|
|
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
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter