FIBS Board backgammon forum

Although it has nothing to do with fibs, i couldn't help myself and post soething about the awful images they just showed me on tv.:cry:
It seems that there has been a slaughter of 260.000 seals in just two days.
They where all clubbed to death, and the sole purpose is money. :angry:

Am i just crazy or are there more people that get outraged when they hear stuff like this. I mean... 260.000 in two days.  :wacko:
The nazi's didn't even reach those kind of numbers.. not by far! :angry:

I always thought of Canada as a modern and friendly country but boy has my opinion changed. :no:

I wil not go to canada and support this kind of industry and i think they will lose a lot if tourist income on this.

Don't get me wrong... of course i don't hate all canadians, the people i met on fibs where all very nice.
But this is so far from what i can comprehend... how can you batter innocent animals to death..
not one.. but dozens.. :puke:
i couldn't do it.. even if they payed me bundles.
but hey.. maybe it's me and am i just a big softy........

If someone has a different opinion.. i would really like to know what it is.. maybe you can help me understand this insane behaviour.

I think the title "Canadian Holocaust" will get a few people to look in on this thread.  You missed your calling as a newspaper editor Webrunner, you sure do know how to make a headline that gets attention!

I really enjoy the "puke" icon.  That has got to be the best one I have seen in a long time.

Now for the point/counterpoint (only because I love a good debate):

I had a conversation with someone recently where they said hunting was terrible.  My opinion was that hunting for rare animals only to get a tusk or skin was wrong.  But if you want to take out a deer or turkey and eat it, I have no problem with it.  This person said that was horrible and I pointed out that he may want to remove the hamburger from his mouth before saying that again.  If you are a vegetarian, I think you have a moral base for holding these views, but if you eat any type of animal and you are not in favor of hunting it, all that means is that you get other people to do your dirty work.  And before anyone complains please keep in mind that there are more than twice as many deer in North America now than there were 200 years ago.

Also, do you wear leather, sweade (how do you spell that?), etc?  

Is there a problem because little baby seals are cute?

All that being said, 250,000 in one or two days is clearly excessive.  Sounds like someone needs to send in a UN peace keeping force.

Suede....its spelled s-u-e-d-e

JJ

First of all.. these animals ere being killed for fur, nothing more, nothing less.
I have yet to come across any menu that has seal meat on it.

I like a good steak every now and then but on average i eat very lettle meat, maybe only once a week. Mostly i eat fish, which also isn't right since they are "grown" in big tanks and all that.. but hey.. a man has got to eat and i am not against killing for food.
It's the way that they are being killed that bothers me..
Clubbing these animals to death is just horrible in my opinion.
I wonder what kind of person you have got to be to be able to do that.... :huh:

BTW: thanks for the compliments ;)

JonJon, I have been using spell check for the past 10 years or more.  I can not spell for $hit!

And I agree Web, clubbing for fur is a $hitty thing to do.  But I do love my NY Strip steak! :P  

The problem is that seals are cute. They have those pouty eyes. If they were ugly, like a scary insect or a vulture or something, no one would care.

I think that some cultures do eat seal. I would be curious to know what it tastes like, but wouldn't do it. Those pouty eyes would haunt me.

Is it possible that there were just too many seals and some had to be harvested? I mean...260,ooo seals....thats an ass-load of seals.

Does anyone have a link to a news report?

JJ

look here (http://www.bontvoordieren.nl/english/index.php?action=seals) and here on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/12/newfoundland.seals/index.html)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...a-sealhunt.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20040412-1524-canada-sealhunt.html)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/...000/3621249.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_3621000/3621249.stm)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...National/Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040410/SEALS10/TPNational/Canada)

There's a few links.

The only good argument for this seal hunt is that they are wreaking havoc on the fishing industry. That it will generate economy is less of a good reason...

Oh well. I won't buying any seal skin coats/shoes/anything anytime soon.

