Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness

[KrakAttiK]

March 23, 2004



Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness



(Charlottetown – March 23, 2004) Despite international condemnation,
the commercial hunt for harp and hooded seal pups began in full force
today across the ice floes of eastern Canada, and IFAW (the
International Fund for Animal Welfare – www.ifaw.org) is out on the
ice to document the abuse.










As many as 350,000 harp seal pups will be slaughtered over the next
few weeks – the highest quota for harp seals in history. Seals may be
killed once they begin to moult their fluffy white coats – at just 12
days old. Fully 95 percent of the seals killed in the hunt are under
three months of age.

IFAW representatives are documenting this year’s hunt, both from the
air and on the ice itself. To date, IFAW has submitted video evidence
of more than 660 probable violations of Canada’s Marine Mammal
Regulations – including the skinning of live seals - to the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans. Not a single charge has been laid in
response.

Last year, IFAW collected video footage of unprecedented quality and
detail. Sealers were filmed from close range, clubbing and skinning
animals. In the footage, sealers were caught clubbing several animals,
then returning to kill each one – a clear violation of the Marine
Mammal Regulations. As the sealer would start to cut into the seal, it
would begin to thrash around. The sealer, seeing the animal was still
alive, would club it again. The seal would lie still, and the sealer
would continue cutting into it. Again the seal would move. This
process was repeated several times.

Sealers are required by law to perform a simple blink reflex test to
determine if the seal is dead before it can be skinned. In absence of
this test, the sealer has no way to ensure he is not skinning the
animal alive. But the sealers did not simple perform this test once –
another clear violation of the regulations.

IFAW submitted the footage to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
following the 2003 hunt as clear evidence of extreme cruelty to
animals and gross infractions of the Marine Mammal Regulations. Just
last month, the DFO informed IFAW they would not be pressing charges.

“It is clear to me the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not only
unable, but also unwilling to enforce their own regulations,”
campaigner Rebecca Aldworth said. “Allowing the very sealers caught on
this tape to return to the hunt this year is an official endorsement
from the Canadian government that illegal, cruel behavior is an
accepted part of the commercial seal hunt.”

To follow IFAW’s trek to the ice, go to www.canadasealhunt.ca.

End


For media-related inquiries, contact:
Katy Heath-Eves (IFAW) – Canada Tel: 1 (902) 628-4615; Email:







Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[Ködos]

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...

>
>
>
>
> Cheerio
>


I say! How are things in Merry Old England?

Now **** off. Killing Seals is good fun and you know it. You're just
jealous that you can't get in on it.
smells like pepper.

[Andy]

Hey ****-wit. they dont kill baby harp seals. Eben the National Geographic
says so.

I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.

I am going to Canada for skiing.

[Andy]

Hey ****-wit. they dont kill baby harp seals. Eben the National Geographic
says so.

I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.

I am going to Canada for skiing.

[Daniel Audet]

I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,
but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.
Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
their harvesting.
Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
others.

Dan.

[pearl]

"Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
...
> I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
> people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,

We're at least trying.

> but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
> this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
> up where Canada is on a map.

The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.

> Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
> struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
> England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
> their harvesting.
> Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
> others.
>
> Dan.

'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
only Can $6 million.

The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
Can $3 million. '
http://www.boycott-canada.com/

- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.

Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!

[Ködos]

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get
the
> > people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing
humans,
>
> We're at least trying.
>
> > but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians.
They do
> > this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should
look
> > up where Canada is on a map.
>
> The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
> serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
> objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.
>
> > Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
> > struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
> > England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to
perform
> > their harvesting.
> > Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
> > others.
> >
> > Dan.
>
> 'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
> dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
> seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
> figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
> only Can $6 million.
>
> The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
> and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
> Can $3 million. '
> http://www.boycott-canada.com/
>
> - Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.
>
> Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
> and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
> seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
> creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
> eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
> slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
>
>




Most of the seals are shot, what? Do you think they're still being clubbed?
Most of you get your information from the sensationalistic press which sells
subscriptions by showing blood. Some of you are gullible fools. Boycott
on, be our guests.

Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.
>

[Invective]

"Ködos" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message

> > Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
> > and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
> > seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
> > creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
> > eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
> > slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
>
> Most of the seals are shot, what? Do you think they're still being
clubbed?
> Most of you get your information from the sensationalistic press which
sells
> subscriptions by showing blood. Some of you are gullible fools. Boycott
> on, be our guests.

The English can't read very well. The news media can only get them to look
at newspapers by filling them with bare tits and sensationalistic gossip.

[Andy]

"Invective" > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
|
| "Ködos" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "pearl" > wrote in message
|
| > > Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
| > > and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
| > > seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
| > > creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
| > > eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
| > > slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
| >
| > Most of the seals are shot, what? Do you think they're still being
| clubbed?
| > Most of you get your information from the sensationalistic press which
| sells
| > subscriptions by showing blood. Some of you are gullible fools.
Boycott
| > on, be our guests.
|
| The English can't read very well. The news media can only get them to look
| at newspapers by filling them with bare tits and sensationalistic gossip.
|

Especially how Beckham bends it in Posh Spice

[KrakAttiK]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:38:22 -0400, "Ködos" > wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> "Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get
>the
>> > people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing
>humans,
>>
>> We're at least trying.
>>
>> > but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians.
>They do
>> > this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should
>look
>> > up where Canada is on a map.
>>
>> The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
>> serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
>> objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.
>>
>> > Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
>> > struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
>> > England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to
>perform
>> > their harvesting.
>> > Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
>> > others.
>> >
>> > Dan.
>>
>> 'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
>> dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
>> seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
>> figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
>> only Can $6 million.
>>
>> The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
>> and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
>> Can $3 million. '
>> http://www.boycott-canada.com/
>>
>> - Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.
>>
>> Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
>> and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
>> seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
>> creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
>> eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
>> slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>Most of the seals are shot, what? Do you think they're still being clubbed?
>Most of you get your information from the sensationalistic press which sells
>subscriptions by showing blood. Some of you are gullible fools. Boycott
>on, be our guests.

Are all cans as naive and gullible as you appear to be? it would
explain an awful lot.

>Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.

Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
retirement.
Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
civilized of the continent.

NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
prefer pride for something nice.


..




Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[Jim Carter]

> >Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.
>
> Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
> Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
> retirement.
> Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
> civilized of the continent.
>
> NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
> sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
> prefer pride for something nice.

You must be so happy to have saved so much money! It's too bad that you
will not be able to come to Canada and enjoy the feast of the delicious seal
meat. It is so good! The money you saved, is it from donations? I see
that you have asked for donations from the gullible English.

Jim

[KrakAttiK]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:50:24 GMT, "Jim Carter" >
wrote:

>> >Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.
>>
>> Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
>> Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
>> retirement.
>> Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
>> civilized of the continent.
>>
>> NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
>> sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
>> prefer pride for something nice.
>
>You must be so happy to have saved so much money! It's too bad that you
>will not be able to come to Canada and enjoy the feast of the delicious seal
>meat. It is so good!

Canada was known for many things before, culinary delights were not
one of them.

> The money you saved, is it from donations?

I worked and owned property in Canada, visited three, four times per
year on holiday and employed 17 Canadians.

I now don't and yes save a fortune.

> I see
>that you have asked for donations from the gullible English.

I have?





Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[Tim]

Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow international law
and not go around invading other countries that are of no threat.
Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around with
dictators like Ghadaffi.
Then maybe you can complain about our country.

pearl wrote:

>"Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
>>people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,
>>
>>
>
>We're at least trying.
>
>
>
>>but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
>>this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
>>up where Canada is on a map.
>>
>>
>
>The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
>serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
>objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.
>
>
>
>>Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
>>struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
>>England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
>>their harvesting.
>>Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
>>others.
>>
>>Dan.
>>
>>
>
>'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
>dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
>seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
>figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
>only Can $6 million.
>
>The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
>and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
>Can $3 million. '
>http://www.boycott-canada.com/
>
>- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.
>
>Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
>and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
>seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
>creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
>eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
>slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
>
>
>
>
>

[The Moe Szyslak Experience \(feat. Homer\)]

Mmmmmm, fresh seal meat. I like it even better than I like fresh bald eagle
meat.

--
I like the way Snrub thinks.
"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
> > >Boycotts don't work. Never have and never will.
> >
> > Certainly do. I have saved over £300,000ukp in ten years by boycotting
> > Canada, not to mention I would no longer be moving there on
> > retirement.
> > Which is a real big shame as we used to look upon Canada as the more
> > civilized of the continent.
> >
> > NOT any more, people think of Canada today and what do they see, state
> > sponsored animal abusers. Still, at least you're proud of it, me I'd
> > prefer pride for something nice.
>
> You must be so happy to have saved so much money! It's too bad that you
> will not be able to come to Canada and enjoy the feast of the delicious
seal
> meat. It is so good! The money you saved, is it from donations? I
see
> that you have asked for donations from the gullible English.
>
> Jim
>
>

[pearl]

Agreed!, but two wrongs don't make a right you know. You've NO excuses, either.
"Tim" > wrote in message ...
Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow international law and not go around invading other countries that are of no threat.
Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around with dictators like Ghadaffi.
Then maybe you can complain about our country.

pearl wrote:

"Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
...
I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,

We're at least trying.

but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
up where Canada is on a map.

The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.

Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
their harvesting.
Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
others.

Dan.

'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
only Can $6 million.

The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
Can $3 million. '
http://www.boycott-canada.com/

- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.

Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!

[Tim]

So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?

pearl wrote:

> Agreed!, but two wrongs don't make a right you know. You've NO
> excuses, either.
>
> "Tim" >>
> wrote in message ...
> Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow
> international law and not go around invading other countries that
> are of no threat.
> Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around
> with dictators like Ghadaffi.
> Then maybe you can complain about our country.
>
> pearl wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
>>>people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>We're at least trying.
>>
>>
>>
>>>but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
>>>this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
>>>up where Canada is on a map.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
>>serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
>>objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
>>>struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
>>>England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
>>>their harvesting.
>>>Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
>>>others.
>>>
>>>Dan.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
>>dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
>>seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
>>figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
>>only Can $6 million.
>>
>>The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
>>and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
>>Can $3 million. '
>>http://www.boycott-canada.com/
>>
>>- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.
>>
>>Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
>>and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
>>seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
>>creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
>>eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
>>slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[usual suspect]

pearl wrote:
>>I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
>>people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,
>
> We're at least trying.

To maim and kill each other?

>>but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
>>this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
>>up where Canada is on a map.
>
> The objection arises because of the cruelty,

No, it doesn't. It arises because you think "seals good, people bad." You pull
the same **** for other creatures regardless of the method of culling,
slaughtering, etc.

> which is an obvious
> serious breaching of humane conduct.

No, it isn't. If you ninnies had your way, we'd ban deer hunting on the same
grounds. Then we'd have even more ****ing deer around here, and more people
would be injured or killed from collisions with them. The seals need to be
culled to take pressure off local fisheries.

> Humanity everywhere

Speak for yourself. You don't speak for the rest of us.

> is objecting very strongly,

I'm not. Kill the seals, give the meat to the hungry, and save fish populations
for human use.

> and your refusal to listen harms you too.

Bull****, Lesley. Nobody is harmed by seal hunts. People are benefitted by them,
and so are cod populations. Remember all your boring threads about saving the
damn cod? This is one of the necessary steps, dummy.

<...>

[KrakAttiK]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:15:34 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>pearl wrote:
>>>I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
>>>people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,
>>
>> We're at least trying.
>
>To maim and kill each other?
>
>>>but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
>>>this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
>>>up where Canada is on a map.
>>
>> The objection arises because of the cruelty,
>
>No, it doesn't. It arises because you think "seals good, people bad." You pull
>the same **** for other creatures regardless of the method of culling,
>slaughtering, etc.

The objection arises because of the cruelty,


>
>> which is an obvious
>> serious breaching of humane conduct.
>
>No, it isn't. If you ninnies had your way, we'd ban deer hunting on the same
>grounds. Then we'd have even more ****ing deer around here, and more people
>would be injured or killed from collisions with them.

That's untrue jonny, if you and your deviant friends stopped
slaughtering the deer the population would in fact fall. It's
estimated deer numbers are 75% higher than they need to be in the USA
simply because of the rebound effect in population, directly caused by
hunters, who of course want high populations because it means they
don't have to walk so far to satisfy their deviant tendencies. Still,
if it wasn't deer it would be children or some other defenseless
creatures eh jonny?

>The seals need to be
>culled to take pressure off local fisheries.

Another myth

>> Humanity everywhere
>
>Speak for yourself. You don't speak for the rest of us.

Obviously you're not included in the term jonny.

>> is objecting very strongly,
>
>I'm not. Kill the seals, give the meat to the hungry, and save fish populations
>for human use.
>
>> and your refusal to listen harms you too.
>
>Bull****, Lesley. Nobody is harmed by seal hunts. People are benefitted by them,
>and so are cod populations. Remember all your boring threads about saving the
>damn cod? This is one of the necessary steps, dummy.

The fact is it's not jonny. The decline in cod globally is down to
over fishing, pure and simple, obviously not simple enough for you
jonny, have a lot on your mind lately? lol





Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[pearl]

"Tim" > wrote in message ...

> So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?

No, indeed not. Most 'livestock' suffers considerably up to, and also
at slaughter. As you can see, this has been addressed elsewhere..

Comment
From Jim Harrington
4-15-4
http://rense.com/general51/slscmm.htm

To those who have had their eyes and hearts opened by the seal hunt,
as a volunteer for my local Humane Society, I just want to assure them
that many, many people have worked on this issue over many years.
There is a growing push in the media towards fur fashion again, and an
expert on the fur issue reassures me that it is the gasping of a dying
industry. However, for those who are truly sickened by this treatment
of animals, there are many, many unseen atrocities being committed
that are blacked out by the media. Most notably in the meat industry.

Factory farming is one of the most horrifying practices that humanity
has come up with in recent decades. This last week we in British
Columbia have witnessed the slaughter of 19 million farm birds
because a few have exhibited signs of the flu. Several humans came
down with sore eyes and runny noses, and so 19 million birds were
slaughtered. The birds must be replaced quickly, to meet consumer
needs. Big opposition is occuring as no one wants the corpses
disposed in 'their back yard'. As with the heaping charred bodies
of cattle in Britain during the mad cow crisis (brought on by feeding
cattle parts to cattle) I wondered, WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION
to the 'cull'. The careless mass 'disposal' of another species made
sick by our own farming practices. In Asia recently, these ill and
healthy birds alike were violently grabbed and crammed mercilessly
into bags to be buried alive en masse. Shown repeatedly on
mainstream news.

There are many websites available to educate ourselves on the
inhuman treatment of animals. Factory farming is no less horrible
than the seal hunt. If we are truly affected by the mindset of a person
clubbing a seal to death with a pick, let us make each other aware
that this issue is but a speck on the radar. That our barbeques and
frying pans contain the results of no less brutal acts. ..'
http://rense.com/general51/slscmm.htm

I'll be happy when animals aren't killed at all, at least not
avoidably, without really very good reason,- i.e. survival.

Native Wisdom;

'The Circle of Life includes all plants, animals, fish, birds, insects,
humans. The only aspect of the circle that is not essential to life
is the human aspect "I mentioned the sacred circle of life. If you
can imagine a circle, in that circle are the people, plants, animals,
birds, fish, and insects. The Native belief is that if you damage
anything within that sacred circle of life, eventually you damage
yourself. If you take any one of those items, animals, out of the
sacred circle of life--everything would die. If you take out the
insects, eventually everything will die. If you take out the plants,
eventually everything will die. If you take out the fish, eventually
everything will die. What would happen if you take the humans
out of the sacred circle of life? What would happen then?
Nothing. We are the least important in that sacred circle of life.
The ancient beliefs are that we were the last to come along. The
animals, plants, fish, birds and insects didn't depend on us. Our
lives depend on a harmonious relationship with everything within
the sacred circle of life. That's the basis of Native spirituality.
It's not a worship of animals. It is a relationship, a strong feeling
with the natural world." Butch Phillips, Penobscot Indian Nation.'

http://www.nativescience.org/assets/Documents/PDF%20Documents/NatSubTechPlanWRKSHP.pdf

[pearl]

Harp seals and Cod
Questions and Answers

IMMA Technical Briefing 99-02
D.M. Lavigne, S. Fink, D. Johnston, and P. Meisenheimer
International Marine Mammal Association
1474 Gordon St.
Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1L 1C8

This technical briefing addresses commonly asked questions about
Northwest Atlantic harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and their
relationship with Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua).

1. Did harp seals cause the collapse of cod stocks?

No. At the time of the cod stock collapse off eastern Canada in 1992
it was popular to blame seals, European fishers and a variety of other
factors. Although the occasional claim that seals were involved in the
collapse is still heard, that view is not supported by any available
scientific evidence. As early as 1994, two scientists then in the
employ of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
concluded "that the collapse of northern cod can be attributed solely
to overexploitation [by humans]¼."1 Most of the interest groups
(including fishers, sealers, federal and provincial politicians,
government scientists and independent scientists) now generally agree
that seals did not cause the depletion and collapse of any East coast
fish stocks.

2. Are harp seals impeding the recovery of depleted cod stocks?

There is no scientific evidence to support the common contention that
harp seals are impeding the recovery of cod stocks. In 1995, 97
scientists from 15 countries signed a petition, which read (in part):
"All scientific efforts to find an effect of seal predation on
Canadian groundfish stocks have failed to show any impact."2 While
subsequent government 'fact sheets' posted on the World Wide Web have
repeated the claim the seals are hindering the recovery of cod
stocks,3,4 Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) seal
specialist, Dr. Garry Stenson, has acknowledged (consistent with all
available scientific advice) that "There is no scientific basis for
this statement and we are getting a lot of flack because of it."4 A
1997 international scientific workshop on interactions between harp
seals and fisheries - which included a number of DFO scientists -
"accepted ¼ that it could not [on the basis of available information]
assess the relative importance of predation by harp seals on the
current status of the northern cod stock."5 Still, some government
spokespersons persist in claiming that, despite the fact that harp
seals rarely eat Atlantic cod, they are an important source of cod
mortality. But even they have conceded that "The impact of seals on
the 2J3KL cod stock [i.e. the northern cod stock]6 remains unclear."7

3. So, why are cod stocks not showing signs of recovery?

Since the closure of the cod fishery in 1992, a number of cod stocks
actually have begun to show promising signs of recovery. In southern
Newfoundland, for example, a limited fishery was permitted in 1998. In
the case of northern cod, however, no real signs of recovery yet have
been observed. This is not surprising, given the slower growth rate
and delayed reproduction of northern cod relative to more southern
stocks.6 Even at the time of the moratorium, a number of biologists
predicted the stock would take a decade or more to recover from its
extremely depleted state.8

4. What has been the impact of the cod moratorium on the Newfoundland
fishery?

Much of the debate about seals and fisheries is predicated on the
dramatic effect that the 1992 collapse of the cod fishery, and other
traditional fisheries, has had on Newfoundland. In this context, it
should be noted that cod fishers and others displaced by the collapse
have been beneficiaries of the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery
Program (NCARP) from 1992-1994 and a subsequent $1.9 billion federally
funded compensation program known as The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
(TAGS), which began in 1994 and expired in August 1998.9 In June 1998,
it was announced that government had approved a new federal assistance
program, which would provide an additional $550 million for East coast
fishers after the TAGS program ended.10 Newfoundland Premier, the Hon.
Brian Tobin, was publicly critical of that program and, following
discussions with the Prime Minister, the Hon. Jean Chrétien, it was
announced on 19 June 1998 that the East coast fishery assistance
program had been increased to some $730 million.10

While the federal subsidy programs have always been well publicized,
it seems to have gone largely unnoticed that the landed value of the
entire Newfoundland fishery actually began to recover in 1993 and, by
1995, it exceeded pre-moratorium levels as some fishers, at least,
switched their attention to other fishery resources, particularly
shellfish.11

A great deal of misunderstanding remains about the importance of
fishing to the economies of Canada and Newfoundland. Although fishing
was Canada's first business12, it now contributes less than 1 per cent
to the Canadian GDP.13 In Newfoundland, fishing contributed an average
of only 1.4 per cent annually to the provincial GDP between 1993 and
1997, inclusive.14

5. Is the amount of fish consumed by seals a measure of impact on
fisheries?

Proponents of culling harp seals, ostensibly to benefit fisheries,
invariably refer to estimates of the amount of fish purportedly
consumed by seals annually to support their calls for an increased
seal kill. Recently, they misleadingly cited a paper attributed to the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization's (NAFO) Scientific Council
as their authority, without mentioning that the paper in question was
an unpublished manuscript co-authored by two Canadian government
scientists.15

Regardless, while claims that seals are eating tens of thousands of
tonnes of commercially important fish may seem to support the
conclusion that they are having large impacts on fisheries, that
conclusion may well be wrong. The figures themselves are derived by
multiplying the estimated food consumption of an average seal by the
estimated size of the population. If the estimate of population size
is wrong - as may well be the case for Northwest Atlantic harp seals -
then so too will be the estimate of its food consumption. The
available calculations also make questionable assumptions about the
availability of individual prey, including Atlantic cod. And, most
importantly, there is the problem that estimates of food consumption
tell us nothing about whether seal feeding behaviour is having direct
or indirect effects on the abundance of various fish stocks, or on the
catches of various commercial fisheries,16 including cod.

The correct interpretation of the estimates of consumption by seals of
commercially important prey can be found in the NAFO Council paper
itself.15 The authors noted that such estimates are merely "one of the
first steps in trying to understand the dynamics between seal
predation and commercial fisheries." Toward that goal, they noted that
"significant advances [toward understanding the relationship between
seal predation and commercial fisheries] will not be achieved until
more is known about the abundance of small fish and other sources of
natural mortality."15

In conclusion, while estimates of prey consumption by seals may
provide some measure of the potential for competition between seals
and commercial fisheries, they alone tell us nothing about whether
such competition is actually occurring. 16

6. Do harp seals selectively feed on the livers of cod?

While such selective feeding has been observed in seabirds, it has
never been documented in harp seals.

For many years now, fishers in eastern Canada have claimed that harp
seals selectively feed on the livers (or "stomachs") of cod and
discard the rest of the body. They further claim that such partial
consumption of prey would not be detected in routine stomach content
analyses, the usual method for determining harp seal diets. This view
of harp seal feeding resurfaced in March 1999, when John Efford,
Newfoundland's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, released a
videotape showing large numbers of dead cod on the bottom of Bonavista
Bay, many with their bellies gaping, "after a group of seals crowded
codfish into a bay and started feasting."17

Harp seals are not shown on the video, however, crowding codfish into
a bay; nor are they shown feasting (or even feeding). Nonetheless, the
situation described is somewhat reminiscent of harp seals and seabirds
feeding on aggregations of arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) -- a small
energy-rich fish, which is not commercially exploited -- in the
eastern Canadian arctic.18 Finley et al. noted that "the birds often
consumed only the liver of the cod" whereas "many of the fish" in the
stomach of one adult female harp seal examined "were still intact."

Similar events involving harp seals and birds feeding on Atlantic cod
have not, to our knowledge, been described in the literature and are
not captured on Mr Efford's video. Nonetheless, the video, together
with the available literature, usefully provide some alternative
explanations for finding cod in Bonavista Bay with their bellies
"ripped out." They also point the way to resolving the old conundrum:
do harp seals, on occasion, exhibit this sort of feeding behaviour on
Atlantic cod?

Lacking documented evidence that harp seals partially consume their
prey raises the question, how one would ever know if they do, on
occasion, exhibit such behaviour? The first line of evidence would be
expected to come from analyses of harp seal stomach contents and
literally thousands have been examined over the past 50 years.19
Contrary to recent media reports, some quoting fishery scientists who
obviously have never done stomach content analyses, the food in the
stomach may range from undigested (the seal ate just prior to being
killed) to fully digested (the seal was sampled long after its last
meal). In the former instance, the prey items are fresh, entire, and
easily identified. What one finds in such stomachs, generally, is
whole fish, stacked like sardines in a can, or whole invertebrates,
like shrimp or squid. In such instances, we are unaware of one
documented scientific report of fish livers in harp seal stomachs.
Absence of evidence, however, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Yet, when seals have been observed eating cod, scientists reported
that "they swallowed them head first and whole,"20 consistent with the
observations obtained from stomach content analysis.

Nonetheless, anecdotal claims that harp seals do, on occasion,
partially consume cod (and perhaps other fish) cannot be rejected out
of hand by the available scientific evidence. But Mr Efford's video,
and the fishers who appear in it, provide other possible explanations.
Their comments remind us of a 1960's publication, by the late Wilfred
Templeman, which describes mass mortalities of cod, such as the one
depicted in the video.21 Templeman suggested that such events are
triggered by cold temperatures and it is possible that the video
actually captures one such event. The fishers in the video go on to
explain how some of the fish (which may well be in a weakened
condition) got trapped at low tide and were preyed upon by a variety
of birds (crows, eagles, etc.). Indeed, some of the fish shown in the
video have wounds that look more consistent with feeding by birds than
with feeding by harp seals. Other fish shown in the video with their
bellies open are reminiscent of fish that died and subsequently began
to decompose. (Anyone who has removed rotting fish from a gill net
will know that it is the belly region that rots first and it would be
useful to conduct some forensic pathology to determine if this is what
may have happened to some of the fish pictured in the video.)

Mr Efford's video thus provides a useful starting point for further
scientific investigations. In addition to necropsies on the dead cod,
it might also be instructive to place some cod in intertidal waters,
allowing some to be preyed upon by scavengers and others simply to
begin decomposition. Such an experiment would provide documented
evidence of the nature of the wounds left on fish as a result of
predator feeding behaviour and the appearance of fish left simply to
decompose. Video recordings could be used to document which predators
(seals, birds, etc.) took advantage of the situation and the results
(the fish remains) could be compared with those depicted in Mr
Efford's video.

Further, it would be very useful if future events, such as the one
that recently took place in Bonavista Bay, could be studied (and
extensively videotaped) to try to understand why the fish enter
shallow bays, and to document the presence or absence of seals,
seabirds, or other avian predators and their respective behaviours.

Until such work is done, the question remains: does the video provide
-- as Mr Efford claims -- the vital evidence to initiate a cull of
harp seals to benefit the cod fishery? The scientific answer is,
clearly, no. Even if Mr Efford were correct in assuming that seals
were responsible for what is seen on the video, it would simply
confirm that seals do eat cod, which as DFO seal biologist, Dr. Garry
Stenson, has already noted, "isn't particularly new to us." The video,
Stenson continued, still "doesn't tell us what the impact of seal
predation is on the total population of cod, and that is what you need
to know before you can draw any conclusions."22

7. Is a cull of the harp seal population justified on scientific
grounds?

Prof. W. Montevecchi, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland
wrote, in 1995, that, "There is no scientific evidence that the
culling of large marine predators has ever benefited a commercial
fishery¼"23 In the specific case of Northwest Atlantic harp seals, the
1997 scientific workshop in St. Johns reiterated a conclusion first
reached by NAFO scientists in 198124 and repeated by DFO seal
specialist, Dr. W.D. Bowen, in 1992.25 It concluded, "It is not yet
possible to predict the effects of an increase or a decrease in the
size of the harp seal population on other ecosystem components,
including commercially exploited fish populations, or on the yields
obtained from them."5

In recent years, the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the United
Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Marine Mammal Action Plan has
attempted to develop a scientific protocol outlining a methodology for
evaluating proposals to cull marine mammal populations with a view to
benefiting fisheries.26 Suffice it to say that the Canadian government
has only just begun to do the sorts of analyses required to determine
whether a cull of Northwest Atlantic harp seals is justified on
scientific grounds. There is at this time no scientific grounds for
culling the population.5,16,27

8. Would a reduced seal population benefit commercial fisheries?

There is no scientific evidence that a seal cull would be beneficial
to commercial fisheries. In fact, culling seal populations might well
be detrimental to the interests of a commercial fishery.

The simple minded, "common sense," view is that if seals eat fish,
then, in theory, fewer seals would mean more fish for commercial
fishers. Even if a reduced seal population resulted in an increased
number of fish in the ocean, it must first be remembered that there
are other predators in marine ecosystems, and any presumed increase in
the size of a commercially important fish stock could well be eaten by
those predators before being caught by fishers. An equally "common
sense" argument tells us that if seals eat predators of commercially
important fish, then fewer seals would mean fewer fish for fishers.

9. What will happen if harp seals are not culled?

In the absence of an increased seal hunt or cull, harp seal numbers
would be expected to stabilize. Indeed, the relatively poor
"condition," slow growth rates, delayed maturity and reduced fecundity
of harp seals in recent years are indicative of a population that has
reached the limits of its food base.5,28 It is quite possible, in
fact, that the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population already may
have stabilized as a result of natural processes, and now may be
declining because of the large and likely unsustainable hunts of the
past three years.29

As for cod, given adequate protection and time, their numbers will
likely recover over the next decade. Dr. R. Myers (formerly a DFO
research scientist and now a professor at Dalhousie University in
Halifax), for example, has stated, "Decimated fish populations like
the northern cod will recover if fishing is cut down."30 This view was
reiterated by 97 scientists who signed a 1995 petition on Canada's
sealing policy. "If fishing closures continue," they said, "the
evidence indicates that fish stocks will recover, and killing seals
will not speed the process."2

10. Would reducing the seal population restore the "balance of the
marine ecosystem?"

Proponents of culling seal populations frequently argue that it is a
necessary action to restore the "balance of nature," especially at
times when a number of once abundant fish stocks are depleted. The
fact of the matter is that the "balance of nature" is largely a myth.
As early as 1930, renowned ecologist Charles Elton wrote, "The balance
of nature does not exist, and perhaps has never existed."31 And, as
Mangel et al. wrote in 1997, "the belief of the 1970s - that for
management purposes one could assume that ecosystems were stable,
closed, and internally regulated and behaved in a deterministic manner
- has been replaced by recognition that ecosystems are open, in a
constant state of flux, usually without long-term stability, and
affected by many factors originating outside the system."32 In short,
there is no preordained balance of nature and there is no "right"
number of seals or other organisms in a natural system. Reducing the
size of a seal population cannot restore something that did not exist
in the first place.

11. Where the issue rests today.

The scientific evidence and arguments summarized above will never
convince those who believe that Northwest Atlantic harp seals "need"
to be culled. John Efford, for example, made the following remarkable
statement in Newfoundland's House of Assembly on 4 May 1998: ".I would
like to see the 6 million seals, or whatever number is out there,
killed and sold, or destroyed or burned. I do not care what happens to
them.the more they kill the better I will love it."33 In March 1999,
he called on the federal fisheries minister to increase the quota for
harp seals from the current 275,000 to between 475,000 and 575,000,
with a view to cutting the population in half.17

Contrast Mr Efford's views with a recent statement by the much
respected Sierra Club of Canada in its sixth annual Rio report card on
the government's performance on environmental matters. In a section
entitled "Commitment to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Living
Marine Resources," the Sierra Club states: "Given DFO's appalling
record of over-estimating cod stocks, the government's willingness to
accept exaggerated estimates of seal populations and unsubstantiated
allegations of seals' impacts on commercial fisheries remains a cause
for concern."34

Concluding Remarks.

As the 1999 Canadian commercial seal hunt swings into full gear this
month, there are two over-riding questions. The first, highlighted by
the events of recent days, is whether a cull of harp seals is
justified on scientific grounds. The scientific answer to this
question is no and, for this reason, presumably, the Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not considering a cull at this
time.35 As its 1999 Atlantic Seal Hunt Management Plan states: "More
research is needed to determine the nature and extent of the impact of
seal predation on the population dynamics of prey species."

