It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada's Seal Hunt to Get Under Way

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

TORONTO (AP) -- Canada's contentious seal hunt will soon start, the government accounced Wednesday, despite protests by former Beatle Paul McCartney and other animal-rights activists who condemn the killing of the pups as inhumane.

Fisheries and Oceans Minister Loyola Hearn charged that the media had misrepresented the hunt, and said Canada is committed to ensuring the seals are killed by humane methods.


Kill'n babies

Yet, its that time again, get out the popcorn and candy its "showtime" in the great canadian land of peace and love.

I really love the "killed by human methods" part. Such enlightened tollerance............(bravo............bravo)





posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   


OH come on now, how could anyone beat this with a club?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by thermopolis]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
This is the first time I agree with you, thermopolis. This is just so wrong. The first time I saw the footage on television I got so worked up. I kept thinking, "and these westerners call themselves civilized?"

I can't believe this nonsense is still going on. Absolutely deplorable. Clubbing to death a defenseless pup.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis


OH come on now, how could anyone beat this with a club?

[edit on 16-3-2006 by thermopolis]


If we are to debate a topic it is important to know the facts. That photo you've posted is misleading. Here's why.



The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) is prohibited.


Government of Canada Link

It's commonly pushed, for emotional reasons (like you wrote, how could anyone beat this with a club?) that the youngest and beautiful whitecoats are those being targeted. It's simply untrue.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Well, ok, but not so fast....




Seal hunt quota increased

Just two weeks after megastar Paul McCartney made a high-profile appeal to end the slaughter of seal pups, the federal government has announced new, higher quotas for this year’s hunt off the East Coast.

...

Meanwhile, Hearn made it clear he resents the portrayal of the hunt by protesters as a needless slaughter of whitecoat pups with ``crying eyes.”

“The image of outlaw sealers killing whitecoat baby seals is tempting, one cultivated by anti-hunt protesters,” he said. “It is ill-informed at best and deliberately misleading at worst.”

Canada has not allowed a whitecoat hunt since 1987, but the pups can be killed once they lose their white fur, which can happen as early as 12 days after birth.

The federal Fisheries Department says the majority of seals killed are about 25 days old.




So it really isn't THAT misleading... They're still seal pups, whatever the color of their coats.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I know that, loam. All I am saying is that choice of photo should actually reflect the facts of the seals that are killed. Why is the whitecoat seal always prime choice of pic? They are cuter.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
Why is the whitecoat seal always prime choice of pic? They are cuter.


Well, I suppose...but here is one that wasn't a whitecoat...



Not sure I really understand the difference.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
loam you beat me to it. I was just about to post pretty much the same paragraphs from the article.

Their coats may not be white, but 12 days old hardly qualifies for even juvenile. These are not rats we're talking about.

Seal pups whose coats are not white are still cute:














posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Its not a sport folks.

Its bread and butter that cannot be suplemented by anything else.

50000 people eat everyday and have the means to purchase goods because of this hunt.

A baby seal is no different then any other animal that YOU would eat on a bun with a slice of cheese possibly for lunch TODAY.

BTW, they shoot them, not club them and as for superstar paul. That person has never had to work an 18 hour day on a frozen ocean to feed his family in his life.

It was another vegan public relation stunt.

If anyone should be clubbed, its him.

Save the seals, who destroy the cod population and you are letting hard working joes go without and letting his kids go hungry. LITERALLY Anyone who advocates this is a total moron. The US army has slaghtered over 100000 Iraqi civilians and there is less outcry from sir paul over that then what a guy HAS to do to feed his family.


Un-real.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by The_Voice]

Mod edit to remove profanity from the post please refer to this link
Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors

[edit on 16-3-2006 by pantha]

[edit on 16-3-2006 by pantha]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The_Voice




For the record, I know little about the issue and don't really have a fully informed opinion on it yet.... But after seeing your post, I very quickly formed one about you!

:shk:

[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Thats quite alright however I do maintain that its important for peoples kids to eat and have clothes and boots and mitts. You knolw where Im going with this.

Stop the seal hunt and HUMANS STARVE


Its just that simple bro.


SO, what i'll it be. Starving kids????????????????



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Well, The_Voice, rather than sounding like some depraved nutcase, why don't you provide some information supporting your argument? I'm willing to listen....that is if you can do so rationally.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Hey, I've no problems if the hunt is merely for food. That's fair game. But why hunt the young pups instead of the older cows? Is it because the young ones are easier to hunt? Is it because their fur is nicer and fetches a better price?

Really, if it's just for food I have absolutely no problems about it. I think you honour the animal by not making it's death a meaningless one. But that's just me. I don't expect western minds to really understand honour and such.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I don't expect western minds to really understand honour and such.


OK, Beachcoma, let's not start sounding like The_Voice in the other direction... I'm a Westerner...
...and have no difficulty with the concept.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Uh...nobody starves in Canada...the social safety net is more than able to put food on the tables of the unemployed. That's just not the case at all. Besides, Newfoundland is doing quite well in the oil industry. When the forestry tanked and thousands lost their jobs, no-one starved to death then either.

Call me what you want...tree hugger, whatever...but I'm basically against 'killing for fashion'. There is a need for sealskin in the far north and I'm good with that, but to kill 320,000 seals to sell the fur to facilitate the fashion industry overseas is beyond responsible.

Is the near depletion of the cod fishery responsible for the increase of the seal cull? Since they can't fish, they increase the quotas on seal?

To all the people living south of the 60th parallel...if you think you need sealskin trim to look 'in' this year, then I, my wife, my two sons and their wife/girlfriend will be disgusted with you. We put it right up there with wolf trim on parkas...totally uneccesary unless you live in Alaska or the Northwest Territories and work outside.

As far as fishing or hunting game is concerned, I have no problem...as long as the meat is consumed by the fisher/hunter and not sold on the open market.

BTW...I despise poachers worse than anything...absolute scum.
.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I don't expect western minds to really understand honour and such.




That's funny


Not like non-Western minds can not understand honour. Or that non-western minds automatically understand it.

You're committing an either/or fallacy. Not always good in the context of an argument



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Oh my, I wasn't very clear when I made that statement. My mistake.

What I meant to say is that I don't expert western educated minds to understand what I mean by "honouring the animals". I'm taught that if you kill an animal, make sure it's for food. By eating their meat, their deaths are not considered a meaningless one. Note it has to be for food. If it's for their skin or fur or pelt or for sport, you are not honouring them.

Some people may not understand this concept. That's what I was trying to say. Sorry if it seemed like I was being ... what's that word?... you know, difficult, blunt and irrational...?

If you're western educated and you understand then that's good. If you don't, well I said before I don't expect it.. it's a strange concept to grasp, i won't have a problem if it's not understood.

If you don't understand it and claim it's stupid, then I have a problem with that.

Is that better now? Have I made my meaning clearer?

Edit: I gotta add one more thing so that I'm clear - say that the animal has been killed and the meat has been eaten or cut, packed and distributed for consumption so that you're left with its fur. This fur you can keep and use, as it is not good to waste resources.

Again, I'd like to say I'm sorry for not making my meaning clear. I should have guessed that when I said "I don't expect westerners to understand honour and such" people would automatically assume the ending of that sentence would go like "because they are (insert whatever that's negative here)" instead of "because this is a somewhat a strange concept".

I wasn't trying to put down anyone. Fascinating isn't it? When a sentence can be interpreted many ways, people almost always choose the one with the negative connotation. It just goes to show that one should always be very clear in their statements.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Beachcoma]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Beachcoma:

I'm fairly familiar with your posts, so I know you have basically good intentions...BUT:


Originally posted by Beachcoma
What I meant to say is that I don't expert western educated minds to understand what I mean by "honouring the animals". I'm taught that if you kill an animal, make sure it's for food. By eating their meat, their deaths are not considered a meaningless one. Note it has to be for food. If it's for their skin or fur or pelt or for sport, you are not honouring them.


These concepts are not foreign to Westerners...Moreover, nor are they universally (or even widely) adhered to in the East... Shall I dredge up examples??? Shark fin? Bear gall bladders??? Etc... I'm quite confident I could even tie some of these examples to Indonesia.



Originally posted by Beachcoma
Some people may not understand this concept. That's what I was trying to say.


In my view, this is a universal problem in EVERY society...even yours.


Originally posted by Beachcoma
Sorry


That's why I like your posts. I think you are basically honest.


Originally posted by Beachcoma
if it seemed like I was being ... what's that word?... you know, difficult, blunt and irrational...?


Prejudicial?



Originally posted by Beachcoma
If you're western educated and you understand then that's good. If you don't, well I said before I don't expect it.. it's a strange concept to grasp, i won't have a problem if it's not understood.


There is nothing strange, or difficult to grasp, about management of resources. Our shortsightedness is a trait shared by ALL of humanity.


Originally posted by Beachcoma
If you don't understand it and claim it's stupid, then I have a problem with that.


As should everyone else.


Originally posted by Beachcoma
Is that better now? Have I made my meaning clearer?

Edit: I gotta add one more thing so that I'm clear - say that the animal has been killed and the meat has been eaten or cut, packed and distributed for consumption so that you're left with its fur. This fur you can keep and use, as it is not good to waste resources.

Again, I'd like to say I'm sorry for not making my meaning clear. I should have guessed that when I said "I don't expect westerners to understand honour and such" people would automatically assume the ending of that sentence would go like "because they are (insert whatever that's negative here)" instead of "because this is a somewhat a strange concept".

I wasn't trying to put down anyone. Fascinating isn't it? When a sentence can be interpreted many ways, people almost always choose the one with the negative connotation. It just goes to show that one should always be very clear in their statements.


I don't believe you were trying to put Westerners down either. However, I do think you are overly confident in your culture's adherence to the principles you espouse.


Saying a thing...and actually doing a thing are materially different from one another.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I may go and fix myself a cocktail -- specifically a drink called 'White Seal'

It's a Canadian Club over ice.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
I may go and fix myself a cocktail -- specifically a drink called 'White Seal'

It's a Canadian Club over ice.


ummm...better let me see some ID first...

oh, wait...you're 54...never mind.

Now, back to the topic...what do you think of this issue, Dave_54?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join