JJ

I am no vegetarian, and wear leather etc. I believe i have a right to do so.  I also believe that that right brings with it a resposibility to show respect to the animal that dies so i may eat and dress warm.  I have seen the argument for the fish depletion, and see little merit in it.  The big deal here is that these animals are being killed in vast quantities at the lowest possible price - ie clubbing them to death, rather than shooting or other more humane methods.  This stinks to me of the clothing industry - not protecting human food resources - and as such is worse - since even those of us who dont buy fur/animal skin are vaguely aware - it aint cheap!

And i keep racking my brains for a good example - but cant find one where brutally killing animals en mass woudnt bother me - as the 'higher species' - even if they werent cute.  You get into also sorts of icky problems messing with ecology on this scale.  From anti biotics - which serve to create new and more resistant bacteria (same goes for fleas), to maggots which are vile - but serve a very useful purpose!!  One of the classic cases quoted was some bird that was wiped out to protect a crop, turned out the birds were eating the bugs on the crop - and they lost it completely next year!
Anyway - just my thoughts on the arrogance of humans - and dont whatever you do - wander me into GMO!!

while i agree that the slaughter of seals in and of itself is disturbing, and we can debate endlessly as to whether or not its even necessary, (i really dont want to get into the fur debate) i must take exception to the term holocaust.  can u look  me in the eye and really equate the deaths of 260,000 seals with that of 6 million jews?

KDP i get your point and of course i don't equate that.

However, the point i was making that the Nazi's never made it to these numbers in such short times. So is this where to go on like this they will eventually kill millions of seals.
And that 6 million people (no matter what race) and 6 million seals in my opinion do equate. Not to mention the ecological disaster these kind of actions can cause as Diane stated.

Anyone who is against this senseless killing sign a petition here (http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=85044) please.

I'm against the unnecessary slaughter of seals, but would like to challenge a few of the points of argument.

Quote...However, the point i was making that the Nazi's never made it to these numbers in such short times...

Luckily that's because they couldn't manage it. What if the Nazis had had a faster system?

Quote...And that 6 million people (no matter what race) and 6 million seals in my opinion do equate...

Do 6m seals = 6m ants? Or 6m microscoptic simple organisms? Obviously we have a natural bias towards mammals. But what about rats? It's not straightforward at all.

In answer to your question - Do 6m seals = 6m ants? Or 6m microscoptic simple organisms?

Perhaps it might make more sense if that were considered as a percentage of total population.  And - as i said - i am not for the slaughter of any species en mass - because we simply do not know enough about it.

I would also move away from comparing the killing of animals away from the killing of humans - but would also point you to the areas of research which clearly demonstrate that an insenstivity towards weaker species - ie most animals - also goes hand in hand with an ability to be violent towards other humans.  It has been noted frequently that most serial killers start out with torturing animals.

QuoteÃ, 
In answer to your question - Do 6m seals = 6m ants? Or 6m microscoptic simple organisms?

Perhaps it might make more sense if that were considered as a percentage of total population.Ã,  And - as i said - i am not for the slaughter of any species en mass - because we simply do not know enough about it.

Good points.

QuoteÃ, 
I would also move away from comparing the killing of animals away from the killing of humans - but would also point you to the areas of research which clearly demonstrate that an insenstivity towards weaker species - ie most animals - also goes hand in hand with an ability to be violent towards other humans.

That would be interesting to read, will have a Google for it. Do you have any recommended links?

QuoteÃ, 
It has been noted frequently that most serial killers start out with torturing animals.

Be careful, this is a dangerous but unfortunately common mistake of logic. "Those doing B have previously done A" does not imply that "doing A leads to doing B". A common example of this flawed argument is that most heroin users have smoked cannabis thus cannabis smoking leads to heroin usage. Or another I've heard is that most rapists have read pornography thus reading pornography leads to violent sexual crimes. Or children who are violent have watched lots of television....

While there can of course be elements of truth in these (they don't seem likely to me, but who knows really?) the point is that they aren't logically valid statements in and of themselves.

i know - i know - i have a tendency to over simplfy for storage purposes! But there is a point in there somewhere!

These guys put the phrase "let's go clubbing" in a completely different context.

In the locker room the phrase "it was like clubbing a baby seal" kind of bespeaks any incredibly one sided contest where you should probably feel really bad about winning.

But, coming from a family where 3 out of 7 people are vegetarians (not me!) they view the millions of fish caught each day to be devastating as well.

Do we feel this way about the seals because they are cute?  People have strong feelings about dogs, cats, horses, deer, etc., and other "socially acceptable" animals, but no one cries to much (except from the smell) when they pass a dead skunk on the road!

Lastly, and keeping in mind that I live in a rural area of NY where I have wildlife going across my property everyday, there is something to be said about responsible hunting.  There are twice as many deer in the USA than there were 200 years ago.  If you kill a deer and eat it than it is the same as going to McDonald's and buying a hamburger.  You have to wonder if mad cow and chronic wasting disease are a pay back to man for not respecting the system!

I do, though have a fundamental problem with killing cute things, just like any human is programmed!  Save the harp seals!

Well, i can say for myself that this really, really, really makes me sad   :cry:
I do not eat meat because of the way they treat the animals. In my opinion
people are not better than animals just because we have a conscious (?)

I cannot or will not understand people who make decisions like these or do
these kind of things.  :angry:
Canada is (or maybe was!) my favorite country but I am not going there now.
No way!

I feel sorry for the cows that God made them taste so good with fried onions and a side of hash browned potatoes.

I feel sorry that people think they can treat animals the way they do!    :angry:  

Well this issue has just been aired on my university message board so I thought I may give the same response here as I did there. Firstly I would like to point out a few things before I get flamed to a cinder.  :wacko:  

   I personally don't have a problem with the hunting or shooting as I myself shoot and have a number of shotguns and firearms. Secondly I think we should look away from how 'cute' any animal is when assessing whether their destruction is excusable.

   The reasons for this 'cull' (please bear this word in mind when discussing this issue) are at least two fold. One is to protect fish stocks and the other to get some action in the local economy. The cull is nothing new. What IS new is the number of seals to be culled which (off the top of my head) has increased by something like 100,000 animals. So far so good. I would like to point out to the people who thought up these pathetic excuses that the fish stocks were destroyed by people overfishing them, not by the appetite of seals (who eat one tonne per year). So we can throw this reason on the bonfire (this is getting more and more like the reasons for the war in Iraq! how odd!) So that leaves us with the controlling the population and the stimulus that this creates in the local economy. Funnily enough this leap in cull numbers is following a relaxation of the rules surrounding seal pelt sales. Now this is obviously just coincidence.  ;)  

  Personally I think culling animals as part of a wider ranging animal control policy is fine. Which is why if they had said they were just culling the usual number of animals I would be fine about it. As it is they seem to be undermining their own moral integrity by increasing the numbers so much. I would like to qualify my pro-cull viewpoint before someone tries to track me down and cull me in retribution. I am a supporter of any 'HUMANE' cull. Having gone on a course to learn about Deer Stalking and Management I know how much emphasis was placed on killing animals safely and humanely. These should be the main aims of anyone engaged in the destruction of any animals whether they be vermin or game. Having also read up on British animal protection legislation I know that the actions in Canada would be illegal were they attempted here. (Wild mammals protection act 1995 states: It is illegal to "cruelly kick, beat, stab, impale, burn, crush, drown any wild animal")

  This brings us onto the methods used in the cull. There are reports that people are using 'high powered rifles' (though I dread to think what a low powered rifle is) which I would see as perfectly acceptable. What I find unacceptable is the clubbing of seals to death. There are two reasons I dislike this. The first is the obvious fact that no matter how 'good' you are at clubbing anything you will cause unnecessary distress and suffering to the animal which is just plain wrong! (I won't start going into moral philosophy about the whole thing.) Secondly, the very fact that seals are being clubbed to death indicates an inordinate amount of focus on the pelts and not on the welfare of the animals. There was me thinking that they were culling to control numbers and protect fish stocks and not with the furs as the first prioity. Well when governments undermine themsleves so severely (Iraq anyone?) then I just have to laugh.