The second question relates to the sustainability of the harp seal
hunt. In each of the last three years, the reported and estimated
landed catches of Northwest Atlantic harp seals by Canada and
Greenland have exceeded Canada's estimate of "replacement yield" --
the number of seals that can be removed without causing the population
to decline. If the estimated replacement yield were correct, then the
government has not been achieving its management objective of a
sustainable harvest and the population should now be declining. Landed
catches, however, only tell part of the story. When animals that are
killed but not landed by sealers are accounted for, it now appears
that somewhere between 400,000 and more than 500,000 harp seals have
been killed in each of the past three years.36 Yet, despite the
evidence that the population might be declining, Canada maintained the
total allowable catch of harp seals for 1999 at 275,000,37 the highest
permitted kill since the introduction of quota management in 1971.

The question of the status of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal
population and the sustainability of current levels of hunting will be
revisited following an aerial survey of harp seal pup production in
March 1999. Following the aerial survey, further work on population
modeling to estimate total population size and trends will be required
to investigate the implications of various management options
regarding the future of Canada's annual seal hunt.

Notes and Sources


1 Hutchings, J.A. and R.A. Myers. 1994. What can be learned from the
collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 51: 2126-2146.


2 Anon. 1995. Comment on Canada's Sealing Policy. A petition signed by
97 scientists from 15 countries, at the 11th Biennial Conference on
the Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, Florida, 14-18 December 1995.


3 Anon. 1997. Understanding the Seal Fishery. Department of Fisheries
and Oceans web page.
http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/communic/seals/understa/utsf3_e.htm


4 Stenson, G. 1996. Email from Garry Stenson, Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, to Kate Sanderson, NAMMCO. (Obtained from DFO through
Access to Information legislation).


5 Anon. 1997. Harp Seal-Fishery Interactions in the Northwest
Atlantic: Toward Research & Management Actions. International
Scientific Workshop, 24-27 February 1997. Canadian Centre for
Fisheries Innovation, Memorial University, St. John's, Newfoundland.
41 pp.


6 For perspective, it must be remembered that a number of commercially
important fish stocks off Canada's East coast collapsed in the early
1990s. The Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stock of primary interest to
Newfoundlanders and to the sealing question is the northern cod stock.
It occurs in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) zones
2J, 3K and 3L (usually shortened to 2J3KL). This stock (or stocks,
more probably) sustained fisheries off the coast of Labrador and the
East coast of Newfoundland for centuries. Considered to be the richest
of the eastern Canadian stocks, it is also the most northern of the
commercially important Northwest Atlantic stocks. Its growth rate is
slow and its age at maturity old, relative to other stocks.


7 Anon. 1998. Stock status report - DFO Science. Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
http://www.nwafc.nf.ca/english/ssr/ssr97/2J3klcod.html.


8 Myers, R.A., G. Mertz and P.S. Fowlow. 1997. Maximum population
growth rates and recovery times for Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. Fish.
Bull. 95:762-772.


9 Schrank, W.E. nd. The Newfoundland Fishery: Past, Present, and
Future. pp. 35-70. In. Subsidies and depletion of world fisheries.
Case Studies. WWF Endangered Seas Campaign. Anderssen, E. 1998.
Despair greets loss of TAGS money. The Globe and Mail. 9 May 1998. p
A3


10 Greenspon, E. 1998. Ottawa approves new aid for fishery. East, West
Coasts get $925 million. The Globe and Mail. 12 June 1998. p. A1.
Ayed, N. 1998. Post-TAGS plan lacking if figures are true: MPs. The
Canadian Press. St. John's Evening Telegram. 13 June. p. 5. Gherson,
G. 1998. Pressure sparks new fishery crisis fund. Ottawa Citizen. 13
June. p. A4. Greenspon, E., E. Anderssen, C. McInnes, and R. Howard.
1998. Ottawa sweetens aid for fisheries. The Globe and Mail. 19 June
1998. pp. A1, A5. Walker, W. 1998. Tobin may have gone too far in
fishery bailout fight. Analysis. The Toronto Star. 20 June. p. A12.
Canadian Press. 1998. Canadian fisheries to get $1.1 billion. The
Toronto Star. 20 June. p. A12. Anderssen, E. Fishery package spurs
resentment. Ministers escorted out as angry Newfoundlanders accuse
them of 'destroying our lives.' The Globe and Mail. 20 June. p. A4.
Anon. 1998. Fishing for solutions. Editorial. The Toronto Star. 21
June 1998. p. F2. Anon. 1998. Ottawa's fishery" an expensive flounder.
Editorial. The Globe and Mail. 22 June. p. A16.


11 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. nd. Atlantic Coast Landed
Values, by Region. DFO Web Site. Http://www.
ncr.dfo.ca/communic/statistics/landings.


12 Bliss, M. 1987. Northern Enterprise. Five centuries of Canadian
Business. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto. 640 pp.


13 Statistics Canada. nd. Gross domestic product at factor cost,
primary industries. CANSIM Matrix 4677. http://WWW.
StatCan.CA/english/Pgdb/Economy/Primary/prim03.htm.


14 Statistics Canada. 1997. Gross Domestic Product at Factor cost by
Industry in Millions of Dollars. Newfoundland - Terre Neuve.
1984-1996. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 15-203 XPB. p. 9.
Statistics Canada. 1997. Provincial Gross Domestic Product by Industry
1984-1997. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 15-203 XPB. p. 5.


15 Hammill, M. and G.B. Stenson. 1997. Estimated prey consumption by
harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), grey seals (Halichoerus grypus),
harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata)
in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO SCR Doc. 97/40. 37 pp.


16 Lavigne, D.M. 1996. Ecological interactions between marine mammals,
commercial fisheries, and their prey: unravelling the tangled web.
Studies of high-latitude seabirds. 4. Trophic relationships and
energetics of endotherms in cold ocean systems. Canadian Wildlife
Service. Occasional paper 91: 59-71.


17 Hamilton, G. 1999. Nfld. Video casts seals as villains in 'killing
fields' of northern cod: Minister steals a tactic. National Post, 9
March 1999. P. A1.


18 Finley, K.J., Bradstreet, M.S.W., and G.W. Miller. 1990. Summer
feeding ecology of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) in relation to
Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) in the Canadian high Arctic. Polar
Biology, 10. 609-618.


19 Wallace, S.D., and D.M. Lavigne. 1992. A review of stomach contents
of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) from the Northwest Atlantic. IMMA
Technical Report No. 92-03 (Revised).


20 Pemberton D., Merdsoy, B., Gales, R., and Renouf, D. 1994. The
interaction between offshore cod trawlers and harp (Phoca
groenlandica) and hooded (Cystophora cristata) seals off Newfoundland,
Canada. Biological Conservation 68, 123-127.


21 Templeman, W. 1965. Mass mortalities of marine fishes in the
Newfoundland area presumably due to low temperature. International
Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, Special Publication
No. 6. ICNAF Environmental Symposium, Rome 1964. Pp 137-147.


22 Stenson, G. 1999. VOCM-AM News. St. John's. 10 March 1999.


23 Montevecchi, W.A. 1996. Introduction. Studies of high-latitude
seabirds. 4. Trophic relationships and energetics of endotherms in
cold ocean systems. Canadian Wildlife Service. Occasional paper 91:
7-9.


24 Anon. 1981. Report on Special Meetings of Scientific Council,
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. 23-26 November 1981.
Dartmouth, Canada. NAFO SCS Doc. 81/XI/29. pp. 14-15.


25 Bowen, W.D. 1992. Book Review. Marine Mammal Science, 8: 94-95.


26 Anon. 1995. Tobin Looks at Ways of Expanding the Seal Harvest.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans. News Release NR-HQ-95-07E. January
26, 1995. Here, a distinction must be made between a hunt, the
sustainable "harvest" of a natural resource that, by definition is
meant to remove some or all of the so-called surplus production for
direct economic benefit, while maintaining the exploited population at
some predetermined level in perpetuity, and a cull, which is designed
to reduce a population from its current level in order to achieve some
other, indirect management objective, such as reducing perceived
conflicts between seals and commercial fisheries. While the objective
of the Canadian seal hunt is often said to be a sustainable harvest,
it is also claimed to have the objective of benefiting recovering fish
stocks. As such the current Canadian seal hunt is also a cull. For
additional information and discussion, see Meisenheimer, P. Marine
mammal culls as fisheries management: insights from Canada's harp seal
hunt. Unpublished ms. Anon. 1992. Marine Mammal/Fishery Interactions:
Analysis of Cull Proposals. Report of the Meeting of the Scientific
Advisory Committee of the Marine Mammal Action Plan. United Nations
Environment Programme. 27 November - 1 December 1992. Liege, Belgium.
30 pp. Anon. 1995. Marine Mammal /Fishery Interactions: Analysis of
Cull Proposals. Third Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee of
the Marine Mammal Action Plan. 24-27 August 1994. Crowborough,
England. UNEP(OCA)/MM.SAC.3.1. 10 May 1995. 28 pp.


27 Anderson, D. 1998. Letter to Ms. Debra Probert. 19 May 1998. Note:
In this letter, Mr Anderson claims that "A number of mainstream
environmental groups, such as World Wildlife Fund, agree that a
controlled and responsible harvest of the seal herd is appropriate."
In response, Monte Hummel, President of World Wildlife Fund Canada,
wrote to Mr Anderson on 2 June 1998, clarifying WWF's position. Hummel
wrote: ".we have always disagreed with any claim or conclusion that
reductions in numbers of seals assist with recovery or conservation of
marine ecosystems, or components such as cod stocks.I would be
grateful if you would ensure that all staff in your department fully
appreciate the WWF concern that predator control is not at present a
scientifically justifiable action for the recovery of fish stocks, and
further that DFO no longer suggests that WWF supports this argument."


28 Sjare, B., G.B. Stenson, and W.G. Warren. 1995. Summary of female
harp seal reproductive parameters in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO SCR
Doc. 95/37. 9 pp.


29 Lavigne, D.M. 1999. Cull quota puts seals in the red. BBC Wildlife,
March 1999. Pp. 20-21.


30 Then DFO scientist, R.A. Myers, quoted in Strauss, S. 1995.
Decimated stocks will recover if fishing stopped, study finds. East
coast decline in cod resulted from overfishing, not seals. The Globe
and Mail. 25 August 1995.


31 Elton, C. 1930. Animal Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University
Press, New York.


32 Mangel, M., et al. 1996. Principles for the conservation of wild
living resources. Ecological Applications 6: 338-362.


33 Efford, J. 1998. House of Assembly Proceedings, Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. 4 May. Vol XLIII. No. 18.


34 Sierra Club of/du Canada. 1998. The Sixth Annual Rio Report, 1998.
Grading the Government of Canada and the Provinces on their
Environmental Commitments. 18 June 1998. Sierra Club of Canada.
Ottawa, Canada.


35 Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1999. Atlantic Seal Hunt 1999
Management Plan. DFO Web site.
http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/COMMUNIC/seals/eng/sealENG.htm


36 Lavigne, D.M. 1999. Estimating Total Kill of Northwest Atlantic
Harp Seals, 1994-1998. Marine Mammal Science, in press.


37 Anon. 1999. Anderson Announces 1999 Atlantic Seal Management
Measures. Department of Fisheries and Oceans News Release.
NR-HQ-99-1E. January 6, 1999.



D.M. Lavigne, S. Fink, D. Johnston, and P. Meisenheimer.

IMMA Technical Briefing 99-02

16 March 1999

http://www.imma.org/codvideo/harpcod_QA.html

[Invective]

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim" > wrote in message
...
>
> > So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?
>
> No, indeed not. Most 'livestock' suffers considerably up to, and also
> at slaughter. As you can see, this has been addressed elsewhere..

So stop eating, you dumb limey.

[Invective]

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> Harp seals and Cod
> Questions and Answers

Oh spare us your bull****. Five millions seals don't have an effect on fish
stocks? What do you think they eat, seaweed?
A full grown seal can swallow 30 pounds of fish every day. How much fish do
you think 150 MILLION pounds a day is?

Oh, but the fish aren't cute, and don't have big brown eyes, and aren' furry
and cuuuuuuutte.

Bloody phony British animal lovers. You've hunted every single animal
bigger than a badger to extermination and now *you're* trying to lecture
*us* on taking care of animals?

[KrakAttiK]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:42:22 GMT, "Invective" >
wrote:

>
>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>> Harp seals and Cod
>> Questions and Answers
>
>Oh spare us your bull****. Five millions seals don't have an effect on fish
>stocks? What do you think they eat, seaweed?
>A full grown seal can swallow 30 pounds of fish every day. How much fish do
>you think 150 MILLION pounds a day is?

Shame your simple mind doesn't connect over fishing with the decline.
Then you are clearly a buttwipe so go figure.

>Oh, but the fish aren't cute, and don't have big brown eyes, and aren' furry
>and cuuuuuuutte.

I don't know I think they are.

>Bloody phony British animal lovers. You've hunted every single animal
>bigger than a badger to extermination and now *you're* trying to lecture
>*us* on taking care of animals?

Because you're too stupid to understand compassion. Do you live in the
woods, when was the last time you met another human, have you ever?

And anyway people like you just need a kick up the arse.



Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[Tim]

pearl wrote:

>"Tim" > wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>>So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?
>>
>>
>
>No, indeed not. Most 'livestock' suffers considerably up to, and also
>at slaughter. As you can see, this has been addressed elsewhere..
>
>

So then we should be boycotting every nation that slaughters cows as well?

>Comment
>From Jim Harrington
>4-15-4
>http://rense.com/general51/slscmm.htm
>
>To those who have had their eyes and hearts opened by the seal hunt,
>as a volunteer for my local Humane Society, I just want to assure them
>that many, many people have worked on this issue over many years.
>There is a growing push in the media towards fur fashion again, and an
>expert on the fur issue reassures me that it is the gasping of a dying
>industry. However, for those who are truly sickened by this treatment
>of animals, there are many, many unseen atrocities being committed
>that are blacked out by the media. Most notably in the meat industry.
>
>Factory farming is one of the most horrifying practices that humanity
>has come up with in recent decades. This last week we in British
>Columbia have witnessed the slaughter of 19 million farm birds
>because a few have exhibited signs of the flu. Several humans came
>down with sore eyes and runny noses, and so 19 million birds were
>slaughtered. The birds must be replaced quickly, to meet consumer
>needs. Big opposition is occuring as no one wants the corpses
>disposed in 'their back yard'. As with the heaping charred bodies
>of cattle in Britain during the mad cow crisis (brought on by feeding
>cattle parts to cattle) I wondered, WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION
>to the 'cull'. The careless mass 'disposal' of another species made
>sick by our own farming practices. In Asia recently, these ill and
>healthy birds alike were violently grabbed and crammed mercilessly
>into bags to be buried alive en masse. Shown repeatedly on
>mainstream news.
>
>There are many websites available to educate ourselves on the
>inhuman treatment of animals. Factory farming is no less horrible
>than the seal hunt. If we are truly affected by the mindset of a person
>clubbing a seal to death with a pick, let us make each other aware
>that this issue is but a speck on the radar. That our barbeques and
>frying pans contain the results of no less brutal acts. ..'
>http://rense.com/general51/slscmm.htm
>
>I'll be happy when animals aren't killed at all, at least not
>avoidably, without really very good reason,- i.e. survival.
>
>Native Wisdom;
>
>'The Circle of Life includes all plants, animals, fish, birds, insects,
>humans. The only aspect of the circle that is not essential to life
>is the human aspect "I mentioned the sacred circle of life. If you
>can imagine a circle, in that circle are the people, plants, animals,
>birds, fish, and insects. The Native belief is that if you damage
>anything within that sacred circle of life, eventually you damage
>yourself. If you take any one of those items, animals, out of the
>sacred circle of life--everything would die. If you take out the
>insects, eventually everything will die. If you take out the plants,
>eventually everything will die. If you take out the fish, eventually
>everything will die. What would happen if you take the humans
>out of the sacred circle of life? What would happen then?
>Nothing. We are the least important in that sacred circle of life.
>The ancient beliefs are that we were the last to come along. The
>animals, plants, fish, birds and insects didn't depend on us. Our
>lives depend on a harmonious relationship with everything within
>the sacred circle of life. That's the basis of Native spirituality.
>It's not a worship of animals. It is a relationship, a strong feeling
>with the natural world." Butch Phillips, Penobscot Indian Nation.'
>
>http://www.nativescience.org/assets/Documents/PDF%20Documents/NatSubTechPlanWRKSHP.pdf
>
>
>
>

[pearl]

"Tim" > wrote in message .. .
pearl wrote:
"Tim" > wrote in message ...

> > >So, would you be happy if they killed them the same way they kill cows?

> > No, indeed not. Most 'livestock' suffers considerably up to, and also
> > at slaughter. As you can see, this has been addressed elsewhere..

> So then we should be boycotting every nation that slaughters cows as well?

The massive reaction against the seal killing is mostly because it
is _extremely_ cruel-, and carried out on a massive scale too.
Many seals suffer in indescribably awful ways, and such scenes
have been put into full public view this year. Faced with images
of extreme cruelty, people have been badly shocked and then
outraged, and that is, understandably, directed at the country
that carries out this horror. Were the realities of 'meat production'
made public in a similar manner, I think that most people would
be similarly compelled to oppose that, and would be boycotting
the meat industry by abstaining from meat - especially when
properly informed with the facts about nutrition- that we're not
a naturally carnivorous species anyway.. (clue: we're primates).

<..>

[pearl]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20625-2004Apr17?language=printer

[pearl]

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

[Olaf Timandahaff]

The game never ends, when, KrakAttiK >'s
whole world depends, on the turn of a friendly card:

>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:42:22 GMT, "Invective" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>>> Harp seals and Cod
>>> Questions and Answers
>>
>>Oh spare us your bull****. Five millions seals don't have an effect on fish
>>stocks? What do you think they eat, seaweed?
>>A full grown seal can swallow 30 pounds of fish every day. How much fish do
>>you think 150 MILLION pounds a day is?
>
>Shame your simple mind doesn't connect over fishing with the decline.
>Then you are clearly a buttwipe so go figure.
>
See what happens?
You loutish Europeans sucked up all our cod with your factory ships.
Nothing but seal left to eat now.

>>Oh, but the fish aren't cute, and don't have big brown eyes, and aren' furry
>>and cuuuuuuutte.
>
>I don't know I think they are.
>
I like to suck trout brains out through the eye socket, I think that's
cute.

>>Bloody phony British animal lovers. You've hunted every single animal
>>bigger than a badger to extermination and now *you're* trying to lecture
>>*us* on taking care of animals?
>
>Because you're too stupid to understand compassion. Do you live in the
>woods, when was the last time you met another human, have you ever?
>
You really are a Crackhead!
We _all_ live in the forest and never see other humans.
[except when it catches fire]

>And anyway people like you just need a kick up the arse.

Let us know when you start, tough guy!
>
>
>Cheerio

?

Ah, go have a wank ya radge.


"Certainly, I receive my share of strange libels and threats. Yet it
is essential that thug-like strategies not be allowed to silence valid
research and dissenting opinion."

Wendy McElroy -
>

[KrakAttiK]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:31:12 -0400, Olaf Timandahaff
> wrote:

>The game never ends, when, KrakAttiK >'s
>whole world depends, on the turn of a friendly card:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:42:22 GMT, "Invective" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Harp seals and Cod
>>>> Questions and Answers
>>>
>>>Oh spare us your bull****. Five millions seals don't have an effect on fish
>>>stocks? What do you think they eat, seaweed?
>>>A full grown seal can swallow 30 pounds of fish every day. How much fish do
>>>you think 150 MILLION pounds a day is?
>>
>>Shame your simple mind doesn't connect over fishing with the decline.
>>Then you are clearly a buttwipe so go figure.
>>
>See what happens?
>You loutish Europeans sucked up all our cod with your factory ships.
>Nothing but seal left to eat now.

Nothing to do with eating seal, it's about beating the crap out of
them.

Anyway it's the frogs and spanish who are sucking the oceans dry, we
just stand by and let them do it!

>>>Oh, but the fish aren't cute, and don't have big brown eyes, and aren' furry
>>>and cuuuuuuutte.
>>
>>I don't know I think they are.
>>
>I like to suck trout brains out through the eye socket, I think that's
>cute.

Not very hard though. Now if you tried it on me that would be another
story.

>>>Bloody phony British animal lovers. You've hunted every single animal
>>>bigger than a badger to extermination and now *you're* trying to lecture
>>>*us* on taking care of animals?
>>
>>Because you're too stupid to understand compassion. Do you live in the
>>woods, when was the last time you met another human, have you ever?
>>
>You really are a Crackhead!

They were simple questions. Do you have a gun?

>We _all_ live in the forest and never see other humans.
>[except when it catches fire]

No actually. I live in the city of London, M'am comes to tea every
week.

>>And anyway people like you just need a kick up the arse.
>
>Let us know when you start, tough guy!

Like today? go on I'll even pretend to be a defenseless cub seal, come
and try to club me....oik, oik.

>>Cheerio
>
>?
>
>Ah, go have a wank ya radge.

Ouch you beast.




Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[KrakAttiK]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:17:59 -0500, "Jeff T" >
wrote:

>I got something to say to you ignorant, arrogant Brits,

Shut it or we'll take our continent back.

> and others about the
>seal hunt. Clean up your own back yards before complaining about ours! How
>many fox hunts happen each year, eh? Oh, let me guess, it is considered
>"humane" to hunt down a fox with 20 baying dogs and then kill it for the
>fur. During the seal hunt, damn near every part of the animal is used... And
>further, man is the ONLY natural prediator these creatures have, as the
>others have been hunted to near extinction decades ago.

What on earth gives you the impression we support fox hunting? in fact
the perverts who enjoy fox hunting would also enjoy beating the brains
out of a seal pup.

Don't worry though, we'll soon have fox hunting banned in England, it
already is in Scot land. lol

>So I say, take your pompous ass up out of here. When the fox hunt, and other
>regional hunts in other countries has been put to a stop, then, and only
>then would I not think of you as a bunch of bitchy little hypocrites worthy
>of nthing more then the toilet paper I wipe my ass with.

I doubt you wipe it anyhow.


Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[Jeff T]

I got something to say to you ignorant, arrogant Brits, and others about the
seal hunt. Clean up your own back yards before complaining about ours! How
many fox hunts happen each year, eh? Oh, let me guess, it is considered
"humane" to hunt down a fox with 20 baying dogs and then kill it for the
fur. During the seal hunt, damn near every part of the animal is used... And
further, man is the ONLY natural prediator these creatures have, as the
others have been hunted to near extinction decades ago.

So I say, take your pompous ass up out of here. When the fox hunt, and other
regional hunts in other countries has been put to a stop, then, and only
then would I not think of you as a bunch of bitchy little hypocrites worthy
of nthing more then the toilet paper I wipe my ass with.

[Olaf Timandahaff]

The game never ends, when, KrakAttiK >'s
whole world depends, on the turn of a friendly card:

>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:31:12 -0400, Olaf Timandahaff
> wrote:
>
>>The game never ends, when, KrakAttiK >'s
>>whole world depends, on the turn of a friendly card:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:42:22 GMT, "Invective" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"pearl" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> Harp seals and Cod
>>>>> Questions and Answers
>>>>
>>>>Oh spare us your bull****. Five millions seals don't have an effect on fish
>>>>stocks? What do you think they eat, seaweed?
>>>>A full grown seal can swallow 30 pounds of fish every day. How much fish do
>>>>you think 150 MILLION pounds a day is?
>>>
>>>Shame your simple mind doesn't connect over fishing with the decline.
>>>Then you are clearly a buttwipe so go figure.
>>>
>>See what happens?
>>You loutish Europeans sucked up all our cod with your factory ships.
>>Nothing but seal left to eat now.
>
>Nothing to do with eating seal, it's about beating the crap out of
>them.
>
The tenderizing part of the process?

>Anyway it's the frogs and spanish who are sucking the oceans dry, we
>just stand by and let them do it!
>
Well that's true enough, they were trying to eat all our Turbot, but
the Tobinater fixed them with his Turbot fingernail rhetoric.

>>>>Oh, but the fish aren't cute, and don't have big brown eyes, and aren' furry
>>>>and cuuuuuuutte.
>>>
>>>I don't know I think they are.
>>>
>>I like to suck trout brains out through the eye socket, I think that's
>>cute.
>
>Not very hard though. Now if you tried it on me that would be another
>story.
>
Don't worry about it, I'm an omnivore, not a cannibal. Your brain is
safe!

>>>>Bloody phony British animal lovers. You've hunted every single animal
>>>>bigger than a badger to extermination and now *you're* trying to lecture
>>>>*us* on taking care of animals?
>>>
>>>Because you're too stupid to understand compassion. Do you live in the
>>>woods, when was the last time you met another human, have you ever?
>>>
>>You really are a Crackhead!
>
>They were simple questions. Do you have a gun?
>
Me? No, I make do with cleverly disguised pits and snares.

>>We _all_ live in the forest and never see other humans.
>>[except when it catches fire]
>
>No actually. I live in the city of London, M'am comes to tea every
>week.
>
Those Corgi's look kind of appetizing, see if you can snag one for us?

>>>And anyway people like you just need a kick up the arse.
>>
>>Let us know when you start, tough guy!
>
>Like today? go on I'll even pretend to be a defenseless cub seal, come
>and try to club me....oik, oik.
>
I gotta go to work so maybe another time.

"oik, oik"? Is that you Mark Knopfler?

>>>Cheerio
>>
>>?
>>
>>Ah, go have a wank ya radge.
>
>Ouch you beast.
>
I knew that one would drive you into a frenzy!

I gotta go, my house is literally melting.
Dam this Hothouse Effect!


"She's Too Much For My Mirror"

Don Van Vliet

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> Harp seals and Cod
> Questions and Answers
>
<SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>

Impact of Seal Predation on Cod

The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic
Canada, but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.

The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The
Panel acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and
requires an in-depth understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research. Findings highlighted in the report
include:

The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in
seal predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this
reduction would have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.

There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation and the state of fish populations. The interaction between
seals, groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance, seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on
cod. Moreover, other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be considered in trying to determine why cod
stocks have not yet recovered.

The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded. Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in
full, the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current management approach is maintained.

The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or
long term. Science and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by economic market conditions. More
importantly, there is no way of knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in the seal population.

Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending
on the type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies. The panel concluded that more comprehensive research
needs to be done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are consuming.

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> Harp seals and Cod
> Questions and Answers

<SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
__________________________________________________ ________
Impact of Seal Predation on Cod

The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.

The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
Findings highlighted in the report include:

The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.

There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.

The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
management approach is maintained.

The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
the seal population.

Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
consuming.
__________________________________________________ ________

I see no scapegoating.

[Terry Spragg]

This crap against seal harvesting is obviously posted by
professional agitators employed to erode Canadian sovereignty. It is
all emotive argument and propaganda, with no basis in reality.

Seals are part of the food chain. Humans eat seals. Seals eat fish.
Seals carry the worm that kills codfish and others. They are
predators in competition with humans, and need to be harvested in
reasonable proportion to the fish we harvest to eat, if the natural
balance is to be restored.

European draggers are killing the fish and spoiling the breeding
grounds for fish near the North American shelf. The bycatch is
wasted in appalling quantity. It amounts to an undermining of the
Canadian food chain, akin to the slaughter of the buffalo
perpetrated by newly arrived europeans hundreds of years ago.

This economic war we suffer from in so many areas (oil, wood,
potatoes, cattle, wheat, water, electricity, etc., etc.) is
conducted by wily, rich europeans who want to ruin the Canadian
economy so they can buy Canada at a discount and then exploit it as
they have exploited europe. They want to make Canada as devoid of
nature as western europe has become.

They do not like that Canadians are about the last nation on earth
where people are still somewhat free from overbearing governmental
control exercised on behalf of gigantic conscienceless corporations
who do not respect the sovereignty of free men, but are geared to
dominate and enslave all free men for only profit.

It is far more merciful to kill seals quickly, with a gun or club
than it is to let them eventually starve, having eaten all of our
fish, suffer disease, or be torn apart as playthings by voracious
dolphins, sharks and killer whales, with no benefit to native
peoples, who have been subsisting on the seal and what fish remains
for millennia, as is their natural right.

Sealskin makes excellent leather. Seal meat is excellent not only
for pet and working dogs' food, but also for people who have the
opportunity to enjoy it. Seal oil is superior to mineral oil for
many uses, and may soon become economically more profitable than
escalating oil in an artificially manipulated market.

Canadians spend more tourist dollars in europe than europeans spend
in Canada.

We should stop going there.

Terry K

pearl wrote:
> Agreed!, but two wrongs don't make a right you know. You've NO excuses,
> either.
>
> "Tim" >> wrote
> in message ...
> Maybe you can try to get your Prime Minister to follow international
> law and not go around invading other countries that are of no threat.
> Then maybe you can get your Prime Minister to stop buddying around
> with dictators like Ghadaffi.
> Then maybe you can complain about our country.
>
> pearl wrote:
>
>>"Daniel Audet" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>I find it funny that the group based out of England/ Ireland cannot get the
>>>people of ireland to stop fighting each other, maiming and killing humans,
>>>
>>
>>
>>We're at least trying.
>>
>>
>>
>>>but are willing to try dammaging the way of life for some Canadians. They do
>>>this by stating Canada isn't following European law. Maybe he should look
>>>up where Canada is on a map.
>>>
>>
>>
>>The objection arises because of the cruelty, which is an obvious
>>serious breaching of humane conduct. Humanity everywhere is
>>objecting very strongly, and your refusal to listen harms you too.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here's a hint. It's part of North America, not Europe. These people who
>>>struggle to make a living in a repressed economy are not subjects of
>>>England, not subject to European law and well within their rights to perform
>>>their harvesting.
>>>Work toward saving people from harm before destroying the livelyhoods of
>>>others.
>>>
>>>Dan.
>>>
>>
>>
>>'In 2001 UK tourists spent the equivalent of 1.026 billion Canadian
>>dollars - this is a massive source of income to Canada. Whereas the
>>seal hunt, by contrast, is a volatile industry and although accurate
>>figures are hard to come by it is estimated to be worth approximately
>>only Can $6 million.
>>
>>The hunt is actually heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government
>>and when the subsidies are taken into account it is worth closer to just
>>Can $3 million. '
>>http://www.boycott-canada.com/
>>
>>- Boycott is a predictable enough reaction.
>>
>>Observe http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/236982184 ,
>>and see the impact this is having on your country. People love
>>seals- they are regarded as inquisitive, friendly and intelligent
>>creatures. I'm sure you could earn a little extra cash welcoming
>>eco-friendly tourism in the area. - Just think- you are actually
>>slaughtering one of your area's best tourist $$$s earner assets!
>>
>>
>>
>>

[pearl]

"Terry Spragg" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
>
> This crap against seal harvesting is obviously posted by
> professional agitators employed to erode Canadian sovereignty. It is
> all emotive argument and propaganda, with no basis in reality.

_That's_ emotive argument and propaganda, with no basis in reality.

> Seals are part of the food chain.

Not ours. And besides, this slaughter is for fur, not food.

> Humans eat seals.

If it's truly essential for survival, that's another matter.

> Seals eat fish.

Human's want to eat fish. Humans trawl, humans take too much.

> Seals carry the worm that kills codfish and others.

If that's true, how do the cod catch it from seals?

> They are
> predators in competition with humans,

No, humans have decided that they are predators, and take
from true predators.

> and need to be harvested in
> reasonable proportion to the fish we harvest to eat,

Humans need to eat from our own natural dietary niche-
raw fruits, succulent fruit-like vegetables, roots, shoots,
nuts and seeds. Then we can leave the rest of the animal
kingdom in peace, as we ourselves would wish to be.

> if the natural
> balance is to be restored.

It will be- when we realise what sort of animal we are.
>>
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm


<snip>

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:SjSgc.34826$mn3.9966@clgrps13...
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > Harp seals and Cod
> > Questions and Answers
>
> <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
>
> http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> __________________________________________________ ________
> Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
>
> The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
>
> The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> Findings highlighted in the report include:
>
> The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
>
> There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
>
> The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> management approach is maintained.
>
> The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> the seal population.
>
> Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> consuming.
> __________________________________________________ ________
>
> I see no scapegoating.

'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
fish stocks were vanishing. '
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> news:SjSgc.34826$mn3.9966@clgrps13...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > Questions and Answers
> >
> > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> >
> > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > __________________________________________________ ________
> > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> >
> > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> >
> > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> >
> > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> >
> > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> >
> > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > management approach is maintained.
> >
> > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > the seal population.
> >
> > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > consuming.
> > __________________________________________________ ________
> >
> > I see no scapegoating.
>
> 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
> fish stocks were vanishing. '
> http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510

So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
the Canadian Government.

Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.

As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
populations. He simply noted that:
1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
began).
2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.

[Terry Spragg]

Invective wrote:

> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Harp seals and Cod
>>Questions and Answers
>
>
> Oh spare us your bull****. Five millions seals don't have an effect on fish
> stocks? What do you think they eat, seaweed?
> A full grown seal can swallow 30 pounds of fish every day. How much fish do
> you think 150 MILLION pounds a day is?
>
> Oh, but the fish aren't cute, and don't have big brown eyes, and aren' furry
> and cuuuuuuutte.
>
> Bloody phony British animal lovers. You've hunted every single animal
> bigger than a badger to extermination and now *you're* trying to lecture
> *us* on taking care of animals?
>

Bloody right. Or, pawns of EU, which wants competition for their
overfishing eliminated? How many fish left in EU, if they gotta come
dragging over here?

Terry K

[Invective]

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim" > wrote in message
.. .
> pearl wrote:

> The massive reaction against the seal killing is mostly because it
> is _extremely_ cruel-,

Bull****. It's no more cruel than any other kind of hunt, no more cruel than
how we kill horses or cattle or chickens. The reaction is because they're
cuuuuuuuuuuuuutttteeeee.

> and carried out on a massive scale too.

A miniscule fraction of the scale of fish killed, or cattle, or sheep, or
chickens

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:NiVgc.35105$mn3.3699@clgrps13...
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > news:SjSgc.34826$mn3.9966@clgrps13...
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > > Questions and Answers
> > >
> > > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> > >
> > > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> > >
> > > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> > >
> > > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> > >
> > > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> > >
> > > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> > >
> > > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > > management approach is maintained.
> > >
> > > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > > the seal population.
> > >
> > > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > > consuming.
> > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > >
> > > I see no scapegoating.
> >
> > 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> > claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> > seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> > harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
> > fish stocks were vanishing. '
> > http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510
>
> So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
> opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
> considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
> the Canadian Government.
>
> Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
> of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.
>
> As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
> didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
> populations. He simply noted that:
> 1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
> began).
> 2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
> Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
> anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.

Please. As if a link wasn't implied. And if you don't like the source,
see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."

[Invective]

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "I R Canuck" > wrote in message

More than five million seals. Thirty pounds of fish per seal per day. Do the
math.

[pearl]

"Invective" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
>
> More than five million seals. Thirty pounds of fish per seal per day. Do the
> math.

Which fish though? Fish eat fish too. What if seals eat
significant amounts of the fish that eat cod? ....

'culling harp seals in an attempt to reduce the predation
on cod could even backfire. Harp seals eat fish like capelin,
which may themselves eat young cod, he says. So culling
harp seals might even boost the number of cod predators.'
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> news:NiVgc.35105$mn3.3699@clgrps13...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > > news:SjSgc.34826$mn3.9966@clgrps13...
> > > > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > > > Questions and Answers
> > > >
> > > > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > > > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> > > >
> > > > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > > > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > > > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > > > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> > > >
> > > > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > > > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > > > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > > > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > > > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > > > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> > > >
> > > > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > > > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > > > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > > > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > > > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> > > >
> > > > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > > > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > > > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > > > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > > > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > > > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> > > >
> > > > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > > > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > > > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > > > management approach is maintained.
> > > >
> > > > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > > > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > > > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > > > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > > > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > > > the seal population.
> > > >
> > > > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > > > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > > > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > > > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > > > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > > > consuming.
> > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > >
> > > > I see no scapegoating.
> > >
> > > 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> > > claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> > > seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> > > harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
> > > fish stocks were vanishing. '
> > > http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510
> >
> > So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
> > opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
> > considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
> > the Canadian Government.
> >
> > Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
> > of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.
> >
> > As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
> > didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
> > populations. He simply noted that:
> > 1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
> > began).
> > 2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
> > Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
> > anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.
>
> Please. As if a link wasn't implied.

A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive. You poorly
interpret things and then draw false meanings. Like I said before,
that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
the same day.

> And if you don't like the source,
> see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
> and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."

http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
the right direction."

As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
that this isn't the only problem.

Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
an announcement of a quota increase.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
"He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."

[pearl]

'We could benefit from some new thinking on seals, and
a holistic reassessment of the roles played by seals in marine
environments must precede any experiments or new
initiatives that involve deliberately reducing their numbers.

Seal research has been an earlier focus of this committee(3),
and is currently at the forefront again, with the Minister’s
recent announcement of $6 million for a study on the
experimental use of “seal exclusion zones” in an effort to aid
the recovery of depleted cod stocks. Seal research is fine,
but any such proposed “experiments” must not be conducted
without the use of the appropriate scientific “controls.” And I
strongly suggest that this type of experimental seal research not
be undertaken before completing a holistic reassessment of the
roles played by seals in the larger marine ecosystem. Seals
have long lived in marine environments and their overall
contribution to these systems cannot have been negative (or
else they would have been eliminated millions of years ago(4)).
Therefore, although it is counterintuitive to many, the removal
of more seals at this point may not be without added risk to
the health of today’s declining fish stocks.

Positive contributions to ocean health that can be seen to be
made by seals include the production of zooplankton (via the
excretion of vast numbers of live worm eggs(5)), and the
scavenging consumption of dead or dying fish that might otherwise
undergo bacterial decay on bottom, with a resulting dangerous
depletion of oxygen from the water. In an oxygen stressed, low
zooplankton aquatic situation, air-breathing/zooplankton-excreting
marine mammals such as seals may therefore perform a unique
system-stabilizing role by consuming dead or dying fish, while
not removing oxygen from the water or succumbing to hypoxia
themselves.

These observations are intended to suggest some directions in
which the holistic effect of seals (and other marine mammals) on
ocean health might usefully be investigated. They also serve as
a warning of the nature of the adverse impacts on the marine
environment that may result from the removal of seals (less
zooplankton, less oxygen). Seals are an integral part of life in a
healthy ocean, and their actions today appear only to be part
of what naturally occurs when such a living system tries to
recover from damage inflicted on it. As fish eaters, the seals
will actively work towards the stabilization of an ocean
environment that supports fish…but the same cannot be said
for the bacteria that will break down dead fish in the absence
of larger animal consumers such as seals. The recent decision
to allow fishermen to shoot “nuisance seals,” as well as the
planned implementation of “seal exclusion zones” in Atlantic
Canada should be carefully reconsidered in this light. ..'

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" wrote:
> "Invective" wrote:
> > More than five million seals. Thirty pounds of fish per seal per day. Do the
> > math.
>
> Which fish though? Fish eat fish too. What if seals eat
> significant amounts of the fish that eat cod? ....
>
> 'culling harp seals in an attempt to reduce the predation
> on cod could even backfire. Harp seals eat fish like capelin,
> which may themselves eat young cod, he says. So culling
> harp seals might even boost the number of cod predators.'
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877

So, you bash any pro-sealer who makes a statement such as . .

"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
the recovery of those stocks" (Gerry Reid)

but not when the IFAW does it . . .

"So culling harp seals might even boost the number of cod
predators" (David Lavigne)

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:dmXgc.35179$mn3.6524@clgrps13...
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > news:NiVgc.35105$mn3.3699@clgrps13...
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > > > news:SjSgc.34826$mn3.9966@clgrps13...
> > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > > > > Questions and Answers
> > > > >
> > > > > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > > > > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> > > > >
> > > > > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > > > > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > > > > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > > > > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> > > > >
> > > > > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > > > > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > > > > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > > > > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > > > > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > > > > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> > > > >
> > > > > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > > > > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > > > > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > > > > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > > > > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > > > > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > > > > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > > > > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > > > > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > > > > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> > > > >
> > > > > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > > > > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > > > > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > > > > management approach is maintained.
> > > > >
> > > > > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > > > > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > > > > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > > > > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > > > > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > > > > the seal population.
> > > > >
> > > > > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > > > > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > > > > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > > > > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > > > > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > > > > consuming.
> > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > >
> > > > > I see no scapegoating.
> > > >
> > > > 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> > > > claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> > > > seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> > > > harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
> > > > fish stocks were vanishing. '
> > > > http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510
> > >
> > > So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
> > > opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
> > > considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
> > > the Canadian Government.
> > >
> > > Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
> > > of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.
> > >
> > > As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
> > > didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
> > > populations. He simply noted that:
> > > 1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
> > > began).
> > > 2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
> > > Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
> > > anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.
> >
> > Please. As if a link wasn't implied.
>
> A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
> study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.

Yes, it does. 42% of clubbed seals were found to have
insufficient cranial damage to render permanently unconscious,
and unless bled immediately (6% of the total), they were.
Of the remaining 58% many may have sustained severe cranial
damage during the skinning (79% of 'hunters' failed to perform
a corneal reflex check). Also, of all those observed being skinned
(counting possibles), nearly 40% were, whether shot or clubbed.

> You poorly
> interpret things and then draw false meanings.

BS. You refuse to accept the facts of the matter.

> Like I said before,
> that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
> statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
> the same day.

Read your own quote below.

> > And if you don't like the source,
> > see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> > the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
> > and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."
>
> http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
> "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
> recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
> excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
> explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
> higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
> need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
> and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
> increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
> the right direction."
>
> As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
> that this isn't the only problem.

Who said he did? Quit squirming.

> Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
> input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
> he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
> an announcement of a quota increase.

Please. We're not all complete fools, you know.

> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> "He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
> scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
> That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
> to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."

Said Lavigne, not Reid.

[pearl]

"pearl" > wrote in message news:...
<..>
> > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > "He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
> > scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
> > That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
> > to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."
>
> Said Lavigne, not Reid.

Sorry, should have been; 'Said Efford, not Reid'.

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:9CXgc.35180$mn3.6317@clgrps13...
> "pearl" wrote:
> > "Invective" wrote:
> > > More than five million seals. Thirty pounds of fish per seal per day. Do the
> > > math.
> >
> > Which fish though? Fish eat fish too. What if seals eat
> > significant amounts of the fish that eat cod? ....
> >
> > 'culling harp seals in an attempt to reduce the predation
> > on cod could even backfire. Harp seals eat fish like capelin,
> > which may themselves eat young cod, he says. So culling
> > harp seals might even boost the number of cod predators.'
> > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
>
> So, you bash any pro-sealer

I might well, should one get near enough.

> who makes a statement such as . .
>
> "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> the recovery of those stocks" (Gerry Reid)

By 'those stocks', he means commercial cod fishery stocks.

Read it in context:

'Minister Reid is also encouraged as he sees this announcement
as a small but positive step toward addressing the problem of
seal predation on groundfish stocks. The majority of groundfish
stocks off the province’s coasts have not recovered to
pre-moratorium levels, and it is speculated that the federal
government will this year once again close some cod fisheries
which were reopened in the late 1990's.

"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
the recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. ..'
http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm

> but not when the IFAW does it . . .
>
> "So culling harp seals might even boost the number of cod
> predators" (David Lavigne)

Get it? No?

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" wrote:
> "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > "pearl" wrote:
> > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > > > > > Questions and Answers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > > > > > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > > > > > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > > > > > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > > > > > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > > > > > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > > > > > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > > > > > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > > > > > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > > > > > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > > > > > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > > > > > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > > > > > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > > > > > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > > > > > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > > > > > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > > > > > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > > > > > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > > > > > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > > > > > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > > > > > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > > > > > management approach is maintained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > > > > > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > > > > > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > > > > > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > > > > > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > > > > > the seal population.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > > > > > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > > > > > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > > > > > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > > > > > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > > > > > consuming.
> > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see no scapegoating.
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> > > > > claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> > > > > seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> > > > > harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
> > > > > fish stocks were vanishing. '
> > > > > http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510
> > > >
> > > > So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
> > > > opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
> > > > considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
> > > > the Canadian Government.
> > > >
> > > > Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
> > > > of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.
> > > >
> > > > As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
> > > > didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
> > > > populations. He simply noted that:
> > > > 1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
> > > > began).
> > > > 2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
> > > > Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
> > > > anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.
> > >
> > > Please. As if a link wasn't implied.
> >
> > A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
> > study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.
>
> Yes, it does. 42% of clubbed seals were found to have
> insufficient cranial damage to render permanently unconscious,
> and unless bled immediately (6% of the total), they were.
> Of the remaining 58% many may have sustained severe cranial
> damage during the skinning (79% of 'hunters' failed to perform
> a corneal reflex check). Also, of all those observed being skinned
> (counting possibles), nearly 40% were, whether shot or clubbed.

You've assumed that all seals are skinned immediately. They
are not. The IFAW veterinary report never says "40+% of seals
are skinned alive" period! The IFAW observations showed
1.66% of seals skinned alive.

> > You poorly
> > interpret things and then draw false meanings.
>
> BS. You refuse to accept the facts of the matter.

It's the truth, you twist everything you read.

> > Like I said before,
> > that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
> > statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
> > the same day.
>
> Read your own quote below.

That statement was in regards to Mr. Efford not Mr. Reid.

> > > And if you don't like the source,
> > > see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> > > the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
> > > and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."
> >
> > http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
> > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
> > recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
> > excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
> > explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
> > higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
> > need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
> > and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
> > increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
> > the right direction."
> >
> > As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
> > that this isn't the only problem.
>
> Who said he did? Quit squirming.

There is no 'squirming' neither Mr. Reid nor Mr. Efford are responsible
for setting quotas. Why should their statements be used by yourself
as representational of the Canadian Goverment's opinions?

> > Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
> > input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
> > he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
> > an announcement of a quota increase.
>
> Please. We're not all complete fools, you know.

What is that supposed to mean, besides you are unable to respond
to my statement. Your source took Gerry Reid's statement out of
context and he's not even in a position to make decisions.

http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021202/wcodd1202/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

Mr. Reid doesn't set quotas. He is a provincial (not federal) minister.
You have no understanding of Canadian politics.

> > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > "He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
> > scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
> > That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
> > to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."
>
> Said Lavigne, not Reid.

Yes, please make note of "That doesn't mean that they aren't".

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" wrote:
> "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > "pearl" wrote:
> > > "Invective" wrote:
> > > > More than five million seals. Thirty pounds of fish per seal per day. Do the
> > > > math.
> > >
> > > Which fish though? Fish eat fish too. What if seals eat
> > > significant amounts of the fish that eat cod? ....
> > >
> > > 'culling harp seals in an attempt to reduce the predation
> > > on cod could even backfire. Harp seals eat fish like capelin,
> > > which may themselves eat young cod, he says. So culling
> > > harp seals might even boost the number of cod predators.'
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> >
<SNIP Pearls standard retardation>

*The point pearl is that Mr. Lavigne is making a statement not
grounded in any science, much like the statement Mr. Reid
made. You were critical of Mr. Reid's stance, but not of Mr.
Lavigne's.*

So, you bash any pro-sealer who makes a statement such as . .

