch as many seals as they are allowed. The catch in 2001 was 226,000. In 2000, it was just 92,000 seals. Sometimes, hunters are allowed to exceed the pre-season quota: in 2002, the catch was 312,000 seals.
The total allowable catch for harp seals is split between two areas: 70 per cent for the waters off Newfoundland and 30 per cent for the St. Lawrence Gulf region.
2. What about those cute whitecoat seals?
Whitecoats are newborn harp seals. Most Canadians can recall pictures of whitecoated seal pups being clubbed. The images were so inflammatory that Canada banned all hunting of whitecoats and bluebacks (in fact hooded seals) in 1987.
You'd never know that from some of the anti-sealing groups that still prominently display pictures of whitecoats on their websites and in fundraising materials. One site even features a downloadable video of people hugging whitecoats. The reality is that whitecoats can't be hunted anymore.
It's also true that young harp seals lose their white coats (and their protection) at about 12 to 14 days of age. After that, they're fair game for hunters, although they're usually about 25 days old before they're hunted. Most harp seals taken are under the age of three months. Young yes, whitecoats no.
3. Isn't it true that the hunt is cruel and seal pups are often skinned alive?
This is a frequent accusation levelled by hunt opponents. The International Fund for Animal Welfare says seals are routinely clubbed or shot and left to suffer on the ice until they're clubbed later.
The IFAW also charges that seals are often "skinned before being rendered fully unconscious" and said its observers found that few sealers check for a blinking reflex to confirm brain death before skinning begins. Similar "skinning alive" accusations have also been made by other groups, with many citing studies claiming that up to 45 per cent of seals are "skinned alive."
A 2002 report in the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that "the large majority of seals taken during this hunt … are killed in an acceptably humane manner." This study found that 98 per cent of hunted seals it examined had been killed properly. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) cites this study among others as proof that the hunt opponents are wrong in their accusations of widespread cruelty.
Regarding the "skinning alive" charge, the DFO says appearances can be deceiving. "Sometimes a seal may appear to be moving after it has been killed," the DFO says.
"However, seals have a swimming reflex that is active, even after death. This reflex falsely appears as though the animal is still alive when it is clearly dead — similar to the reflex in chickens."
Furthermore, the DFO says the club, or "hakapik," used by many sealers is "an efficient tool" that kills "quickly and humanely." The Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada found that clubbing, when properly performed, is at least as humane as killing methods in commercial slaughterhouses. Opponents say clubbing often isn't "properly performed."
The federal government acknowledges that it has laid more than 200 charges against sealers since 1996, but argues that shows it's serious about enforcing its regulations.
4. Isn't sealing an important economic activity for an economically disadvantaged group?
The economic value of the seal hunt is another one of those things that is open to interpretation. The federal government says the landed value of seals exceeded $16.5 million in 2005, providing a "significant" source of income for thousands of sealers — benefiting them and their families at a time when, according to the DFO, "other fishing options are unavailable, or limited at best, in many remote, coastal communities."
The DFO says the 2005 seal catch ranked fifth in value of all the species it monitors, after snow crab, shrimp, lobster, and cod.
The DFO also says the 2006 seal catch was one of the most profitable in memory, a combination of a higher allowable catch and a high price for pelts. Since then, however, the total allowable catch has been cut by 100,000 seals and the price for the best pelts has dropped from $105 in 2006 to an expected $33 in 2008.
Still, seal amounts to only a fraction of the $600-million Newfoundland fishery. But for some sealers, it represents up to one-third of their annual income. And in a province with jobless rates north of 15 per cent, they say that means even more.
Not so fast, say the anti-sealing groups. The IFAW describes the contribution of sealing to Newfoundland's GDP as "trivial" and says after costs and indirect subsidies are taken into account (patrolling the hunt, upgrading plants, promoting the hunt, developing new markets for seal products and supporting research to find new products), Canadians would "likely find that the hunt actually costs the Canadian taxpayer money."
It's a pointless activity, in the view of the IFAW, which says, "the only economically valuable part of the seal is its fur, a non-essential luxury product that no one really needs."
The DFO flatly denies that it subsidizes the seal hunt. It also denies charges that the seal hunt is not sustainable. It says Canada's seal population is "healthy and abundant" at about five million animals and "triple what it was in the 1970s."
But the IFAW says the hunt has become a "cull, designed more to achieve short-term political objectives than those of a biologically sustainable hunt." For one thing, the group says Canada's management plan fails to account for wide variations in the natural mortality rates among seal pups.
A critique from Greenpeace also said the quotas are "scientifically indefensible" because they don't take into account the actual number of seals killed in the hunt — including those that are "struck and lost," or discarded because of pelt damage.
5. We all know what's happened to the Atlantic cod fishery. Don't seals eat cod?
Yes, harp seals do eat cod, among other things. But both sides now appear to agree that seals and cod can coexist. In March 2005, Greenpeace called on then federal Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan to "dispel the myth that seals are hampering the recovery of cod stocks." A letter from Greenpeace said, "the DFO has been a partner in perpetuating this myth."
But the DFO says sealing opponents are setting up a straw man (or seal, in this case) and then knocking it down. The federal government says anti-sealing groups are wrong to suggest that it's allowing the hunt to help cod stocks recover.
"The commercial seal quota is established based on sound conservation principles, not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks," the DFO says. "Seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod."
The bloody images, the heated rhetoric, the impassioned defences — they all combine in a familiar rite that pits governments and sealers against animal rights groups that decry the hunt, even as they use it as a primary fundraising tool.
Few facts in this debate go unchallenged. All sides agree on where and when. But how, why, and even how many aren't dealt with as cleanly.
Even the language is chosen carefully — words become instruments of reassurance or weapons of outrage. Hunt or slaughter. Harvest or cull. Sea mammals or baby seals. Cherished tradition or economic disaster. Cod-eating nuisance or adorable innocent.
Words, of course, are only some of the tools. The images of the hunt can be much more powerful and seal hunt opponents know it. Most people find the pictures difficult to watch. Supporters say the same kind of thing happens in slaughterhouses — places where cameras aren't allowed.
But there's no question that those with an interest in the debate have studied the arguments and methods of the other side well, refuting the opposing argument to persuade the undecided or reconvert the converted.
Answers to frequently asked questions on this issue often begin from the same starting point before veering off in opposing directions. Here are a few of those questions and how the big stakeholders respond:
1. How big is the Atlantic seal hunt, where is it taking place, and what exactly is being hunted?
There are federal quotas for three types of seals: harp seals, hooded seals and grey seals. Most of the hunt is for harp seals. The hunt usually opens in March in the "Gulf" areas around the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island. The main hunt on the so-called "front" usually begins in April off the east coast of Newfoundland. It's pretty much over by May.
The 2008 harp seal total allowable catch has been set at 275,000, up slightly from 2007. That's down from the 2006 quota, 325,000, and about the same as the quota set from 1997 to 2002.
Seal hunters do not always catch as many seals as they are allowed. The catch in 2001 was 226,000. In 2000, it was just 92,000 seals. Sometimes, hunters are allowed to exceed the pre-season quota: in 2002, the catch was 312,000 seals.
The total allowable catch for harp seals is split between two areas: 70 per cent for the waters off Newfoundland and 30 per cent for the St. Lawrence Gulf region.
2. What about those cute whitecoat seals?
Whitecoats are newborn harp seals. Most Canadians can recall pictures of whitecoated seal pups being clubbed. The images were so inflammatory that Canada banned all hunting of whitecoats and bluebacks (in fact hooded seals) in 1987.
You'd never know that from some of the anti-sealing groups that still prominently display pictures of whitecoats on their websites and in fundraising materials. One site even features a downloadable video of people hugging whitecoats. The reality is that whitecoats can't be hunted anymore.
It's also true that young harp seals lose their white coats (and their protection) at about 12 to 14 days of age. After that, they're fair game for hunters, although they're usually about 25 days old before they're hunted. Most harp seals taken are under the age of three months. Young yes, whitecoats no.
3. Isn't it true that the hunt is cruel and seal pups are often skinned alive?
This is a frequent accusation levelled by hunt opponents. The International Fund for Animal Welfare says seals are routinely clubbed or shot and left to suffer on the ice until they're clubbed later.
The IFAW also charges that seals are often "skinned before being rendered fully unconscious" and said its observers found that few sealers check for a blinking reflex to confirm brain death before skinning begins. Similar "skinning alive" accusations have also been made by other groups, with many citing studies claiming that up to 45 per cent of seals are "skinned alive."
A 2002 report in the Canadian Veterinary Journal found that "the large majority of seals taken during this hunt … are killed in an acceptably humane manner." This study found that 98 per cent of hunted seals it examined had been killed properly. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) cites this study among others as proof that the hunt opponents are wrong in their accusations of widespread cruelty.
Regarding the "skinning alive" charge, the DFO says appearances can be deceiving. "Sometimes a seal may appear to be moving after it has been killed," the DFO says.
"However, seals have a swimming reflex that is active, even after death. This reflex falsely appears as though the animal is still alive when it is clearly dead — similar to the reflex in chickens."
Furthermore, the DFO says the club, or "hakapik," used by many sealers is "an efficient tool" that kills "quickly and humanely." The Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing in Canada found that clubbing, when properly performed, is at least as humane as killing methods in commercial slaughterhouses. Opponents say clubbing often isn't "properly performed."
The federal government acknowledges that it has laid more than 200 charges against sealers since 1996, but argues that shows it's serious about enforcing its regulations.
4. Isn't sealing an important economic activity for an economically disadvantaged group?
The economic value of the seal hunt is another one of those things that is open to interpretation. The federal government says the landed value of seals exceeded $16.5 million in 2005, providing a "significant" source of income for thousands of sealers — benefiting them and their families at a time when, according to the DFO, "other fishing options are unavailable, or limited at best, in many remote, coastal communities."
The DFO says the 2005 seal catch ranked fifth in value of all the species it monitors, after snow crab, shrimp, lobster, and cod.
The DFO also says the 2006 seal catch was one of the most profitable in memory, a combination of a higher allowable catch and a high price for pelts. Since then, however, the total allowable catch has been cut by 100,000 seals and the price for the best pelts has dropped from $105 in 2006 to an expected $33 in 2008.
Still, seal amounts to only a fraction of the $600-million Newfoundland fishery. But for some sealers, it represents up to one-third of their annual income. And in a province with jobless rates north of 15 per cent, they say that means even more.
Not so fast, say the anti-sealing groups. The IFAW describes the contribution of sealing to Newfoundland's GDP as "trivial" and says after costs and indirect subsidies are taken into account (patrolling the hunt, upgrading plants, promoting the hunt, developing new markets for seal products and supporting research to find new products), Canadians would "likely find that the hunt actually costs the Canadian taxpayer money."
It's a pointless activity, in the view of the IFAW, which says, "the only economically valuable part of the seal is its fur, a non-essential luxury product that no one really needs."
The DFO flatly denies that it subsidizes the seal hunt. It also denies charges that the seal hunt is not sustainable. It says Canada's seal population is "healthy and abundant" at about five million animals and "triple what it was in the 1970s."
But the IFAW says the hunt has become a "cull, designed more to achieve short-term political objectives than those of a biologically sustainable hunt." For one thing, the group says Canada's management plan fails to account for wide variations in the natural mortality rates among seal pups.
A critique from Greenpeace also said the quotas are "scientifically indefensible" because they don't take into account the actual number of seals killed in the hunt — including those that are "struck and lost," or discarded because of pelt damage.
5. We all know what's happened to the Atlantic cod fishery. Don't seals eat cod?
Yes, harp seals do eat cod, among other things. But both sides now appear to agree that seals and cod can coexist. In March 2005, Greenpeace called on then federal Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan to "dispel the myth that seals are hampering the recovery of cod stocks." A letter from Greenpeace said, "the DFO has been a partner in perpetuating this myth."
But the DFO says sealing opponents are setting up a straw man (or seal, in this case) and then knocking it down. The federal government says anti-sealing groups are wrong to suggest that it's allowing the hunt to help cod stocks recover.
"The commercial seal quota is established based on sound conservation principles, not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks," the DFO says. "Seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod."
Does it seem more biased one way or another?
Is there something you disagree with in this FAQ?
Is there something here you didn't know about before?
Are you still for or against it?
Is there anymore additional information you think could be added?
I figured since this was going around in a few other threads, that perhaps a general debate on the above, which seems to be the common beliefs of this topic, would be a better approach for debate rather then focusing on fragmented reports or arguments on the subject and then going around in circles. Based on the above information, there should be a decent foundation for all in the debate to start off from.