  If they said, we are seeking to cull X animals and we are going to use rifles then I would have no problem though I would question why they have raised the numbers. I would also take issue with the rubbish about protecting fish stocks. Less excuses more truth would be good. As it is I have no problems with shooting, hunting or culling, I do have a problem with the way it seems to be being carried out in this instance however.

   Please though, all this focus on how cute, cuddly etc anything is just makes me want to cry. This has NOTHING to do with reality. Blurring issues with senitment won't really get anyone anywhere. Animals have a right to live, yes. One has to remember however that they are not self-aware (well most aren't and those that 'may' be are a bit of a moot point). Also animals have no idea of their own populations to the effect that they are going to start distributing condoms and practising abstinence! I won't be signing any petitions telling anyone to stop the cull. Though I would sign one asking for it to be more transparent and humane.

   On a side note. Please, don't use ANYTHING to do with the holocaust in ANY posts unless it is actually about those events. Comparing the death of seals to the deaths of millions of human beings is both wrong and degrading. These are exactly the type of emotional blurring and loaded terminology which do animals rights campaigns absolutely no favours whatsoever.  I just finished reading MAUS (which is about the holocaust, and I would recommend it) which strangely enough uses mice to represent the Jews. For me using those words in any other context makes me feel slightly ill, angry and most of all completely negative to what follows. Sorry.  :no:

grillbill, if I may, I'd summarize your post as this: cull because it creates jobs and there aren't enough fish.

The arms industry and defense spending are often justified on job creation grounds as well. Simply making or doing things so that people aren't either unemployed or in other jobs doesn't seem sensible to me. It's like the argument that technology and automation destroy jobs -- most workers learn new skills and new industries arise, the more technologically advanced nations mostly have the lowest unemployment figures. Jobs just for the sake of it is surely bad economics?

As for fish numbers, I guess what's being done is the mass destruction of mammals to indirectly keep down the costs of a particular human food. It's akin to burning down a forest because you want a straighter road. So how much do we value our own convenience versus the preservation of nature? There's always going to be a balance between the two with arguments going both ways.

But the heart of the issue on the Canadian seals is how we feel about killing large numbers of mammals. I'm a carnivore but recognize that the arguments for vegetarianism are strong. What keeps me eating meat is that I was raised that way, so it's a taste I'm used to and like -- breaking that habit requires stronger beliefs than I currently have. Though I'm curious how far things may change in the next 100 years? The vegetarian restaurants and grocery selections, at least here in London, are growing exponentially. More children are being raised without eating meat and schools are offering veggie lunches. Even McDonald's has a vegetarian burger option here! The trend looks clear...

I agree with the majority of what grill has to say here - but just thought i would add - the only animal in danger of overpopulating, despite full population awareness, and how to control it, are humans!!

Then, to widen this a little - the statement about not going to Canada because of the actions of the seal cullers is a bit over the top.  Most nations have their own skeletons - here we have fox hunting.  The majority of Britains may be against it - but it remains! (although hopefully not for much longer)

I am no townie - and grew up in the country - and have seen my sister ready to tear a fox apart with her bare hands after a fox has been by and ripped a leg off one of her lambs - or the intestines out of a sheep - and then left it to die an agonising death untils someone can get to it with a shotgun.  But even she still remains firmly against hunting with dogs!

The main thing is to approach these issues with as much evidence and hard fact as possible - and keep pressuring for it to stop.  Emotional statements only detract from the content as grill says - and delay finding an end to this cruelty.

To reiterate my overly long and rambling post I just want to say a couple of things.

