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.


..