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.
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.
Originally posted by thermopolis
OH come on now, how could anyone beat this with a club?
[edit on 16-3-2006 by thermopolis]
The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) is prohibited.
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.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
I don't expect western minds to really understand honour and such.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
I don't expect western minds to really understand honour and such.
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.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
Some people may not understand this concept. That's what I was trying to say.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
Sorry
Originally posted by Beachcoma
if it seemed like I was being ... what's that word?... you know, difficult, blunt and irrational...?
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.
Originally posted by Beachcoma
If you don't understand it and claim it's stupid, then I have a problem with that.
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.
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.