April 21st, 2008, 12:24 PM
This site has seen this debate a number of times. I think it's probably a yearly occurrence.
I worked as a fishery observer. I doubt very much that a group which is opposed to the fishing in the first place will be able to document the fishery in a detailed, comprehensive and unbiased fashion. I'm sure some of what the IFAW people say happens, does indeed happen. But I'm skeptical about the prevalence. Seals aren't the only ones that twitch after they're dead. Don't put your hand near a sharks mouth after it's dead, you just might lose it.
Then there is the groups claims about the management of the population. Well, it has grown from around 3 million, to over 5 million now. That's pretty healthy. They could probably take more than they do, but it's best to err on the safe side.
The IFAW claims that the pelt is the only economical commodity produced, that's rubbish. There are a number of companies which sell the seal oil as a nutritional supplement. Everyone knows about the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids. Seal blubber is an excellent source of the two best fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. The seal meat was even used in experimental aquaculture diets, with some success. But it's not available in large enough amounts to account for a significant feedstock.
This site has seen this debate a number of times. I think it's probably a yearly occurrence.
I worked as a fishery observer. I doubt very much that a group which is opposed to the fishing in the first place will be able to document the fishery in a detailed, comprehensive and unbiased fashion. I'm sure some of what the IFAW people say happens, does indeed happen. But I'm skeptical about the prevalence. Seals aren't the only ones that twitch after they're dead. Don't put your hand near a sharks mouth after it's dead, you just might lose it.
Then there is the groups claims about the management of the population. Well, it has grown from around 3 million, to over 5 million now. That's pretty healthy. They could probably take more than they do, but it's best to err on the safe side.
The IFAW claims that the pelt is the only economical commodity produced, that's rubbish. There are a number of companies which sell the seal oil as a nutritional supplement. Everyone knows about the health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids. Seal blubber is an excellent source of the two best fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. The seal meat was even used in experimental aquaculture diets, with some success. But it's not available in large enough amounts to account for a significant feedstock.
Mass'Debator
Posts: 4,282
Location: Atlantic Canada
Location: Atlantic Canada
April 21st, 2008, 01:51 PM
Yeah I imagine this debate gets kicked up again and again each year, but with a few threads in the past with an anti-sealing aspect to them and still showing white coats to argue their point, I figured something straight forward and cleared out would, with any luck, update the debates a little.
Yeah I imagine this debate gets kicked up again and again each year, but with a few threads in the past with an anti-sealing aspect to them and still showing white coats to argue their point, I figured something straight forward and cleared out would, with any luck, update the debates a little.
Electoral Member
Posts: 53
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
September 27th, 2008, 07:54 AM
I would bet that most people against the seal hunt is decided strictly on emotion. I don't see anyone going to bat for cow calves (veal). I know this is a very old argument but how do these people against the seal hunt explain how meat gets to the store. If a baby seal looked like a rat hardly anyone would care.
I would bet that most people against the seal hunt is decided strictly on emotion. I don't see anyone going to bat for cow calves (veal). I know this is a very old argument but how do these people against the seal hunt explain how meat gets to the store. If a baby seal looked like a rat hardly anyone would care.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
September 27th, 2008, 08:30 AM
I would care.
I would care.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,534
September 27th, 2008, 10:26 AM
Quoting TenPenny
Just a little tidbit of info; The IFAW has an annual budget of around a hundred and forty million dollars and when you consider that the seal hunt brings in only about sixteen million dollars to be split among all the sealers, it would appear that the IFAW could well afford to pay the sealers to stay home. Just a thought.....
The seal hunt and the surrounding publicity is the single biggest fundraiser for groups such as the IFAW.
House Member
Posts: 3,167
September 28th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Good point, Juan! The seal hunt has earned us nothing but misery overseas. It's an embarrassing bit of domestic stupidity. I've always been anti-hunt and I won't get into it again. I'm sure posts from me are archived here and at other posting hubs. You don't do dumbass things like this in a modern world.
Good point, Juan! The seal hunt has earned us nothing but misery overseas. It's an embarrassing bit of domestic stupidity. I've always been anti-hunt and I won't get into it again. I'm sure posts from me are archived here and at other posting hubs. You don't do dumbass things like this in a modern world.
