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)

"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?

"Jeff T" wrote in message
...

"Invective" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...

"pearl" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

Since I'm not from BC and don't have any children involved all I can say is
it's in extremely poor taste and shows just how few feelings or empathy
these morons have for real people.

"pearl" 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. ...

'Said Lavigne, not Efford'.

lol.

"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!

"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

"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.

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" 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.

"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.