Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/displayArtic...d=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.."

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/displayArtic...d=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."

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

'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

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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)

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/displayArtic...d=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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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'.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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?

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/displayArtic...d=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/Artic...N/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".

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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)

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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?

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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!

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/backg...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/backg...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

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/displayArtic...d=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/Artic...N/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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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.

..

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/backg...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/displayArtic...d=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/Artic...N/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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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
e.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 *

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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?...1&id=413712004.

And many more..
http://www.google.ie/search?q=John+E...ng%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/se...st_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/Artic...N/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.


..

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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,


--

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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/st...522410,00.html

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

"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.

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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,

--

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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

Seal hunt begins; IFAW bears witness
 

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.