"There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
the recovery of those stocks" (Gerry Reid)

but not when the IFAW does it . . .

"So culling harp seals might even boost the number of cod
predators" (David Lavigne)

[Jeff T]

"Invective" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tim" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > pearl wrote:
>
> > The massive reaction against the seal killing is mostly because it
> > is _extremely_ cruel-,
>
> Bull****. It's no more cruel than any other kind of hunt, no more cruel
than
> how we kill horses or cattle or chickens. The reaction is because they're
> cuuuuuuuuuuuuutttteeeee.
>
> > and carried out on a massive scale too.
>
> A miniscule fraction of the scale of fish killed, or cattle, or sheep, or
> chickens
>
>
>

I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a bunch
of regurgitated garbage.

Tell me, how do you feel about the current Peta poster campaign in Canada?

[Invective]

"Jeff T" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Invective" > wrote in message
> le.rogers.com...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...

> I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
> explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a
bunch
> of regurgitated garbage.

Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600 pounds
of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you want!

> Tell me, how do you feel about the current Peta poster campaign in
Canada?
>
Since I'm not from BC and don't have any children involved all I can say is
it's in extremely poor taste and shows just how few feelings or empathy
these morons have for real people.

[pearl]

"pearl" > wrote in message news:...
> "pearl" > wrote in message news:...
> <..>
> > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > "He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
> > > scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
> > > That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
> > > to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."
> >
> > Said Lavigne, not Reid.
>
> Sorry, should have been; 'Said Efford, not Reid'.

Darn- I will get this right. :p ...

'Said Lavigne, not Efford'.

lol.

[pearl]

"Invective" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
>
> "Jeff T" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Invective" > wrote in message
> > le.rogers.com...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
>
> > I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
> > explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a bunch
> > of regurgitated garbage.

You're either in denial, or brainwashed by pro-sealing propaganda.

> Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
> baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
> Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600 pounds
> of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
> government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
> seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you want!

Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.

> > Tell me, how do you feel about the current Peta poster campaign in
> Canada?
> >
> Since I'm not from BC and don't have any children involved all I can say is
> it's in extremely poor taste and shows just how few feelings or empathy
> these morons have for real people.

I don't know what campaign you're speaking of, but I'll say this;
What goes around, comes around. Your actions show an utter
contempt for wildlife- for life, and that's what you can expect back
from decent people, and life, until you begin to show some feelings
of empathy for other living creatures. Don't blame me- wise up!

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:gyYgc.35281$mn3.24244@clgrps13...
> "pearl" wrote:
> > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > "Invective" wrote:
> > > > > More than five million seals. Thirty pounds of fish per seal per day. Do the
> > > > > math.
> > > >
> > > > Which fish though? Fish eat fish too. What if seals eat
> > > > significant amounts of the fish that eat cod? ....
> > > >
> > > > 'culling harp seals in an attempt to reduce the predation
> > > > on cod could even backfire. Harp seals eat fish like capelin,
> > > > which may themselves eat young cod, he says. So culling
> > > > harp seals might even boost the number of cod predators.'
> > > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > >
<snip canuck's standard retardation>
>
> *The point pearl is that Mr. Lavigne is making a statement not
> grounded in any science, much like the statement Mr. Reid
> made. You were critical of Mr. Reid's stance, but not of Mr.
> Lavigne's.*

Mr. Lavignes statement is a call for some careful research, and
is a warning which demands halting the kill until more is known.
(Yet we know the primary reason for the seal slaughter is fur).

> So, you bash any pro-sealer who makes a statement such as . .
>
> "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> the recovery of those stocks" (Gerry Reid)

'no doubt'? -- That is not grounded in science- as you said.

'The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine
the impact of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium
or long term. Science and resource managers question the value
of a cull in a fishery driven by economic market conditions. More
importantly, there is no way of knowing how other predators
and prey might respond to a decrease in the seal population..'
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm

> but not when the IFAW does it . . .
>
> "So culling harp seals might even boost the number of cod
> predators" (David Lavigne)

True.

'There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal
predation and the state of fish populations. The interaction
between seals, groundfish and other species is complex and
variable. For instance, seals eat cod, but seals also eat other
fish that prey on cod. '
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm

'Moreover, other factors such as environmental changes and
fishing levels must be considered in trying to determine why
cod stocks have not yet recovered.'
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm

Again;

'Seals have long lived in marine environments and their overall
contribution to these systems cannot have been negative (or
else they would have been eliminated millions of years ago(4)).
Therefore, although it is counterintuitive to many, the removal
of more seals at this point may not be without added risk to
the health of today’s declining fish stocks.

Positive contributions to ocean health that can be seen to be
made by seals include the production of zooplankton (via the
excretion of vast numbers of live worm eggs(5)), and the
scavenging consumption of dead or dying fish that might otherwise
undergo bacterial decay on bottom, with a resulting dangerous
depletion of oxygen from the water. In an oxygen stressed, low
zooplankton aquatic situation, air-breathing/zooplankton-excreting
marine mammals such as seals may therefore perform a unique
system-stabilizing role by consuming dead or dying fish, while
not removing oxygen from the water or succumbing to hypoxia
themselves.

These observations are intended to suggest some directions in
which the holistic effect of seals (and other marine mammals) on
ocean health might usefully be investigated. They also serve as
a warning of the nature of the adverse impacts on the marine
environment that may result from the removal of seals (less
zooplankton, less oxygen). Seals are an integral part of life in a
healthy ocean, and their actions today appear only to be part
of what naturally occurs when such a living system tries to
recover from damage inflicted on it. As fish eaters, the seals
will actively work towards the stabilization of an ocean
environment that supports fish…but the same cannot be said
for the bacteria that will break down dead fish in the absence
of larger animal consumers such as seals. The recent decision
to allow fishermen to shoot “nuisance seals,” as well as the
planned implementation of “seal exclusion zones” in Atlantic
Canada should be carefully reconsidered in this light. ..'
http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
> "pearl" wrote:
> > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > > > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > > > > > > Questions and Answers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > > > > > > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > > > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > > > > > > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > > > > > > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > > > > > > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > > > > > > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > > > > > > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > > > > > > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > > > > > > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > > > > > > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > > > > > > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > > > > > > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > > > > > > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > > > > > > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > > > > > > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > > > > > > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > > > > > > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > > > > > > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > > > > > > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > > > > > > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > > > > > > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > > > > > > management approach is maintained.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > > > > > > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > > > > > > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > > > > > > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > > > > > > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > > > > > > the seal population.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > > > > > > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > > > > > > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > > > > > > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > > > > > > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > > > > > > consuming.
> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see no scapegoating.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> > > > > > claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> > > > > > seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> > > > > > harp seals in the North Atlantic at present – and commercial
> > > > > > fish stocks were vanishing. '
> > > > > > http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510
> > > > >
> > > > > So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
> > > > > opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
> > > > > considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
> > > > > the Canadian Government.
> > > > >
> > > > > Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
> > > > > of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
> > > > > didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
> > > > > populations. He simply noted that:
> > > > > 1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
> > > > > began).
> > > > > 2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
> > > > > Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
> > > > > anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.
> > > >
> > > > Please. As if a link wasn't implied.
> > >
> > > A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
> > > study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.
> >
> > Yes, it does. 42% of clubbed seals were found to have
> > insufficient cranial damage to render permanently unconscious,
> > and unless bled immediately (6% of the total), they were.
> > Of the remaining 58% many may have sustained severe cranial
> > damage during the skinning (79% of 'hunters' failed to perform
> > a corneal reflex check). Also, of all those observed being skinned
> > (counting possibles), nearly 40% were, whether shot or clubbed.
>
> You've assumed that all seals are skinned immediately.

Not at all.

> They
> are not. The IFAW veterinary report never says "40+% of seals
> are skinned alive" period!

It says exactly what I wrote above.

> The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.

Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
immediately? You,- when it suits you.

> > > You poorly
> > > interpret things and then draw false meanings.
> >
> > BS. You refuse to accept the facts of the matter.
>
> It's the truth, you twist everything you read.

No. That'd be you.

> > > Like I said before,
> > > that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
> > > statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
> > > the same day.
> >
> > Read your own quote below.
>
> That statement was in regards to Mr. Efford not Mr. Reid.

Good for him if he doesn't tow the same pseudo-official line.
But it doesn't look like it.

> > > > And if you don't like the source,
> > > > see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> > > > the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
> > > > and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."
> > >
> > > http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
> > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
> > > recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
> > > excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
> > > explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
> > > higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
> > > need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
> > > and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
> > > increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
> > > the right direction."
> > >
> > > As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
> > > that this isn't the only problem.
> >
> > Who said he did? Quit squirming.
>
> There is no 'squirming' neither Mr. Reid nor Mr. Efford are responsible
> for setting quotas. Why should their statements be used by yourself
> as representational of the Canadian Goverment's opinions?

I thought that as government ministers, they would be. My bad.

> > > Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
> > > input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
> > > he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
> > > an announcement of a quota increase.
> >
> > Please. We're not all complete fools, you know.
>
> What is that supposed to mean,

Your comment that such a statement was 'reactionary' is nonsense.
They've been harrassing the federal government for years on those
grounds. See; http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/1999/fishaq/0309n02.htm .

> besides you are unable to respond
> to my statement. Your source took Gerry Reid's statement out of
> context and he's not even in a position to make decisions.
>
> http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021202/wcodd1202/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
>
> Mr. Reid doesn't set quotas. He is a provincial (not federal) minister.
> You have no understanding of Canadian politics.

As a minister, Reid can influence policies made by the federal government.

And, every time he's quoted in national and international press laying the
blame on seals for the state of the cod, people in Canada and elsewhere
accept it as factual, and as validation for the seal kill. You've seen it here.

> > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > "He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
> > > scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
> > > That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
> > > to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."
> >
> > Said Lavigne, not Efford. (corrected).
>
> Yes, please make note of "That doesn't mean that they aren't".

'.. it's just that there's no evidence to suggest they are'. Twit.

[pearl]

To clarify;

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
<..>
> > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
>
> Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> immediately? You,- when it suits you.

I meant- counting only those *observed* being skinned, which
you used to find the percentage of the total- observed and not.

<..>

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" wrote:
> "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > "pearl" wrote:
> > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > > > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > > > > > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Harp seals and Cod
> > > > > > > > > Questions and Answers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <SNIP Answers to questions posed by those who've done no research
> > > > > > > > and would like to pretend Canada is 'scapegoating' the seal>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/hq-ac01b_e.htm
> > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > > > > Impact of Seal Predation on Cod
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The 2001 Report of the Eminent Panel on Seal Management concluded
> > > > > > > > that seals consume large amounts of fish throughout Atlantic Canada,
> > > > > > > > but there is much less evidence that this predation is having a major
> > > > > > > > impact on the recovery of most commercial fish stocks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The findings of the report were not conclusive and many uncertainties
> > > > > > > > were acknowledged in providing realistic predictions. The Panel
> > > > > > > > acknowledged that gaining an understanding of the real impact of seals
> > > > > > > > on the recovery of cod is extremely complex and requires an in-depth
> > > > > > > > understanding of the marine ecosystem as well as additional research.
> > > > > > > > Findings highlighted in the report include:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The consumption of cod, and some other commercial species, by seals
> > > > > > > > in Divisions 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn is so large that a reduction in seal
> > > > > > > > predation could reasonably be expected to have a substantial effect on
> > > > > > > > the size of these stocks. However, the extent of this reduction would
> > > > > > > > have to be large in order for an impact to be observed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is not a simple, straight-line relationship between seal predation
> > > > > > > > and the state of fish populations. The interaction between seals,
> > > > > > > > groundfish and other species is complex and variable. For instance,
> > > > > > > > seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod. Moreover,
> > > > > > > > other factors such as environmental changes and fishing levels must be
> > > > > > > > considered in trying to determine why cod stocks have not yet recovered.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The harp seal population has grown to the highest level recorded.
> > > > > > > > Coupled with the fact that the annual TAC has rarely been taken in full,
> > > > > > > > the panel expects a gradual increase in seal numbers if the current
> > > > > > > > management approach is maintained.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The current scientific knowledge is insufficient to determine the impact
> > > > > > > > of a seal cull on cod fisheries in the short, medium or long term. Science
> > > > > > > > and resource managers question the value of a cull in a fishery driven by
> > > > > > > > economic market conditions. More importantly, there is no way of
> > > > > > > > knowing how other predators and prey might respond to a decrease in
> > > > > > > > the seal population.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Current estimates of cod consumption by seals vary greatly from less
> > > > > > > > than one per cent to more than 20 per cent of diet, depending on the
> > > > > > > > type of seal researched, the time of year and location of the studies.
> > > > > > > > The panel concluded that more comprehensive research needs to be
> > > > > > > > done to more accurately estimate the amount of cod that seals are
> > > > > > > > consuming.
> > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ ________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see no scapegoating.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
> > > > > > > claims about the hunt were simply wrong. He argued that the
> > > > > > > seal population was exploding - with an estimated 5.2 million
> > > > > > > harp seals in the North Atlantic at present - and commercial
> > > > > > > fish stocks were vanishing. '
> > > > > > > http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=041304105510
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, let me get this straight. When looking for Canadian Goverment
> > > > > > opinions, one should look to 'indolink' an indian news site (Even
> > > > > > considering they don't provide a quote) as opposed to say . . .
> > > > > > the Canadian Government.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Face it pearl, the Canadian Government has been falsely accused
> > > > > > of 'scapegoating' seals as the cause of the decline in fish stocks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as John Efford goes. Even in the 'indolink' news story, he
> > > > > > didn't accuse the seal of being the cause for the decline in cod
> > > > > > populations. He simply noted that:
> > > > > > 1. The seal population has reached a record high (since recording
> > > > > > began).
> > > > > > 2. The commercial fish stock is vanishing.
> > > > > > Both of which are true. It's not up to you to put words into his (or
> > > > > > anyone elses) mouth, like you do so often.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please. As if a link wasn't implied.
> > > >
> > > > A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
> > > > study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.
> > >
> > > Yes, it does. 42% of clubbed seals were found to have
> > > insufficient cranial damage to render permanently unconscious,
> > > and unless bled immediately (6% of the total), they were.
> > > Of the remaining 58% many may have sustained severe cranial
> > > damage during the skinning (79% of 'hunters' failed to perform
> > > a corneal reflex check). Also, of all those observed being skinned
> > > (counting possibles), nearly 40% were, whether shot or clubbed.
> >
> > You've assumed that all seals are skinned immediately.
>
> Not at all.

The IFAW observed 180 seals being killed. It observed 3 being
skinned alive (and 4 possibly). You, and many of your sources,
state that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.

> > They
> > are not. The IFAW veterinary report never says "40+% of seals
> > are skinned alive" period!
>
> It says exactly what I wrote above.

Yes, none of which is "40% of seals are skinned alive".

> > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
>
> Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> immediately? You,- when it suits you.

I need to assume nothing. The IFAW OBSERVED 180 seals being
killed. They OBSERVED 3 being skinned alive.

3/180 is 1.66%.

> > > > You poorly
> > > > interpret things and then draw false meanings.
> > >
> > > BS. You refuse to accept the facts of the matter.
> >
> > It's the truth, you twist everything you read.
>
> No. That'd be you.
>
> > > > Like I said before,
> > > > that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
> > > > statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
> > > > the same day.
> > >
> > > Read your own quote below.
> >
> > That statement was in regards to Mr. Efford not Mr. Reid.
>
> Good for him if he doesn't tow the same pseudo-official line.
> But it doesn't look like it.

The point is that your source was bad. You don't quote someone
without quoting them?

> > > > > And if you don't like the source,
> > > > > see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> > > > > the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
> > > > > and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
> > > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
> > > > recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
> > > > excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
> > > > explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
> > > > higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
> > > > need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
> > > > and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
> > > > increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
> > > > the right direction."
> > > >
> > > > As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
> > > > that this isn't the only problem.
> > >
> > > Who said he did? Quit squirming.
> >
> > There is no 'squirming' neither Mr. Reid nor Mr. Efford are responsible
> > for setting quotas. Why should their statements be used by yourself
> > as representational of the Canadian Goverment's opinions?
>
> I thought that as government ministers, they would be. My bad.

They are ministers in Newfoundland's (not Canada's) parlaiment.

> > > > Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
> > > > input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
> > > > he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
> > > > an announcement of a quota increase.
> > >
> > > Please. We're not all complete fools, you know.
> >
> > What is that supposed to mean,
>
> Your comment that such a statement was 'reactionary' is nonsense.
> They've been harrassing the federal government for years on those
> grounds. See; http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/1999/fishaq/0309n02.htm .

Re-read http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
It was a reactionary statement. It doesn't matter if he's said similar
things before, it WAS a reactionary statement.

> > besides you are unable to respond
> > to my statement. Your source took Gerry Reid's statement out of
> > context and he's not even in a position to make decisions.
> >
> > http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021202/wcodd1202/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
> >
> > Mr. Reid doesn't set quotas. He is a provincial (not federal) minister.
> > You have no understanding of Canadian politics.
>
> As a minister, Reid can influence policies made by the federal government.

As a minister in Newfoundland parlaiment he can influence policies made
by the Newfoundland Government. The seal hunt is not a provincial
policy.

> And, every time he's quoted in national and international press laying the
> blame on seals for the state of the cod, people in Canada and elsewhere
> accept it as factual, and as validation for the seal kill. You've seen it here.

When your sources state that the seal has no impact on the fish stocks
people believe that. When your sources state that 40% of seals are
being skinned alive people believe that. The lies your sources tell are
just as bad.

> > > > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > > "He says the decline in cod stocks is due to overfishing. "There is no
> > > > scientific evidence to suggest that harp seals impede their recovery.
> > > > That doesn't mean that they aren't - it's just that there's no evidence
> > > > to suggest they are," he told New Scientist."
> > >
> > > Said Lavigne, not Efford. (corrected).
> >
> > Yes, please make note of "That doesn't mean that they aren't".
>
> '.. it's just that there's no evidence to suggest they are'. Twit.

oh, no, you called me a twit.

[I R Canuck]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> To clarify;
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
> <..>
> > > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
> >
> > Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> > immediately? You,- when it suits you.
>
> I meant- counting only those *observed* being skinned, which
> you used to find the percentage of the total- observed and not.

Pearl, again . . .

The IFAW observed 180 seals being killed. They observed 3 skinned
alive.

3/180 = 1.66%

The seals which were skinned at a later time (remember they were
already observed being killed) are dead. Therefore, they would not
have been skinned alive.

[I R Canuck]

"Invective" > wrote in message . rogers.com...
>
> "Jeff T" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Invective" > wrote in message
> > le.rogers.com...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
>
> > I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
> > explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a
> bunch
> > of regurgitated garbage.
>
> Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
> baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
> Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600 pounds
> of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
> government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
> seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you want!
>
> > Tell me, how do you feel about the current Peta poster campaign in
> Canada?
> >
> Since I'm not from BC and don't have any children involved all I can say is
> it's in extremely poor taste and shows just how few feelings or empathy
> these morons have for real people.

It's not just BC, they've got one of the billboards in Edmonton too. I saw
it over the weekend, while driving home on the Yellowhead.

[Invective]

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Invective" > wrote in message
> . rogers.com...
> > Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
> > baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
> > Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600
pounds
> > of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
> > government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
> > seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you
want!
>
> Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
> now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
> increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.

The goodwill of ignorant Eurotrash? Who wants it? Who needs it?

> > > Tell me, how do you feel about the current Peta poster campaign in
> > Canada?
> > >
> > Since I'm not from BC and don't have any children involved all I can say
is
> > it's in extremely poor taste and shows just how few feelings or empathy
> > these morons have for real people.
>
> I don't know what campaign you're speaking of, but I'll say this;
> What goes around, comes around. Your actions show an utter
> contempt for wildlife-

Nope. Just an utter contempt for shallow, phoney, so-called
environmentalists.

And you know what? We HAVE wildlife! Where's yours? Oh yeah, IT'S DEAD! You
SLAUGHTERED IT ALL!
You EXTERMINATED all your wildlife! Now you're snivelling to us about how we
should be taking care of ours? There's well over five million seals in that
one area, you moronic British knob. So it seems to me they're in no danger
of extinction.

Unlike the tens of millions of fish they consume EACH AND EVERY DAY.

But you don't give a damn about the fish, because they're slimy and ugly.
Oooo! Oooo! look at the pretty little baby sealllss! Ooooooooo! They're so
ccuuuuuuuuuttte!

Sorry Miss Eurotrash, but we don't base wildlife management decisions on
which animal is the *prettiest*.

We'll take care of our wildlife a hell of a lot better than you did yours.

[Invective]

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
> March 23, 2004

Fri, April 16, 2004

The slaughter of the truth
By MICHAEL HARRIS -- For the Ottawa Sun




Not much has changed since that brilliant March day back in 1981 on the St.
John's waterfront when Captain Morrissey Johnson threw a Greenpeace
demonstrator off the deck of the Lady Johnson before setting sail for the
annual Newfoundland seal hunt.

I can still hear the smack. The young lady hit the wharf with a thud heard
around the world. The crowd of Newfoundlanders cheered lustily. They were
there for the traditional blessing of the fleet, wishing safe passage for
their "swilers" and they didn't appreciate the international condemnation
and humiliation that the "come-from-aways" were dishing out.

What their urban denouncers did not know is that many of the people on the
dock that day had lost family members in the annual trek to the hunt which
had been going on since 1800. In the 19th century, the seal hunt, then a
land-based harvest, accounted for a staggering one-third of Newfoundland's
exports. Much of the island's history has been written in human blood in the
twin quest for cod and seal.

To this day, seal flippers are a hot commodity on the St. John's waterfront
every spring, the main ingredient in flipper pie. Newfoundland is a place
where rural people still have their feed of moose, caribou, seal, ptarmigan,
and wild salmon according to the season. There are no sushi restaurants in
places like Harbour Grace, Twillingate, or Harbour Breton. But there is the
land and sea and everything in them.

All these years later, emotions are still running high. In the United
Kingdom, the Independent made the seal hunt its lead story under the
headline, "The Bloody Slaughter." Even the BBC intoned that up to 350,000
"baby seals" would be killed this season, a gross distortion of the facts.
And so the standoff continues. Newfoundlanders sorely resent their
vilification by animal rights activists and the protesters continue to
display an appalling ignorance and opportunistic exploitation of the seal
hunt. Brigitte Bardot may have been replaced by Paris Hilton as the poster
girl of the anti-sealing lobby, but the appeal is unchanged; a triumph of
marketing over matter.

Forgotten in the bloody pictures of "whitecoats" being clubbed to death is
the harsh reality of all animal slaughter. Whether it is chickens in a mass
production facility, cattle in a stockyard, or seals on the March ice off
Newfoundland's northeast coast, there is nothing pleasant about the
commercial harvesting of any living creature for human consumption --
regardless of what part is being consumed.

Most of our urban kill floors are dark inner sanctums the public never gets
to see. The great difference in the seal hunt is that it is an outdoor
abattoir operation involving wild animals. The blood that is spilled is
there for all to see. The impact is gruesome enough against the dazzling
white snow and ice, but when you depict the slaughter of a baby seal that
looks more like a stuffed toy than a creature in the wild it is emotionally
devastating.

It was largely because of that horrific image that the International Fund
for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was able to raise $80 million a year to fund their
anti-seal hunt protests in the 1980s -- an amount six times greater than the
entire budget of the Newfoundland Fisheries Department to run an industry
and fight back against well-financed detractors.

Newfoundlanders are appalled by the hypocrisy factor. The French could
force-feed geese to bloat their livers for foie gras, calves could be
dispatched by the thousands for their livers and veal cutlets, lambs could
be butchered for their prized rack, and cattle might be dismembered alive on
slaughterhouse assembly lines, but there weren't many photo ops (or for that
matter photographers), for those far vaster but largely accepted varieties
of death on wheels.

The icefields are another matter. Protesters documented, and in some cases,
orchestrated, the most horrific images imaginable in which Newfoundlanders
came across as sadistic brutes who routinely skinned baby seals alive for
fun and profit. The protesters were so good at public relations that by 1983
the large-vessel seal hunt in Newfoundland was closed as country after
country, including the United States, caved in to Greenpeace and the IFAW
and banned the sale of seal products within their borders.

More importantly, the real poster star of the anti-sealing campaign, the
cute and cuddly whitecoat, has not been hunted since 1987, when it was given
legal protection by the federal government -- protection that extends to
this day. Yet when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sanctioned this
year's cull of 300,000 harp seals, the anti-sealing lobby reproduced
pictures of the same animals that are no longer being hunted to condemn a
practice that they have seriously distorted and never understood. The
U.S.-based Humane Society is taking full-page ads in big American newspapers
to urge a travel boycott on Canada -- the same group that was silent on the
destruction of migratory salmon stocks at the hands of U.S. fishermen.

The successful closing down of the annual seal hunt has been devastating to
coastal communities in Newfoundland. Traditionally, the hunt provided
fishermen with their first cash of the year and a means of outfitting
themselves for the new fishing season. Since 1992, when the cod fishery was
closed because of gross human overfishing, the intervention on behalf of the
harp and hooded seal has led to an explosion in the size of their herds at
the worst possible moment. In 1983, when the commercial hunt was closed,
there were 3.1 million harp seals and roughly 450,000 hooded seals. Today,
the herd has doubled in size, and that is bad news for Newfoundland's
decimated cod stocks.

Seals are prodigious feeders. They eat fish to the tune of 6% of their body
weight per day. Although cod comprise only 3% of the seal's diet, the size
of the herd has a deadly multiplier effect. In 1994, seals consumed 88,000
metric tonnes of cod off Newfoundland's northeast coast, compared to just
24,000 tonnes caught by the commercial fishery in the last year of the cod
fishery before the closure. The grim fact comes down to this: Whether seals
eat juvenile cod (38,000 fish to the tonne) or the cod's favorite food,
caplin, they have a profound effect on the ocean's food web when their
numbers are very high and the northern cod has been all but wiped out.
Protecting one animal in the ocean's ecosystem without understanding the
impact of the intervention on others is not compassion but tampering. For
years, the sorcerer's apprentice has been loose on the Grand Banks. Perhaps
that is why Greenpeace, traditionally a vocal opponent of the hunt, has
decided not to campaign against the cull this year.

Did the seals wipe out the northern cod? No, man did. Is every part of the
seal hunt noble? Of course not. The harvesting of animals for their penises
which are a hot aphrodisiac in China, is deplorable. (The practice has been
banned.) But for the 11,000 Newfoundlanders who still get an important part
of their income from today's limited seal hunt, they are not there to feed
China's erotic fantasies or skin baby animals alive. They are there to cling
to their bald rock and make a living with what's at hand, just as they've
always done.

Within the regulations of the hunt and the fiats of basic humanity, they
should be left alone to do it.

[Pat Drummond]

The people who fight the seal hunt probably eat meat laced with drugs,
wear synthetic clothing made from non-renewable resources, and whine
about air quality while driving their SUV. Get real.

(can.rec.boating removed as this has nothing at all to do with Canadian
boating and these diatribe shouldn't ruin a nice newsgroup)

Invective wrote:

> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Invective" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
>>
>>>Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
>>>baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
>>>Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600
>
> pounds
>
>>>of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
>>>government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
>>>seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you
>
> want!
>
>>Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
>>now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
>>increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.
>
>
> The goodwill of ignorant Eurotrash? Who wants it? Who needs it?
>
>
>>> > Tell me, how do you feel about the current Peta poster campaign in
>>>Canada?
>>>
>>>Since I'm not from BC and don't have any children involved all I can say
>
> is
>
>>>it's in extremely poor taste and shows just how few feelings or empathy
>>>these morons have for real people.
>>
>>I don't know what campaign you're speaking of, but I'll say this;
>>What goes around, comes around. Your actions show an utter
>>contempt for wildlife-
>
>
> Nope. Just an utter contempt for shallow, phoney, so-called
> environmentalists.
>
> And you know what? We HAVE wildlife! Where's yours? Oh yeah, IT'S DEAD! You
> SLAUGHTERED IT ALL!
> You EXTERMINATED all your wildlife! Now you're snivelling to us about how we
> should be taking care of ours? There's well over five million seals in that
> one area, you moronic British knob. So it seems to me they're in no danger
> of extinction.
>
> Unlike the tens of millions of fish they consume EACH AND EVERY DAY.
>
> But you don't give a damn about the fish, because they're slimy and ugly.
> Oooo! Oooo! look at the pretty little baby sealllss! Ooooooooo! They're so
> ccuuuuuuuuuttte!
>
> Sorry Miss Eurotrash, but we don't base wildlife management decisions on
> which animal is the *prettiest*.
>
> We'll take care of our wildlife a hell of a lot better than you did yours.
>
>
>
>
>

--
* http://BoatinginCanada.com *

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:HZahc.55834$aD.14702@edtnps89...
> "pearl" wrote:
> > "I R Canuck" wrote:
<..>
> > > > > A link wasn't implied by John Efford, just like the IFAW veterinary
> > > > > study never says that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it does. 42% of clubbed seals were found to have
> > > > insufficient cranial damage to render permanently unconscious,
> > > > and unless bled immediately (6% of the total), they were.
> > > > Of the remaining 58% many may have sustained severe cranial
> > > > damage during the skinning (79% of 'hunters' failed to perform
> > > > a corneal reflex check). Also, of all those observed being skinned
> > > > (counting possibles), nearly 40% were, whether shot or clubbed.
> > >
> > > You've assumed that all seals are skinned immediately.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> The IFAW observed 180 seals being killed. It observed 3 being
> skinned alive (and 4 possibly). You, and many of your sources,
> state that 40+% of seals are skinned alive.

"Remember, only 18.75% were observed to be skinned.
I can safely assume that all were eventuall skinned."
- I R Canuck Date: 2004-02-23 16:30:11 PST

'5) 18 seals were observed to be skinned, on average this
occurred 60 seconds after the initial strike. It is uncertain
which of these seals were bled or had a level of consciousness
checked to ensure that they were not skinned while conscious.'
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf

7/18 *100 = 39%.

> > > They
> > > are not. The IFAW veterinary report never says "40+% of seals
> > > are skinned alive" period!
> >
> > It says exactly what I wrote above.
>
> Yes, none of which is "40% of seals are skinned alive".

You require an exact quote now?

> > > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
> >
> > Of those observed.

(Counting only those *observed* being skinned, which you
used to find the percentage of the total- observed and not.)

> > So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> > immediately? You,- when it suits you.
>
> I need to assume nothing. The IFAW OBSERVED 180 seals being
> killed. They OBSERVED 3 being skinned alive.

Now disingenuously leaving out the 'possibles' as well, eh.

> 3/180 is 1.66%.

"Remember, only 18.75% were observed to be skinned.
I can safely assume that all were eventuall skinned."
- I R Canuck Date: 2004-02-23 16:30:11 PST

> > > > > You poorly
> > > > > interpret things and then draw false meanings.
> > > >
> > > > BS. You refuse to accept the facts of the matter.
> > >
> > > It's the truth, you twist everything you read.
> >
> > No. That'd be you.

Again- way to go, canuck!

> > > > > Like I said before,
> > > > > that wasn't even a direct quote, who knows how out of context those
> > > > > statements may have been. They may not even have been said in
> > > > > the same day.
> > > >
> > > > Read your own quote below.
> > >
> > > That statement was in regards to Mr. Efford not Mr. Reid.
> >
> > Good for him if he doesn't tow the same pseudo-official line.
> > But it doesn't look like it.
>
> The point is that your source was bad.

The source wasn't 'bad'.

'Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford said many
claims made overseas about the hunt are simply wrong. He said
the hunt is more humane than ever while the seal population is
exploding and commercial fish stocks in the region are vanishing.'
http://breakingnews.ie/2004/04/12/story142524.html.

'At the weekend, Canadian Natural Resources Minister John
Efford said many claims made overseas about the hunt were
simply wrong.

He says the hunt was more humane than ever while the seal
population is exploding and commercial fish stocks in the region
are vanishing. '
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=581&id=413712004.

And many more..
http://www.google.ie/search?q=John+Efford++%22commercial+fish+stocks+in +the+region+are+vanishing%22&hl=en&lr
=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N&filter=0

Why would he be mentioning vanishing cod stocks at all, if he wasn't
implying a link? Fact is, he was- and you know it, dishonest canuck.

> You don't quote someone without quoting them?

Here ya go;

"Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the six million… whatever
number is out there, killed or sold, or destroyed or burned.
I do not care what happens to them. What they (the fishermen)
wanted was to have the right to go out and kill the seals. They
have that right, and the more they kill the better I will love it."
- Former Newfoundland Fisheries Minister & now the Minister
of Natural Resources Canada
http://www.seashepherd.org/events/seal_protest_040315.html

You've a psychopath in government in charge of wildlife!!!!!!!

Pah.

> > > > > > And if you don't like the source,
> > > > > > see; http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994877
> > > > > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding
> > > > > > the recovery of those stocks," said Gerry Reid, minister of fisheries
> > > > > > and aquaculture for Newfoundland at the time.."
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
> > > > > "There is no doubt that seal predation on groundfish is impeding the
> > > > > recovery of those stocks," added Minister Reid. "The seal herd is in
> > > > > excess of five million, and as the herd continues to enjoy a population
> > > > > explosion, the cod fishery simultaneously decreases and suffers
> > > > > higher mortality rates. There are certainly a number of issues which
> > > > > need to be addressed in dealing with the state of the cod fisheries,
> > > > > and one of the main factors is the impact of seal predation. An
> > > > > increase in the TAC will not solve this problem, however it is a step in
> > > > > the right direction."
> > > > >
> > > > > As can be seen when he's not being taken out of context, he realises
> > > > > that this isn't the only problem.
> > > >
> > > > Who said he did? Quit squirming.
> > >
> > > There is no 'squirming' neither Mr. Reid nor Mr. Efford are responsible
> > > for setting quotas. Why should their statements be used by yourself
> > > as representational of the Canadian Goverment's opinions?
> >
> > I thought that as government ministers, they would be. My bad.
>
> They are ministers in Newfoundland's (not Canada's) parlaiment.

Efford is the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources, for crying out loud.

> > > > > Also, he's a minister for Newfoundland, not Canada. While he has
> > > > > input into the decisions (much like the IFAW, CVMA, CSA, etc...)
> > > > > he doesn't make decisions. His was a reactionary statement to
> > > > > an announcement of a quota increase.
> > > >
> > > > Please. We're not all complete fools, you know.
> > >
> > > What is that supposed to mean,
> >
> > Your comment that such a statement was 'reactionary' is nonsense.
> > They've been harrassing the federal government for years on those
> > grounds. See; http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/1999/fishaq/0309n02.htm .
>
> Re-read http://www.gov.nf.ca/releases/2003/fishaq/0203n03.htm
> It was a reactionary statement. It doesn't matter if he's said similar
> things before, it WAS a reactionary statement.

BS. It was/is a misleading statement, without scientific basis - a lie.

> > > besides you are unable to respond
> > > to my statement. Your source took Gerry Reid's statement out of
> > > context and he's not even in a position to make decisions.
> > >
> > > http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021202/wcodd1202/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
> > >
> > > Mr. Reid doesn't set quotas. He is a provincial (not federal) minister.
> > > You have no understanding of Canadian politics.
> >
> > As a minister, Reid can influence policies made by the federal government.
>
> As a minister in Newfoundland parlaiment he can influence policies made
> by the Newfoundland Government. The seal hunt is not a provincial
> policy.

With Efford in Ottawa, it's a done deal, really.

> > And, every time he's quoted in national and international press laying the
> > blame on seals for the state of the cod, people in Canada and elsewhere
> > accept it as factual, and as validation for the seal kill. You've seen it here.
>
> When your sources state that the seal has no impact on the fish stocks
> people believe that.

Quote?

> When your sources state that 40% of seals are
> being skinned alive people believe that.

Tragically, it is true.

> The lies your sources tell are just as bad.

Glad to see you admit that the pro-sealing faction are lying.
I have yet to come across one untruth in my sources though.


<..>

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:D%ahc.55836$aD.46359@edtnps89...
> "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > To clarify;
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > > news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
> > <..>
> > > > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
> > >
> > > Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> > > immediately? You,- when it suits you.
> >
> > I meant- counting only those *observed* being skinned, which
> > you used to find the percentage of the total- observed and not.
>
> Pearl, again . . .
>
> The IFAW observed 180 seals being killed. They observed 3 skinned
> alive.
>
> 3/180 = 1.66%
>
> The seals which were skinned at a later time (remember they were
> already observed being killed) are dead.

Provide evidence to support your claim if you can.

> Therefore, they would not have been skinned alive.

Your BS-ing.

[Derek.Moody]

In article >, pearl
> wrote:
> "Invective" > wrote in message
> . rogers.com...
> >
> > "Jeff T" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Invective" > wrote in message
> > > le.rogers.com...
> > > >
> > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> >
> > > I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
> > > explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a bunch
> > > of regurgitated garbage.
>
> You're either in denial, or brainwashed by pro-sealing propaganda.
>
> > Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
> > baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
> > Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600 pounds
> > of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
> > government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
> > seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you want!
>
> Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
> now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
> increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.

You're in Ireland. Take a trip to the west coast and ask the fishermen
there what they think of seals. Go to Glengariff and take the tourist
sealwatching trip to Garnish (sp?) Island, ask the boatman how much he earns
from tourists in the summer season and how much he would earn from fishing
all year round if he were allowed to shoot those same seals.

Tourism pays minimum wages and it's seasonal. Few work in the sector by
choice.

Cheeri,


--
>>

[pearl]

"Derek.Moody" > wrote in message ...
> In article >, pearl
> > wrote:
> > "Invective" > wrote in message
> > . rogers.com...
> > >
> > > "Jeff T" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Invective" > wrote in message
> > > > le.rogers.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > >
> > > > I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
> > > > explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a bunch
> > > > of regurgitated garbage.
> >
> > You're either in denial, or brainwashed by pro-sealing propaganda.
> >
> > > Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
> > > baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
> > > Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600 pounds
> > > of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
> > > government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
> > > seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you want!
> >
> > Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
> > now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
> > increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.
>
> You're in Ireland. Take a trip to the west coast and ask the fishermen
> there what they think of seals.

What do they *think*, moody?

Haven't you been paying attention?

> Go to Glengariff and take the tourist
> sealwatching trip to Garnish (sp?) Island, ask the boatman how much he earns
> from tourists in the summer season and how much he would earn from fishing
> all year round if he were allowed to shoot those same seals.

Tell us, moody. And based on what? What he *thinks*?

> Tourism pays minimum wages and it's seasonal. Few work in the sector by
> choice.

Ask the same people that have sworn to not go to Canada because of the
seal hunt whether they would if the hunt was stopped, and if they'd like to
go seal watching when they did.

[pearl]

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek.Moody" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> > Go to Glengariff and take the tourist
> > sealwatching trip to Garnish (sp?) Island, ask the boatman how much he earns
> > from tourists in the summer season and how much he would earn from fishing
> > all year round if he were allowed to shoot those same seals.
>
> Tell us, moody. And based on what? What he *thinks*?
>
> > Tourism pays minimum wages and it's seasonal. Few work in the sector by
> > choice.
>
> Ask the same people that have sworn to not go to Canada because of the
> seal hunt whether they would if the hunt was stopped, and if they'd like to
> go seal watching when they did.

'Newfoundland hunters kill about 245,000 seals, .. which brings in an
estimated $12 million in revenues from pelts, meat, and oil.'
http://www.harpseals.org/seals/tours/

Scottish ministers consider seal cull
Monday July 16, 2001
The Guardian
...
Cara Brydson, a marine campaigner with the International Fund
for Animal Welfare, said a seal cull would be cruel and counter-
productive. Ms Brydson said seals preyed on fish which ate other
fish so a drop in the number of seals could also result in a drop in
the number of fish.

She added that a cull would devastate seal-watching trips in Britain,
which generate around £36m in tourism revenue each year.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,522410,00.html

[I R Canuck]

Re-post (original didn't show up on my news server)
"pearl" wrote:
> "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > "pearl" wrote:
> > > To clarify;
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > > > news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
> > > <..>
> > > > > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
> > > >
> > > > Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> > > > immediately? You,- when it suits you.
> > >
> > > I meant- counting only those *observed* being skinned, which
> > > you used to find the percentage of the total- observed and not.
> >
> > Pearl, again . . .
> >
> > The IFAW observed 180 seals being killed. They observed 3 skinned
> > alive.
> >
> > 3/180 = 1.66%
> >
> > The seals which were skinned at a later time (remember they were
> > already observed being killed) are dead.
>
> Provide evidence to support your claim if you can.

http://dict.die.net/killed/
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Kill

1. To deprive of life, animal or vegetable, in any manner or
by any means; to render inanimate; to put to death; to
slay.


http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf
"Of these, 96 seals were shot, 56 seals were shot and then clubbed
or gaffed, 19 seals were clubbed or gaffed, and 8 seals were killed by
unknown means."

Indicates all of the seals observed were killed. They would be dead
they could not have been skinned alive.

> > Therefore, they would not have been skinned alive.
>
> Your BS-ing.

No, I'm not.

[pearl]

"I R Canuck" > wrote in message
news:3lwhc.39530$mn3.4702@clgrps13...
> Re-post (original didn't show up on my news server)
> "pearl" wrote:
> > "I R Canuck" wrote:
> > > "pearl" wrote:
> > > > To clarify;
> > > >
> > > > "pearl" > wrote in message ...
> > > > > "I R Canuck" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:0rYgc.35278$mn3.13635@clgrps13...
> > > > <..>
> > > > > > The IFAW observations showed 1.66% of seals skinned alive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of those observed. So who's assuming that all seals are skinned
> > > > > immediately? You,- when it suits you.
> > > >
> > > > I meant- counting only those *observed* being skinned, which
> > > > you used to find the percentage of the total- observed and not.
> > >
> > > Pearl, again . . .
> > >
> > > The IFAW observed 180 seals being killed. They observed 3 skinned
> > > alive.
> > >
> > > 3/180 = 1.66%
> > >
> > > The seals which were skinned at a later time (remember they were
> > > already observed being killed) are dead.
> >
> > Provide evidence to support your claim if you can.
>
> http://dict.die.net/killed/
> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
>
> Kill
>
> 1. To deprive of life, animal or vegetable, in any manner or
> by any means; to render inanimate; to put to death; to
> slay.
>
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf
> "Of these, 96 seals were shot, 56 seals were shot and then clubbed
> or gaffed, 19 seals were clubbed or gaffed, and 8 seals were killed by
> unknown means."
>
> Indicates all of the seals observed were killed. They would be dead
> they could not have been skinned alive.

No. Look at the Comments Violation / Abuse column.
'Shooting and leave to suffer' appears time after time.
Left to suffer until they're butchered.

> > > Therefore, they would not have been skinned alive.
> >
> > Your BS-ing.
>
> No, I'm not.

Yes you are. Shame on you.

[Derek.Moody]

In article >, pearl
> wrote:
> "Derek.Moody" > wrote in message news:ant2112430b0BxcK@half-bake
> d-idea.co.uk...
> > In article >, pearl
> > > wrote:

> > > Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
> > > now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
> > > increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.
> >
> > You're in Ireland. Take a trip to the west coast and ask the fishermen
> > there what they think of seals.
>
> What do they *think*, moody?

Of seals? They don't like them. You can go and check if you like, there's
a regular bus from Dublin. They'll take you out to look at the seals for
EUR6.50; go on, they need the money.

> Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> > Go to Glengariff and take the tourist
> > sealwatching trip to Garnish (sp?) Island, ask the boatman how much he earns
> > from tourists in the summer season and how much he would earn from fishing
> > all year round if he were allowed to shoot those same seals.
>
> Tell us, moody. And based on what? What he *thinks*?

Experience. They used to shoot them.

> > Tourism pays minimum wages and it's seasonal. Few work in the sector by
> > choice.
>
> Ask the same people that have sworn to not go to Canada because of the
> seal hunt whether they would if the hunt was stopped, and if they'd like to
> go seal watching when they did.

You'll have to, I've never met anyone with that stance. Of course most of
the people in the Irish (or any other nation's) Tourism Industry can't
afford transatlantic sealwatching holidays - Irish sealwatching pays too
little.

Oh, they aren't going to kill them all. There will be a few left for the
watchers.

Cheerio,

--
>>

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:33:59 +0100, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Derek.Moody" > wrote in message ...
>> In article >, pearl
>> > wrote:
>> > "Invective" > wrote in message
>> > . rogers.com...
>> > >
>> > > "Jeff T" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Invective" > wrote in message
>> > > > le.rogers.com...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > >
>> > > > I betcha that this Pearl creature is a huge fan of Peta as well... Would
>> > > > explain some of the gross stupidity being uttered here, nothing but a bunch
>> > > > of regurgitated garbage.
>> >
>> > You're either in denial, or brainwashed by pro-sealing propaganda.
>> >
>> > > Best way to cure all those idiots over there who moon over pretty little
>> > > baby seals - GIVE THEM ONE!
>> > > Then you sit back and wait until the little precious grows into 600 pounds
>> > > of mean, nasty, fish slurping blubber. If I was in charge of the
>> > > government's PR campaign I'd start up a program to let brits adopt harp
>> > > seals. Just pay the shipping cost and we'll send you as many as you want!
>> >
>> > Why? The proper, and best, place for these seals, is where they are
>> > now. You'll be more than compensated for leaving seals alone, with
>> > increased tourism and commerce revenue, not to mention goodwill.
>>
>> You're in Ireland. Take a trip to the west coast and ask the fishermen
>> there what they think of seals.
>
>What do they *think*, moody?
>
>Haven't you been paying attention?
>
>> Go to Glengariff and take the tourist
>> sealwatching trip to Garnish (sp?) Island, ask the boatman how much he earns
>> from tourists in the summer season and how much he would earn from fishing
>> all year round if he were allowed to shoot those same seals.
>
>Tell us, moody. And based on what? What he *thinks*?
>
>> Tourism pays minimum wages and it's seasonal. Few work in the sector by
>> choice.
>
>Ask the same people that have sworn to not go to Canada because of the
>seal hunt whether they would if the hunt was stopped, and if they'd like to
>go seal watching when they did.
>
>

I refuse to leave Canada for Europe until you bring back all of the
game animals killed by your ancestors centuries ago. And when the
Brits get out of N Ireland, when France is polite, German sloppy and
the whole stinikin' mess wakes up to terrorists. That noise you keep
hearing, the explosion of bombs set off by Muslim terrorists, that is
the alarm clock. Go ahead, keep hitting the snooze button. Spain has,
France is next on the to-do list by al Qeada

[tsarkon]

I ****ing love killing seals and will always love killing seals and
that's that. If you don't like it then stay out of my country or if you
live here then **** off and head on back to Afghanistan or where ever
the hell you came from.