  I am NOT endorsing job creation at the price of animal cruelty. :(  Far from it. I am saying that the reasons the government are giving for the cull are completely bogus and have no place in a enlightened animal management programme! The cull should be undertaken on, and ONLY on, animal welfare reasons such as overpopulation. If this is the case it should be done quickly, humanely, efficiently and with as little effect on the environment as possible. That is why I disagree with the reasons and the methods of the present cull (and the rise in numbers) but do NOT disagree with the management of animals which is what I have trained to do. I agree wholeheartedly with Diane about us being the overpopulation factor here. It is also patently obvious that WE are the ones responsible for disrupting the natural balance of the environment and destroying the fish stocks (NOT the seals). As it is though, we have to face up to what we have done to this world and try and make amends by controlling populations ourselves as we have removed the natural mechanisms that used to do this. I have to write an International Relations essay and presentation on "global commons" where I will be looking at the fish stocks etc and look at how WE screwed up. I will keep you all posted as to what the result is. Don't blame the seals for the fish, but still manage their numbers.

  It is about time we as a species took responsibility for what we have done to this planet. I sometimes think, though, that many people that want to adopt a laissez faire attitude forget that this is impossible following the huge impact we have had on this earth.

  I am pro fox hunting (mildly) and contest that 'most' people want it banned. I think, of the people that care, there is a majority against. If you take people who support and those who have no opinion though you will get a majority for leaving the sport as it is. We can have this exciting conversation some other time Diane. All that I can say is that this issue doesn't just involve animal welfare, but also legislative wrangling, government intervention and lowest common denominator politics.

There is no politics in the act of foxhunting.  A pack of dogs and bloodthirsty people chase a fox through our countryside to the point of exhaustion and then tear it to pieces.  The humans then daub themselves in the dead animals blood and call it sport.  I am trying to equate this with your stance on 'humane culling'.

There is, however heaps and heaps of politics in the fact that this is still legal in this day and age.

I don't personally hunt, and am no GREAT supporter of it. It doesn't fit in with my stance on humane culling (apart from maybe the fact that many of the alternatives which I know a lot more about are worse). I know few people who have my levels of patience or time when it comes to fox control (staying up for three nights in the freezing cold). Also fox hunting is not exclusively a population control technique.  Saying there is no politics in it is wrong, however. Foxhunting brings out the role of Scottish MPs sitting in Westminster, government pandering to the backbenches, some sort of perceived (by some) class war and the house of Lords. Anyway as I said Diane, we can have this thrilling discussion some other time and not on here.
 As to this thread I think I have said all I can.

As a follow on to my previous posts on this subject - and because this is coming up again for discussion - I would like to copy the email I got today from the IFAW - in case any one else would like to contribute - I have already sent my email   :)

QuoteSir Paul McCartney and a host of other celebrities wrote to Tony Blair this week demanding that he keep his promise to ban hunting with dogs.
Celebrities including Dermot O'Leary, Mel C, Alexei Sayle, Louise Redknapp, Richard Wilson, Billy Bragg, Jo Brand, Jenny Seagrove and Twiggy said:

"We are counting on you to bring the Hunting Bill back as soon as possible to ensure that a law to ban fox hunting is passed this November. Three quarters of the British public think hunting should not be legal and we too believe that it's time for the ban.
We expect you to keep the promise that you made five years ago on national television to ban hunting and to see it through in this session of Parliament. It will only take a single day to pass this Bill in the House of Commons and consign this cruel and barbaric activity to history."
The Hunting Bill MUST be reintroduced in the next few weeks if it is to become law this year.
Please add your voice to theirs by sending an email to Tony BlairÃ,  asking him to listen to the majority of British public and deliver immediately on his promise to ban hunting.
Many thanks again for your invaluable support
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) IFAW (http://www.ifaw.org)

Email Tony Blair (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page854.asp)

The funniest thing about that is the only person who is a celebrity in that list is Paul McCartney.  I mean really....Twiggy and Mel C?  Shouldn;t there be an expiration on celebrity?

That did occur to me - but - hey it is the thought that counts  :D

I also think there is merit in non British expressing an opinion on this - since this activity reflects on us in an international capacity - which is how this thread started in the first place.

I think the deliberate use of barbaric methods that cause suffering to the animals is objectionable, although I'd argue that shooting them might not be much of an improvement - it would be quite hard to slaughter such a large number of seals each with a single clean shot.

Seal and other animal fur is very important to those living in extreme cold temperatures since no man-made fibre comes close to providing the same kind of protection in such environments (insulation, wind resistance, breathability). I appreciate that this is quite seperate from those who wear fur for 'fashion', for which I can see little justification (Oh, but feel it, it's so soft! Then why have the soft bit on the outside?).

I actually do think that the protection of fish stocks is a valid reason, although the onus is on governments to enforce sustainable fishing to justify such a position.

What has happened to the seal's natural predators - presumably bears, killer whales and maybe sharks?

I realise that this is an emotive issue and I am running the risk of facetiousness here but if webrunner is objecting to the timescale involved, would he prefer the cull to have taken place over several weeks? Presumably there is a limited window of opportunity dictated by the costs of the operation, the breeding season, the time of year and local weather conditions and the rate at which the cubs mature (get them young before they learn to, or are able to, flee into the water).

When it comes down to it most of us are complicit in similar abuses of nature but because they tend to be more incremental it's even easier for us to rationalise.

What is going on here? How many animals are killed daily worldwide for use by mankind. 100 million? How many of those are humanely slaughtered? Well it depends on what you mean by humane, but if you imagine that the meat that ends up on your table comes from an animal that slipped quietly out of its life without suffering, you are deluding yourself. A crack on the back of the head with a baseball bat isn't too good, but objectively it isn't any worse than living your life in a concrete pen before going through a slaughterhouse. You think a slaughterhouse is humane? Visit one. You eat eggs or chicken? Visit a battery hen house and be prepared to vomit. Protesting seal culls and not protesting the countless, daily, routine ways in which the world mistreats its domestic and wild animals is pure sophistry. "I don't mind eating a chicken that was de-beaked and lived for nine months in a one metre square mesh cage with five other chickens, but ugh, those Canadians, how dare they kill a bay seal!" Give us a break.

QuoteI don't mind eating a chicken that was de-beaked and lived for nine months in a one metre square mesh cage with five other chickens

There are many issues that need to be addressed in the way humans are prepared to treat both animals and other humans. Because one awful thing goes on - it does not make another acceptable.  The deal is to address as many of these issues as you can find time for - and most of all to be aware of them - so thanks for drawing our attention to this matter as well.

QuoteOn a side note. Please, don't use ANYTHING to do with the holocaust in ANY posts unless it is actually about those events. Comparing the death of seals to the deaths of millions of human beings is both wrong and degrading.

:(


sorry.... but the reason invocated to killing those millions of persons were exactly the same : there are too many of them, and thats an historical truth, as crude as it sounds... :no:  

Quote

QuoteI don't mind eating a chicken that was de-beaked and lived for nine months in a one metre square mesh cage with five other chickens

There are many issues that need to be addressed in the way humans are prepared to treat both animals and other humans. Because one awful thing goes on - it does not make another acceptable.  The deal is to address as many of these issues as you can find time for - and most of all to be aware of them - so thanks for drawing our attention to this matter as well.

Exactly Diane,
And let's not forget that seals are not killed for human consumption but mostly for luxury fur coats.

The fish argumant doesn't stand. Seals eat less that 2% of the fish population over there, where humans catch almost 30% of the fish population every year. Maybe if they tuned that down a bit...

BTW, thanks for firing this up again Diane :)

QuoteThe time for the ban on hunting with dogs has finally arrived.  In a landmark decision yesterday afternoon, MPs voted to end hunting with dogs in England and Wales.  The ban will come into effect in July 2006.  It's the beginning of the end for the barbaric sport.

The passing of this historic bill is a victory for compassion and justice.

This decision will save countless foxes, deer, hare and mink from being chased to exhaustion and cruelly torn apart alive by dogs.

This is a ruling that will put a final end to centuries of cruelty.  It will resonate throughout the world:  animal suffering and bloodshed will no longer be justified in the name of entertainment.

Hey what do you know - whoooopeeeeeee    :jump:  :jump2:  :cool:

Course - the pro hunting mob are a bit upset - and causing a bit of a fuss - also pointing out how those of us against hunting have caused hundreds of dogs and horses to be shot..........talk about blackmail!!!!  :angry: