I was under the impression that the concept of clubbing baby seals was more of a metaphor, a throwback to days gone by, than an ongoing, annual activity. Seriously, what kind of a person would actually club a baby seal? I'm no PETA activist and I have no problem with fur, from animals raised for that purpose, and/or used for food, but what did these baby seals ever do to anyone? It just seems senseless.
Someone should form a seal-clubber-clubbing-club. They'd go out and club anyone they caught clubbing a baby seal. posted by salad spork at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2005
Ah, "Let's Save The Cute Animals."
Funny how we never see a "Save The Cockroach," campaign. I agree that the seal hunt is barbaric, but it's a bit hilarious how people get choked up over a cute animal as opposed to say, a sewer rat. posted by jonmc at 9:56 AM on March 30, 2005
"# Canada’s seal population is healthy and abundant. The harp seal herd — the most important seal herd for this industry — is estimated at around five million animals, nearly the highest level ever recorded, and almost triple what it was in the 1970s."
I think Americans worried about the seal hunt should instead focus their efforts on stopping drilling in ANWR. posted by anthill at 9:56 AM on March 30, 2005
but it's a bit hilarious how people get choked up over a cute animal as opposed to say, a sewer rat.
Guilty as charged. Kill all the sewer rats, and all the mink, you want, but if it's kittens or baby seals, I'm gonna be outraged. posted by salad spork at 9:58 AM on March 30, 2005
Someone should form a seal-clubber-clubbing-club. They'd go out and club anyone they caught clubbing a baby seal.
posted by salad spork
I'd sign up. You got a ready market for the Seal Clubbers' pelts?
So this baby seal clubber walked into a club.... posted by Floydd at 10:00 AM on March 30, 2005
This is pretty nasty and harsh to think about, much less look through the slideshow and see. I saw a news piece yesterday that showed just the head of a baby seal.
It seems pretty fucking barbaric to beat them to death. posted by fenriq at 10:00 AM on March 30, 2005
Some pretty emotional photos. I am sure there will be some outrage over this. But in a real sense this is no worse then what happens on a daily basis, from mink farms to drift-line nets for fishing and many other instances. We should not be outraged over this because the seals are cute, but perhaps outrage-in-general over petty use of animals. I would have much less concern for this if it was for primarily for meat (and I am a pseudo-vegitarian), or at least the meat got used. As it is, it is wasteful, and to my line of thinking if you are going to hunt being wasteful of the life you take is criminal. posted by edgeways at 10:00 AM on March 30, 2005
Well, the baby seals go easier. With the adults you gotta keep hitting him on the damned head over and freaking over, and they fight back, sort of. Granted they break down and die eventually, but it's just an awful lot of work.
Whereas you could kill like 5 or 6 babies in about 2 minutes, it would take double that to wack one adult seal. You gotta consider your ROI in these sorts of endeavors. posted by xmutex at 10:02 AM on March 30, 2005
Q: What kind of person would club a baby seal?
A: The kind that relies on the income from the pelts to provide food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their family. posted by Grimgrin at 10:02 AM on March 30, 2005
It's not so much the "don't kill the cute animals" for me as like salad spork, I thought "clubbing seals" was an outdated technique used as a metaphor today.
I'm surprised they don't just round up truckloads of seals and take them to a proper slaughterhouse, at the very least to prevent photos of actual clubbing from being in the news. posted by mathowie at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2005
can someone club terri schiavo please? posted by quonsar at 10:04 AM on March 30, 2005
correct me if I'm wrong but don't they sell the pelts of the young seals to be used as jacket liners or something? Maybe shooting or other methods of killing ruin the pelts. posted by jonmc at 10:06 AM on March 30, 2005
The book Greenpeace is an account of the history of the organization it's named after and includes a chapter or two about Canada's seal hunt and their efforts to stop it. It's a good read.
On preview: jonmc, you're on the money about the slaughtering technique. Greenpeace put environmentally-friendly, non-toxic green dye on some of the living seals' pelts so they wouldn't be killed. Of course, the Canadian government stepped in and said, basically, "No, we can club the seals to death, but you can't put green dye on them." posted by thebabelfish at 10:09 AM on March 30, 2005
Jonmc : You stop to think that maybe the reason there isn't a protest about sewer rat clubbing because it's not done? Poisoned yes, clubbed no. Killing a plentiful species for food is fine, for food and the skin is even better, but for just the skin is bullshit, especially in such a savage manner. If they had a seal farm for skins and handled it like a cattle slaughterhouse that'd be moderately acceptable.
Anthill : Um, how about some of us Americans spend our time protesting ANWR and the seal clubbing and other unpleasant environmental and animal rights issues? I didn't think we could only pick one thing to be concerned about. posted by Vaska at 10:11 AM on March 30, 2005
Americans club seals too: in Alaska. Admittedly they're not quite a cute as these ones. From what I understand they club them becasue they have a soft spot on top of their heads at that age and it kills them pretty much instantly. If you round them up they get heatstroke and have a tendecy to trample each other to death so that's not good.
While I don't quite trust the Canadian govt.s numbers (these ARE the same people who managed the cod stocks into oblivion) I think the outrage on moral grounds is laughable. The biggest problem in the Arctic? Global warming and pollutants from urban areas to the south.
I agree that no-one would care if they were cockroaches. Or fish posted by fshgrl at 10:12 AM on March 30, 2005
Greenpeace put environmentally-friendly, non-toxic green dye on some of the living seals' pelts so they wouldn't be killed.
And if I recall correctly that dye fucked up the natural camoflauge that their white coats gave them and they were eaten by predators. Life is a cabaret! posted by jonmc at 10:12 AM on March 30, 2005
mathowie, I'm with you. I don't understand why they have to kill them in such a barbaric and disgusting fashion.
I understand the thought process behind culling numbers to keep populations in something resembling check but the manner by which they keep the numbers down is really unnecessarily grotesque and last century.
I would feel the same if they were doing this to sewer rats even though sewer rats wouldn't just lay there with those big eyes looking up at some asshole with his murder stick about to bash their friggin' brains in. Man, what a shitty job.
jonmc, nope, the use the pelts to make mirkins for Senators and Vice Presidents. posted by fenriq at 10:12 AM on March 30, 2005
FYI - the seals are not a quick 5 minute drive from the local slaughterhouse. They are on ice floes in the middle of the Gulf of St Lawrence, at least 20 km from the nearest land. The bulk of the seal hunters sailed there in fishing boats - it's only the activists and media who have helicopters and large well-equipped icebreakers (along with the Coast Guard and Fisheries inspectors, one for every 7 vessels...). The slaughter is not pretty or pleasant, but for the economy is this part of the world right now it supports a lot of families. A good overview of the history of the hunt can be found here on the CBC site. posted by hannahkitty at 10:13 AM on March 30, 2005
I can't believe this blatant display of front-page editorializing. posted by rafter at 10:17 AM on March 30, 2005
What jonmc said. This is all about the cuteness factor.
There are thousands of species on the verge of extinction right now and nobody cares, because they're mostly reptiles and insects. posted by rocket88 at 10:19 AM on March 30, 2005
o, the barbarity! the disgustingness of it all! posted by yedgar at 10:21 AM on March 30, 2005
Myth #6: The club – or hakapik – is a barbaric tool that has no place in today’s world.
Reality: Clubs have been used by sealers since the onset of the hunt hundreds of years ago. Hakapiks originated with Norwegian sealers who found it very effective. Over the years, studies conducted by the various veterinary experts, and American studies carried out between 1969 and 1972 on the Pribilof Islands hunt (Alaska) have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely. A recent report in September, 2002, by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, had results that parallel these findings.
Myth #7: The methods used to kill seals are far less humane than those used to hunt or slaughter any other domestic or wild animal.
Reality: Hunting methods were studied by the Royal Commission on Sealing in Canada and they found that the clubbing of seals, when properly performed, is at least as humane as, and often more humane than, the killing methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, which are accepted by the majority of the public.
In other words: tell it to your cheeseburger. posted by Robot Johnny at 10:23 AM on March 30, 2005
Myth #1: The Canadian government allows sealers to kill adorable little white seals. Reality: The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable seal pups are targeted by sealers during the commercial hunt. The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal – and has been since 1987. Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. Furthermore, seals cannot be harvested when they are in breeding or birthing grounds.
AND Myth #3: Seals are not independent animals when they are killed – they still rely on their mothers and can’t even swim or fend for themselves. Reality: Only weaned, self-reliant seals are hunted after they have been left by their mothers to fend for themselves. The vast majority of harp seals are taken after more than 25 days of age, after their white coat has moulted. Harp seals have the ability to swim at this stage of development. They are also opportunistic feeders and prey on whatever food source in readily available to them.
AND Myth #12: The seal hunt is not worth it - seals are only taken for their fur and the rest of the animal is wasted. Reality: Seals have been harvested for food, fuel and shelter and other products for hundreds of years. The subsistence hunt is a valuable link to Canadian cultural heritage. Canada exports seal products in three forms: pelts, oil and meat. Traditionally, the pelts have been the main commodity, but production of seal oil for human consumption has grown substantially in recent years. Seal oil markets remain positive, and a large percentage of seal oil is finding its way into areas other than traditional marine and industrial oils. DFO encourages the fullest use of seals, with the emphasis on leather, oil, handicrafts, and in recent years, meat for human and animal consumption as well as seal oil capsules rich in Omega-3. Any seal parts that are left on the ice provide sustenance to a wide variety of marine scavengers such as crustaceans, seabirds and fish.
There's some weasel wording here -- the "vast majority" of clubbed seals have shed their white fur, and hunters are "encouraged" to make use of the whole seal. (And I think humans are much more "opportunistic feeders" than any seal.) But as much as any of us may be bothered by hunting young animals, this ain't your father's seal hunt. posted by maudlin at 10:23 AM on March 30, 2005
Grimgrin (And to a much lesser extent Hannahkitty ) : For lack of a more polite phrasing, that's a lame rationalization. Lots of people were thrown out of jobs when they stopped whale hunting, should we have kept that career around just for them? Going by that logic we should not de-legislate or restrict a career area for any reason because people might be disadvantaged. My uncle got laid off when the chemical factory in his town was closed because they were poisoning the water system, should it have stayed open so he could work? posted by Vaska at 10:24 AM on March 30, 2005
Damn -- Robot Johnny slipped through right after I previewed! Well, at least we harvested different myths. I think that counts as a sustainable harvest of the page. posted by maudlin at 10:24 AM on March 30, 2005
A: The kind that relies on the income from the pelts to provide food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their family.
Just because it's traditional doesn't make it right. We live in an industrialized world; surely these people can find a new profession. Move to New York and open a cafe or something. Or... a club. Call it the Seal Club. posted by salad spork at 10:25 AM on March 30, 2005
rafter, are you saying its not gory and disturbing to look at images of baby animals being beaten to death?
rocket88, I'm not concerned about the extinction factor, I'm bothered by the inherent and unnecessary brutality of it all.
What products are made from seal pelts? Anything surprising or that I might actually buy so I can boycott it? posted by fenriq at 10:25 AM on March 30, 2005
Norway's fisheries minister Svein Ludvigsen has said the decision to let tourists join in the slaughter 'could be a big hit'.
That's truly one cold hearted man.
What is truly shocking, the veterinarians on the ice floes found that in 42% of the cases they studied, the seals had likely been skinned alive while conscious.
As far as the "supporting the family" thing goes: In Newfoundland, where 90% of sealers live, revenues from the hunt account for less than 1% of the province's economy and only 2% of the landed value of the fishery. According to the Newfoundland government, out of a population of half a million people, only 4,000 fishermen participate in the seal hunt each year. posted by Guerilla at 10:26 AM on March 30, 2005
I think that counts as a sustainable harvest of the page.
Yeah we clubbed those myths good! posted by Robot Johnny at 10:26 AM on March 30, 2005
Vaska: Because you can't always get what you want. But if you try real hard, and focus hard on an important issue, you might get what you - ooh! kittens! posted by anthill at 10:29 AM on March 30, 2005
maudlin, Reality: Only weaned, self-reliant seals are hunted after they have been left by their mothers to fend for themselves. The vast majority of harp seals are taken after more than 25 days of age, after their white coat has moulted.
Nice, they've been weaned and left to fend for themselves and some dude with a big old efficient killing stick smacks them in the head and 42% of the time skins the little bugger while he's still alive. Totally humane, yep. posted by fenriq at 10:29 AM on March 30, 2005
Would people wearing fur coats be allowed to enter? posted by Vidiot at 10:32 AM on March 30, 2005
Robot Johnny : Are you really taking the word of the 'Royal Commission on Sealing in Canada' and their 'veterinary experts' at face value? That's like asking Malboro if cigarettes are bad for you. I've been on a killing floor and it's dangerous, nasty and will keep you off burgers for a month, but there's a massive difference between docile cows getting a compression hammer in the head as opposed to running after wild animals and smacking them over the head.
Anthill : Hey, I have more then a thirty second attention span. I've gotten all the way to forty-five in fact. Take that! posted by Vaska at 10:34 AM on March 30, 2005
Metafilter: tell it to your cheeseburger. posted by anthill at 10:34 AM on March 30, 2005
Myth #2: Seals are being skinned alive. Reality: The most recent Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) Report and numerous reports mentioned by the Malouf Commission (1987) indicate that this is not true. Sometimes a seal may appear to be moving after it has been killed; however seals have a swimming reflex that is active – even after death. This reflex falsely appears as though the animal is still alive when it is clearly dead – similar to the reflex in chickens.
Of course, this is the government and they could be lying through their teeth. But where does that 42% number come from anyway? What veterinarians? Whose self interest do they serve? When was this research done? Where was this published?
(And damn those skanky seal moms for leaving their weanlings to fend for themselves. Where's Jerry Springer when you need him?) posted by maudlin at 10:35 AM on March 30, 2005
I have to agree with the voices in this thread that have pointed out that this issue is more ambiguous than it might first seem.
My first reaction to baby seal clubbing is just as negative as anyone else's. But there are issues of local and indigenous populations supporting themselves through the hunt, where very little alternative employment exists.
I'm not saying it is right, I honestly don't know whether it is or not. It just isn't that simple an issue. posted by pasd at 10:36 AM on March 30, 2005
Robot Johnny : Are you really taking the word of the 'Royal Commission on Sealing in Canada' and their 'veterinary experts' at face value?
In any argument of this sort you can't take either side's word at face value. But you tell me -- what is the massive difference between slaughtering "docile" cows and slaughtering "wild" seals? posted by Robot Johnny at 10:36 AM on March 30, 2005
rafter-well, it's his web page, and I think he can do pretty much all the editorializing he wants.
If you don't like it, you know where the door is. posted by Sharktattoo at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2005
We live in an industrialized world; surely these people can find a new profession. Move to New York and open a cafe or something.
I doubt "these people" are that interested in finding a new profession in New York. I'm not so sure the world is "industrialized" or that we're all marching in lockstep toward that nice, shiny American future. posted by 327.ca at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2005
I thought the reason this is allowed is because of the overpopulation of seals. Does anyone have a link to population trends and what the largest self-sufficient seal population size would be that doesn't threaten other parts of that ecosystem? I agree that a spike through the head is nasty and that no animal should be skinned alive, but I was under the impression that there are just too many seals for that area. posted by mikeh at 10:42 AM on March 30, 2005
Would people wearing fur coats be allowed to enter?
As long as it's humanely harvested, farm-bred mink or rabbit fur, sure. No seal fur.
anthill, that baby cow is disturbing. posted by salad spork at 10:44 AM on March 30, 2005
What does this have to do with Canadian seafood?
And where is your outrage about veal? There's a barbaric practice - an animal that lives its entire life in a box being stuffed with food.
How about chickens? They lead horrible lives, unless perhaps they're free range.
Have you ever seen horses being slaughtered commercially?
This is a far more ambiguous issue than this post makes it out to be. posted by Jupiter Jones at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2005
Robot Johnny : Not all places are identical of course but in your typical slaughterhouse the cows are brought up a ramp and onto a slow moving belt. They go in front of a guy (or gal) with a compression hammer who places it against their forehead and presses the trigger. You feel a massive thud and your entire arm and shoulders vibrate as the metal bit is driven into through the skull with a sickening crunch in less then 1/10th of a second, killing the animal instantly. The cow falls over and the ramp continues, taking them further into the facility.
Seal clubbing? Well if the hunters are still using hakapiks it hasn't changed much since the 1930's. Back then the hunters didn't have reliable icebreakers so they could only get as close as their ships allowed, they'd then disembark and go to shore. Early anecdotes from hunters say that the seals were disturbed by their presence and would move somewhat but not go far. Later stories impart that the seals now run at the sight of people, which requires the hunter to chase them down and strike them, often repeatedly. posted by Vaska at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2005
Are you really taking the word of the 'Royal Commission on Sealing in Canada' and their 'veterinary experts' at face value?
I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to take their word for it than anyone working for PETA, the Sea Shepards or the HSUS. I work in (mostly marine) ecology and I am very well acquainted with those organisations and 99% of the time they're full of shit. They'll say whatever they want to get support, villify honest researchers without a second thought, debase good science and flat out make shit up.
OTOH the "overpopulation" of seals eating all the fish and putting the fishermen out of business is crap too. The fishermen caught all the fish in nets, is what happened to the fish. They didn't eat them all though, I wonder how many people protesting this happily ate some underpriced cod in the past decade or two? The govt. subsidises the fishermen to buy new boats and gear so they'll be more efficent, they get paid diddly by the processing plants that sell the fish for 10-50 times what they bought it for so they have to catch more to keep up. It all escalates till there are no fish left. The owners of the plants are happy, the fishermen and the cod stocks get screwed. Then the very people who were happy to get cheap food turn around and say "oh but you can't kill seals! They're cute!" posted by fshgrl at 10:50 AM on March 30, 2005
maudlin, the 42% came from Guerilla's comment, I thought it had a link to follow through on but am unable to find it now. Call me extremist but skinning one animal alive is too many. Forty two percent is about 120,000 being skinned alive if the 300,000 number is to be believed.
That's incomprehensible to me. Sorry, I wasn't able to kill you with my club but I'm too busy skinning your dead litter mates to stand up and bash your skull in again so you'll just have to suffer while I skin you alive and let you die slowly and painfully.
fshgrl, true, I don't believe PETA for one second, they have already proven time and again that they will lie and obfuscate the truth in order to make their point. If the 42% came from PETA then I wholly retract any weight given to it. posted by fenriq at 10:53 AM on March 30, 2005
Seals don't have litters. posted by fshgrl at 10:59 AM on March 30, 2005
Dammit, didn't mean to post that yet.
... and you guys should see what polar bears do to them when they catch them. Those ones that got painted green probably ended up inside out on the ice in short order. posted by fshgrl at 11:03 AM on March 30, 2005
They go in front of a guy (or gal) with a compression hammer who places it against their forehead and presses the trigger. You feel a massive thud and your entire arm and shoulders vibrate as the metal bit is driven into through the skull with a sickening crunch in less then 1/10th of a second, killing the animal instantly. The cow falls over and the ramp continues, taking them further into the facility.
Yeah, that's the way it's supposed to work, just like you're supposed to be able to instantly and humanely kill a seal with one stroke of your mighty hakapik.
The truth, though, it that frequently a cow is still alive when they stick a huge metal hook through their hind leg and hoist them into the air.
Also, the cattle/seal analogy doesn't really work for me, since at least the poor seals are "free-range" until they are bludgeoned. Have you seen what feed lots look like? Oy.
Tell it to your cheeseburger indeed. posted by Specklet at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2005
Q: What kind of person would club a baby seal?
A: The kind that relies on the income from the pelts to provide food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their family.
posted by Grimgrin at 10:02 AM PST on March 30 [!]
This would be a good argument for slave traders, no? posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 11:11 AM on March 30, 2005
Reminds me of a story.
My friend went to Vancouver, far away from our home in Newfoundland. He was asked by an activist to sign a petition to stop the seal hunt.
"Uh, no," he replied.
"Why not? Don't you love seals?" asked the protester.
"Sure I do. They're delicious."
Think about how a texan would react if you told them killing cows is wrong because they're cute. That pretty much summarizes the attitude many Newfoundlanders have towards the rest of the western world protesting the seal hunt.
It's not that we're cold hearted, it's just that you're retarded. posted by dum2007 at 11:11 AM on March 30, 2005
In other words: tell it to your cheeseburger.
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:23 AM PST on March 30 [!]
I'm a vegetarian, RJ, and just because one animal's suffering outweighs another is no reason to dismiss the suffering of either animal. It's idiot's logic, or more likely the rationalization of someone who can't be bothered to give a damn.
I'm no PETA activist and I have no problem with fur, from animals raised for that purpose, and/or used for food...
Let's anally electrocute you and see how you feel about "fur, from animals raised for that purpose." Can you really be that ignorant about how fur animals are killed?
Anyone who can truly dismiss this as an insignificant issue needs to do something truly environmental and, as T C Boyle once put it, bury yourself in a compost heap and shoot yourself in the head. Don't bother signing up as an organ donor, you have no goddam heart.
Ignorant, uncaring fucks... posted by Shane at 11:12 AM on March 30, 2005
Any pressure on the fish stocks by the seals is due to over-harvesting of said fish by the completely unsustainable fishing practices of Newfoundland, Canadian, American and European industries. And this is because
Having said that, I have first hand knowledge of what these seals eat. My lab has a speciality in identifying fish bones, and from time to time we do marine-mammal stomach contents on contract to governmental regulators interested in the marine food web, so to speak. Not many things are as accurate indicators of diet as what is in a stomach (yes we also do fecal samples but these are harder to come by). Punchline: harp seals eat relatively little cod or other commercial species. (The same is true of harbour seals and salmon, west coasters).
The problem here, as I see it, is the hubristic notion that we can "manage" these resources. I have no problem with clubbing these seals (Whats their favorite drink? Canadian Club on the Rocks), but the idea - on the east coast of all places - that there is such a thing as (oxymoron alert) "wildlife management" shows a reality disconnect. Until say thirty years ago when we were just creaming some surplus off the oceans it might have looked sustainable, now, worldwide, we are fishing down the food chain and pretty soon all that will be left are jellyfish. Seriously (PDF), the goal of fisheries management should be ecosystem rebuilding & renewal, not just maintenance. The east coast fisheries were managed right down the toilet. posted by Rumple at 11:15 AM on March 30, 2005
It's not that we're cold hearted, it's just that you're retarded.
That needs a phat beat behind it. posted by jonmc at 11:16 AM on March 30, 2005
Wow, I was gonna say what Shane said, only not so pithy and not with the part about shooting yourself. Odd to have Shane doing an end-run on me in harsh verbiage - I've gotta try harder!
Still, the point bears repeating: "How can you care about this when that is also happening?" is completely specious, and always comes up like clockwork in these arguments. posted by soyjoy at 11:20 AM on March 30, 2005
I have no problem with fur, from animals raised for that purpose, and/or used for food, but what did these baby seals ever do to anyone?
And what have those animals "raised" for clothing or food ever done to anyone?
If these were sewer rats, you bet I'd be outraged. And there's no ambiguity here at all. Animals are not for our entertainment, financial gain, bellies or backs. Period.
The argument that people's economies depend on it is bullshit. It's no justification, no more than slavery was justified by our need for cotton or cheap labor. posted by tr33hggr at 11:20 AM on March 30, 2005
boycotting Canadian seafood and calling congressfolks.
For the record:
1) The people who fish and/or farm Canadian seafood are by no means the same people as the seal hunters, so this strikes me as a pretty ineffective form of protest. It'd be like boycotting lamb to protest the veal industry.
2) Good luck calling "congressfolks." Canada doesn't have a Congress, it has a Parliament. A bit of a hairsplit, but if we're gonna drum up moral outrage for what is, to the best of my knowledge, a sustainable commercial hunt, maybe we should know what kind of government we're petitioning, eh?
On preview: Shane, I think you undermine your argument in favour of a more compassionate view of animals by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an ignorant, uncaring fuck with no heart who should commit suicide. Maybe consider for a moment the possibility that melting glaciers, while nowhere near as graphically disturbing as bleeding seal carcasses, might be a bigger threat to all life on this planet than the culling of a robust herd of one particular kind of animal? posted by gompa at 11:20 AM on March 30, 2005
Oh, and what Shane said. Spot on. Fuck the lot of them. posted by tr33hggr at 11:21 AM on March 30, 2005
Nobody ever talks about the broad array of fish and invertebrate species that harp seals murder ever single day.
If you ask me, they've got it coming. posted by thisisdrew at 11:24 AM on March 30, 2005
Fshgrl : So what's your reasoning for taking the word of the government over the activists? Governments lie all the time, so do idealistic fools. However, the CBC noted that in the last five years the DFO has received almost 700 videotapes of alleged violations of Canada's criminal code and the Marine Mammal Regulations that govern the hunt but have not charged a single person.
Specklet : Yeah, feed lots are awful places. Yeah, I've heard the cow is sometimes still alive. I didn't say it was perfectly humane but it seems better then smacking a terrified animal over the head repeatedly. posted by Vaska at 11:25 AM on March 30, 2005
calling congressfolks
Or did I misunderstand that? Was the idea to call US congressfolks to get them to protest Canadian resource management? Which also seems unlikely to be effective. posted by gompa at 11:26 AM on March 30, 2005
It's idiot's logic, or more likely the rationalization of someone who can't be bothered to give a damn.
Hey, there's a difference between "can't be bothered to give a damn," and "just plain not giving a damn"!
Look, I don't like the idea of clubbing seals OR zapping cows in the head. But don't label me apathetic for pointing out other people's hypocricies...
It's not that we're cold hearted, it's just that you're retarded.
Also proof that a little bit of Johnny Cochrane can be found in all of us. posted by stet at 11:38 AM on March 30, 2005
Think about how a texan would react if you told them killing cows is wrong because they're cute.
Errr, might be why a Texan would kill it.
Any pressure on the fish stocks by the seals is due to over-harvesting of said fish
I also heard the new seal population in the North Pole is forcing fish to find a new feeding source from the ones they naturally fed on while there. Which then is having a trickle down effect in the sea's fish population. posted by thomcatspike at 11:40 AM on March 30, 2005
Interesting thing to consider - for those who would feel better about seal 'farming/harvesting' if the seals were picked up in big boats, transported inland to abbatoirs, and humanely zapped in the head painlessly: ‘‘Ludwig’s ratchet,’’ economic in nature, is a positive feedback loop between increased catching power and serial depletion, driven by the need to repay borrowed money. (from the excellent Pitcher2001 document). You gotta kill a lot of seals to pay for a fancy slaugherhouse. posted by anthill at 11:42 AM on March 30, 2005
think Americans worried about the seal hunt should instead focus their efforts on stopping drilling in ANWR.
posted by anthill at 11:56 AM CST on March 30 [!]
America takes a beating on these boards. Something that could be negative regarding canada and your argument is "we're not as bad as you!".
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but defending the action by pointing back at someone else is a childish response. posted by justgary at 11:42 AM on March 30, 2005
I read (somewhere, I'll try to find it) that even if the Canadian government did make the seal hunt illegal, it would be pretty much impossible to enforce it, due to the thousands of kilometres of shoreline. posted by krunk at 11:42 AM on March 30, 2005
Q: What kind of person would club a baby seal?
A: The kind that relies on the income from the pelts to provide food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their family.
Funny, that's the same justification I use for clubbing people!
Q: What kind of person would club a human being?
A: The kind that relies on the income from their wallets to provide food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their family. posted by xmod2 at 11:43 AM on March 30, 2005
gompa: Or did I misunderstand that? Was the idea to call US congressfolks to get them to protest Canadian resource management? Which also seems unlikely to be effective.
I think that's probably what Matt meant. Unfortunately, it is quite effective. Think about what those congressfolks are doing to protect US lumber and beef interests... posted by 327.ca at 11:44 AM on March 30, 2005
God, I love Whacking Day. posted by graventy at 11:45 AM on March 30, 2005
Fshgrl : So what's your reasoning for taking the word of the government over the activists?
I know a lot of activists and also a lot of government scientists. I wouldn't believe an animal rights activist if they told me the sky was blue. Govt scientists tend to have data you can actually check, activists don't.
Anyone who can truly dismiss this as an insignificant issue needs to do something truly environmental
This isn't an environmental issue (yet- lets see how good that 5% estimate was), it's an animal rights issue. Personally I don't feel morally obligated to make sure that no animal on the planet ever suffers fear or pain again any more than I feel obligated to bear and raise any embryo I should conceive or to go to Church on Sundays. If you do that's fine but it doesn't give me the right to call me a sick fuck just because I don't agree with you.
I also heard the new seal population in the North Pole is forcing fish to find a new feeding source from the ones they naturally fed on while there. Which then is having a trickle down effect in the sea's fish population.
Natural fluctuation can be interpreted a lot of ways, most of them wrong. posted by fshgrl at 11:46 AM on March 30, 2005
gompa, especially with our Congress rushing to the aid of Terri Schiavo. Hmm, will invoking her name result in a new Godwin?
Vaska, PETA has a long history of unabashedly warping the truth to fit their needs. Governments do lie and the truth is probably somewhere between the two sets of points.
See I bashes the seal on the head
It don't matter if he live or dead
I take his skin all off with my knife
And leave him laying without his life. posted by fenriq at 11:48 AM on March 30, 2005
It all seems so uncivilized, clubbing slow-moving animals into a bloody pulp. You'd think that by now there'd be more humane and evolved ways of killing the seals. Heathens, all of them! posted by Tlahtolli at 11:51 AM on March 30, 2005
Yeah, I've heard the cow is sometimes still alive. I didn't say it was perfectly humane but it seems better then smacking a terrified animal over the head repeatedly.
You say toh-may-toh, I say tah-mah-toh. Cows are scared shitless when in a slaughterhouse. Some of them are in agony before they die. Same with the seals.
I guess all I was sayin' is that if you are complaining about the seal slaughter, you better be vegetarian... posted by Specklet at 11:52 AM on March 30, 2005
It's very easy to call for an end to someone else's livelihood, especially from several hundred kilometres away.
Call me an ignorant fuck all you want, but I have no problem with the killing of animals. That's what omnivores do. posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:53 AM on March 30, 2005
I just wanted to make a pointless comment late in the thread that adds nothing and will get ignored anyway. So...there. posted by fungible at 11:55 AM on March 30, 2005
Think about what those congressfolks are doing to protect US lumber and beef interests...
True, but there's no economic argument for interfering in the seal hunt. Now if there was a handful of red states with massively subsidized seal hunts of their own that needed protecting, you might actually see action from Washington on this. posted by gompa at 11:55 AM on March 30, 2005
So Ghost, you kill your own food? Or does yours come wrapped in cellophane?
You want to see cruel, check out the chicken industry. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
Most of this protest is indeed due to the cuteness of the animal. I'd confess to that myself - after working with cows, and seeing how utterly stupid and filthy they are, I have no desire to let one live anymore. Best as steak, IMHO. posted by mek at 11:56 AM on March 30, 2005
seeing how utterly stupid and filthy they are
Jeebus freaking christ, have you ever had a roomate? Been to a convenience store? What some people will do to justify their greed and apathy is beyond me. Yeah, humans are so much better. posted by tr33hggr at 12:01 PM on March 30, 2005
Wow, we've finally found Free Waterfall Jr. posted by jonmc at 12:07 PM on March 30, 2005
Boy, he had to know this was going to turn into a shitstorm.
I don't want to club seals, or eat seal meat, or wear fur coats. I don't like thinking about slaughterhouses and the pain and suffering animals may or may not go through for our benefit. I had to say that now, because otherwise that will be at issue later, if anyone cares to answer this post.
But what gets me every time is the anthropomorphization of animals. The kind of people who dress their dog up in sweaters and tutus, endow all animals with human abilities and feelings. I honestly want to open this up for discussion - do people here believe that animals think, act and feel the same way we do? Are worthy of the same respect and consideration we show (or should show) our fellow humans? Seriously, I'm asking, not posing a rhetorical question. I'm not sure I believe that, but I'm open for a real discussion on it, with the merits of both sides being weighed.
When animals eat each other (as polar bears do seals, etc., etc., etc.) is it really to be expected that we humans shouldn't eat animals? I don't think animals are for my entertainment, or my financial gain; but I eat meat and wear leather. Humans have always, as far back as our history can be known, eaten meat when we can get it, and we're far from the only species that does. The argument can certainly be made that in this day and age, we don't need meat and can get an equal if not better diet without it, but many choose not to. Are we to be excoriated, called cruel, spat on by PETAsts and tree-huggers?
I know it seems rather off-topic, but I don't think it really is. We've kind of been dancing around the issue, with the cries of "yes, clubbing the baby seals is cruel, but what about X, Y and Z?"
Well, what about X, Y and Z? If we are going to cry out against the clubbing of seals in Canada, can we still eat meat and wear leather or fur with a clean conscience? If so, why? It seems to me that if we are going to afford animals the rights and privileges of people, that's going to open up a whole slew of interesting problems. Witness: this link (PDF) about dog rights in San Fransisco. Social integration? Fair share of resources? Not brutally murdering animals for fun is one thing, but treatment of animals as equal to humans is a bit of another, and that seems to be the direction some are headed. I'm interested on people's opinions on it. posted by jennaratrix at 12:08 PM on March 30, 2005
INGREDIENTS
2 flippers, 1 tbsp. baking soda, 2 tbsp flour, salt, pepper, 1/4 lb. salt pork cut into small cubes, 1 chopped onion, 2 diced carrots, 1 diced turnip.
Pastry: 1/3 cup margarine, 2 cups flour, 2 tsp. baking powder, 1/2 tsp. salt, 2 or 3 tbsp. cold water.
INSTRUCTIONS
Cooking
Soak the seal flippers for 1/2 hour in cold water to which 1 tbsp. of baking soda has been added.
The fat will turn white. Remove all the fat.
Mix 2 tbsp. of flour with salt and pepper
Dredge the flippers with the flour mixture.
CooK the salt pork in a fry pan.
Fry the flippers until brown in the rendered salt pork fat.
Add a little water and simmer until partly tender.
Put the flippers in a roaster with the onion and the cubed carrot and turnip, and add 1 cup of water.
Cover and bake at 350F degrees for 2 to 3 hours.
Remove from oven and take flippers from roaster.
Adding 1 1/2 cups of water to the roaster and stir well
Add flour thickening (See recipe at the bottom,) and stir well until thicken to make gravy.
Place the flippers back in the roaster and cover with pastry (See recipe at the bottom.) Bake at 400F for about 25 minutes until pastry is brown.
Flour Thickening
Take a small jar with a cover.
Place 1/4 cup of cold water in the jar.
On top of the water place 2 tbsp. of flour.
Place the cover on the jar and shake until the mixture is smooth
Add to liquid from meat to make it thicker.
Pastry
Cut margarine into flour, baking powder, and salt until the mixture resembles bread crumbs.
Sprinkle in water, 1 tbsp. at a time and mix.
Gather the pastry into a ball and place on lightly floured board.
Roll out the pastry to a thickness of about 1/2" to 3/4" and to the correct size to cover the flippers. posted by Keith Talent at 12:08 PM on March 30, 2005
I know a lot of activists and also a lot of government scientists. I wouldn't believe an animal rights activist if they told me the sky was blue. Govt scientists tend to have data you can actually check, activists don't.
Natural fluctuation can be interpreted a lot of ways, most of them wrong.
fshgrl, your second quote was replying back to my comment. Your first quote doesn't support the second. posted by thomcatspike at 12:11 PM on March 30, 2005
The kind of people who dress their dog up in sweaters and tutus, endow all animals with human abilities and feelings.
Yes, that is silly.
I honestly want to open this up for discussion - do people here believe that animals think, act and feel the same way we do?
I don't know that for sure. But I do know they think, act, and feel.
Are worthy of the same respect and consideration we show (or should show) our fellow humans?
Without a doubt, IMHO. posted by tr33hggr at 12:11 PM on March 30, 2005
Specklet : I'm complaining about the method, not saying it should be illegal. Saying that someone can't complain about the slaughter if they're not vegetarians is to require sainthood of everyone before they can complain. It's like saying I can't complain about an oil tanker spill if my trashcan fell over and got crap everywhere.
Fenriq : I never claimed that PETA spoke only the truth, I just find Fshgrl's desire to believe the government first unnerving. Government scientists have told us radiation is safe, some extra mercury in the water is fine, and that tomato is a vegetable. posted by Vaska at 12:15 PM on March 30, 2005
When animals eat each other (as polar bears do seals, etc., etc., etc.) is it really to be expected that we humans shouldn't eat animals?
I think that's your choice. Circumstances are widely different, as they need to do that to survive, and eat what they kill instead of factory farming. But I've never said folks shouldn't be able to choose their diet. I'd like them to be responsible about it, yes, and if they're not prepared to eat their dog or cat as quickly as they are a cow or chicken, then yup, I'm going to call that hypocrisy. posted by tr33hggr at 12:15 PM on March 30, 2005
Sigh, ketchup is a vegetable. posted by Vaska at 12:15 PM on March 30, 2005
Off topic, but we could all use a laugh. This is a quite funny 404 page, in my opinion. And no, I'm not a PETA supporter. posted by tr33hggr at 12:19 PM on March 30, 2005
Anybody here ever spent time in the Arctic Circle. Yeah. It's fucking cold. The idiotic obviousness of that can not be over stated. It is REALLY fucking cold.
You see people up there in furs and at first you think what the hell? It seems rather barbaric. Then after about two weeks freezing your fucking ass off in your $800 Gortex polar gear you try a bear or arctic rabbit fur. OMFG. It's soooooo warm.
Now, I don't think all these seal furs are going to like pipeline workers or Eskimos and shit. Certainly a significant portion is headed for the vanity market that can do without it. But if you NEED to be warm. Fur is the way to go.
And let's not forget that synthetics are environmentally damaging. Hell. So is wool for that matter.
So if people are to live and work in places where by nature they have no business being, like the Arctic, something is getting exploited to help them live and work there.
The idea that we should not eat or use animals at all is simply not realistic. Most people on the planet would starve to death.
I think a better argument would be to ask if there a way to do this in a more humane and sustainable manner? posted by tkchrist at 12:20 PM on March 30, 2005
To respond to your statement, tr33hggr - ugh, can't believe I'm going to say this, but if it's a question of me dying vs. eating Fido, sorry buddy - puppy stew it is. But only under those circumstances, so I guess I'm a semi-hypocrite.
And funny it may be, but even PETA's 404 page is heavy on the self-righteousness. posted by jennaratrix at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2005
and if they're not prepared to eat their dog or cat as quickly as they are a cow or chicken, then yup, I'm going to call that hypocrisy.
No. I'd call that SMART.
First off predator mammal species, being higher on the food chain, tend to have higher concentrations of toxins.
Second of all dogs and cats don't reproduce as reliably or as fast as chickens or fish nor do they produce the quantity of meat a single cow does.
And third as predators they require MEAT to grow which is not as smart sustainable economics as is growing protein food from grazing herbivores.
Plus domesticated dogs and cats - while eaten in some areas of the word are NOT the main protein foodstuff of those cultures. They are a cultural delicacy or supplemental protein at best. FI in Asian countries eating a predator has Taoist significance... you know taking on the "aspect" of the animal etc. posted by tkchrist at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2005
But if you NEED to be warm. Fur is the way to go.
And on preview: jennaratrix puts it more starkly.
It's this same argument that gives Gary Francione's Introduction to Animal Rights:Your Child or the Dog? its title.
If for some reason your house is on fire and your child and your dog are in it, and you can only save one, which do you choose? Any sane person will pick their child. But the fact that there exists a situation in which putting human interests above animal interests makes sense does not logically mean that human interests should be put above animal interests by default. In other words, the fact that some people exist who need to wear fur (an arguable point itself, but let's grant it) does not rationalize the existence of a seal-clubbing industry. Likewise, the fact that some people on earth need to eat meat in order to make it to tomorrow does not rationalize anyone in the "First World" eating meat on a daily basis simply because they enjoy the taste.
Obligatory: I personally eschew the term "Animal Rights" - it's a misnomer. posted by soyjoy at 12:32 PM on March 30, 2005
That's fine tkchrist, though I think you'll find plenty of concentrated toxins, antibiotics, growth hormones and lordy knows what else swimming around in your cheeseburger, not to mention unadulterated feces.
But I was speaking of those who see no philosophical contradiction in eating a cow (or a piece of its muscle) but shudder at the idea of eating something closer to home.
But since I eat none of them, carry on. posted by tr33hggr at 12:38 PM on March 30, 2005
I think a better argument would be to ask if there a way to do this in a more humane and sustainable manner?
tkchrist: I know, that's what I said. You make a very good point with the practicality of animal furs. Personally, I would like to see the end of vanity furs, but is how that could come about, if at all is beyond me.
At this point in time, though, with our resources being depleted, I think we should all be practical about our diets. posted by Tlahtolli at 12:40 PM on March 30, 2005
soyjoy, you are so much calmer and level-headed than I. I covet that. posted by tr33hggr at 12:41 PM on March 30, 2005
Oh, and I feel the need to put this in before I am accused of heartlessness - I spent a long time volunteering at a local animal shelter, and not the fun play-with-puppies volunteering, the clean-up-dogshit volunteering. Hard work, and dog bless those who do it for a living, because I don't think I could.
I love dogs. Love love love them, always have, have the scars to prove it (I thought as a 3 year old that Dobermans liked having their paws petted. I was wrong.) I eat less and less meat as I get older, because I know how it gets to my table and it sickens me. But I don't think they're little four-legged people, and I'm not (yet?) at the point where I think that an animal's "rights" come before my own, or even on a par with my own, and I wonder about that, and wonder if I'm wrong, or thick-headed, or somehow not seeing something I should. I guess that's what I was trying to get to in my questions above. posted by jennaratrix at 12:42 PM on March 30, 2005
...is it really to be expected that we humans shouldn't eat animals?
Nope, not at all, and that wasn't what I was getting at. For me, the issue is in how the animals are raised and killed. If I had a farm, you betcha I'd eat chickens! I love fried chicken! (I don't think I'd eat beef, though, because I'd balk at killing a mammal that large.) But a happy, healthy, well-fed chicken I took care of myself? Sure. But, until I can raise my own animals, I'm not going to support the industry. No fried chicken for me.
Specklet : I'm complaining about the method, not saying it should be illegal.
I think we're basically in agreement. I never said it should be illegal; I just think they should find a more humane way of killing them. I was trying to say that anyone who complains about they way they are killed should be aware that the way cattle and chicken are raised and killed is, in my opinion, just as bad.
...and if they're not prepared to eat their dog or cat as quickly as they are a cow or chicken, then yup, I'm going to call that hypocrisy.
Yeah. Most people (in America, anyway) who eat meat buy it in a little wrapped package from the nice clean supermarket. No hair and shit and blood, no seeing the animal die... I just don't think you should eat anything you couldn't raise and kill and cook yourself. posted by Specklet at 12:44 PM on March 30, 2005
"Canada’s seal population is healthy and abundant. The harp seal herd — the most important seal herd for this industry — is estimated at around five million animals, nearly the highest level ever recorded, and almost triple what it was in the 1970s."
In Canada, this controversy is very tired and outdated (those are 30 years old crocodile tears peeps) and pretty much all the usual arguments have been layed out here, except maybe the pivotal role played by Brigitte Bardot and her "Amis des animaux" to spin this retarded anthropomorphic knee jerk reaction out of control. Incidentally, the huge anthropomorphic differences between calfs and baby seals for those still wondering is the full frontal wide watery eyes of the later and its whimpering, all of witch are much closer to human baby and bring your biological parenting protective reaction to full throttle. Do not be fooled though, those "cries" are warnings, any attempt to pet the cute baby will result in you being separated of your fingers.
For a better way to feel outraged, may I recommend you try to care about those 120k human babies that die of hunger every day, in Africa and South America mainly. I know they have dark skin tones, but give it a try at least. This is just me with my funny altruistic ideas, I know, I know, socialism and redistribution of wealth are the devil seeds, but if I actually cared, I don't, but if I did I'd try to save the human babies first. Funny eh? Priorities folks. Oh well, back to not giving a shit. posted by kush at 2:09 PM on March 30, 2005
Harry Morgan: It all seems so uncivilized, clubbing slow-moving animals into a bloody pulp. You'd think that by now there'd be more humane and evolved ways of killing the seals.
While we're at it, can't we find more humane and evolved ways to kill human beings? posted by 327.ca at 2:11 PM on March 30, 2005
But what gets me every time is the anthropomorphization of animals.
For fuck's sake, will you people quit harping on "anthropomorphization"? That was one of the first argument stodgy scientists tried to use to discredit Jane Goodall, it didn't work, and it's ridiculously outdated. Animals share all the same basic emotions human do.
Those ones that got painted green probably ended up inside out on the ice in short order.
When animals eat each other (as polar bears do seals, etc., etc., etc.) is it really to be expected that we humans shouldn't eat animals?
Yes, bears sometimes skin their prey very very effectively. Sometimes they just eat the brains of a fish or other animal. Many animals like brains. This is part of nature. Survival instincts, which animals need. To survive. I've studied pictures of animal corpses and the signs and manners of death and consumption that give clues as to what animal did the killing, and it does nothing to affect my emotions the way the unneeded and heinous slaughter of seals does.
Humans have a choice to rise above their instincts, and we are not engaged in the world of survival. You're perfectly able to live in such a way that no animals have to die for you to eat or keep warm.
Again, can't you be bothered to care or exercise the human ability to make choices and act humanely? posted by Shane at 2:12 PM on March 30, 2005
jennaratrix, i tend to stay away from these kinds of discussions because i'm not particularly interested in changing anyone's mind (how folks choose to live is how they choose to live, and that's fine), but your questions sound like good-faith, so here goes:
i try (and often fail) to do what i can to avoid eating foods and using products that directly harm animals. i'm very uncertain about how many and what kinds of qualities animals share with humans. As a rule, when uncertain about something, i'd rather err on the side of caution. This may seem deeply naive and overly simple, but-- i suffer very little when i choose not to eat meet; a cow or fish or pig probably suffers more than that when i choose to do so.
Now, i strongly agree that it is silly to anthropomorphize animals, but for a slightly different reason. True, it makes it easier to care about something when one (falsely) ascribes it familiar traits. But i believe that the most interesting and potentially powerful kind of compassion is for an unfamiliar thing. I think it's important to let animals be Other and to still find respect and a kind of empathy for that Other-ness.
On preview: Shane, i don't know if i'm splitting hairs but i think there is a grey area between saying animals have viable emotions (which i agree with) and anthropomorphizing them (which i think is questionable). posted by verysleeping at 2:24 PM on March 30, 2005
He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
Apparently, God remained silent as to clubbing and skinning seals. posted by quonsar at 2:29 PM on March 30, 2005
Humans have a choice to rise above their instincts, and we are not engaged in the world of survival.
That's a load of hooey! (the survival part, not the instinct part) posted by Robot Johnny at 2:33 PM on March 30, 2005
I think people are confusing "inhumane treatment" with "freaks me out". The seal hunt is out in the open; abbatoirs aren't. And what looks horrific may not necessarily be the most cruel: it often seems to me that humane means of dispatching animals (or people!) are more concerned with assuaging people's nerves rather than mitigating actual suffering.
And I think that people who simultaneously argue that we're no better than animals but yet we have the choice to rise above our instincts are logically inconsistent, because what they're really doing is putting non-human creatures on a pedestal. Nature doesn't give a shit how proteins are recirculated; only human beings get agitated about this. posted by mcwetboy at 2:33 PM on March 30, 2005
This would be a good argument for slave traders, no?
Well, no, not really seeing as slaves are people and seals are animals.
I stopped talking to a person this week who said that their cat has a lower IQ than Terry Schiavo, and she wouldn't put her cat to death, so why should the do it to Schiavo.
This comparing people to animals has to stop. posted by jon_kill at 2:34 PM on March 30, 2005
Okay, let's see:
Animal activists lie, because they are trying to support an ideology they fervently believe in, because they want to persuade more donations, whatever. Governments also lie, because they want to appeal to certain parts of their constituency, because they receive money that encourages them to show favor to some organizations, whatever. Like many people have said, neither are probably telling the WHOLE truth in this situation, so to say "I believe A and I will never believe B" is kind of ignorant.
The fact that the government regulates the Seal Hunt does not make me feel better. From the pictures, it looks like a pretty chaotic ordeal--I doubt every violation gets caught, I doubt everything runs perfectly. The idea that cruelties are ignored because they are too much trouble to monitor/prosecute does not seem that far-fetched.
Finally--guess what, SOME THINGS ARE MORE CRUEL THAN OTHERS. It is EASY for me to kill a rat or roach that are not endangered, damage my home, and spread disease, and still say killing animals for their fur is wrong. It is easy to eat a hamburger and say skinning seals and leaving their carcasses to rot (predators will not eat them--they do not scavenge unless they are starving) is wrong. Because there is an inherent difference in doing something to survive and doing something excessive for profit (like clubbing a number of seals that far overwhelms the number that would die from natural predators, etc.). Nature does "care" about how animals die--they become endangered/extinct when natural means of replenishment can't support excessive killing of a species.
As for the "it's their job" argument--slave traders had a job (and while we don't currently equate people with animals--back when the slave trade in the US was active, we definitely did). The people who cut down the rainforest have a job. The people who run and work in factories that violate the Clean Air Act have a job. Robbing people instead of getting legitimate employment is a job. Doesn't make it right. posted by scarymonsterrrr at 2:42 PM on March 30, 2005
no one needs to eat animals to survive. posted by exlotuseater at 2:46 PM on March 30, 2005
Wow, this is weird, I never thought I'd be playing good cop to Shane's bad cop. Here goes: Shane, calm down, dude, it's only a web site simple, ongoing, unnecessary barbarity to make rich people a little more comfortable.
How's that? posted by soyjoy at 2:48 PM on March 30, 2005
For a better way to feel outraged, may I recommend you try to care about those 120k human babies that die of hunger every day, in Africa and South America mainly.
I had no idea that these concerns were mutually exclusive.
Whenever an animal rights or animal welfare issue comes up here, the arc of the thread is entirely predictable. First, the issue itself is mentioned. Then, the hypocrisy of caring about this when humans eat animals comes up. Next, someone mentions how PETA isn't trustworthy. Right about then, someone else mentions how there are other issues which are much more pressing. And so it goes. Meanwhile, we have no problem generating a fistful of Schiavo threads, all about one person who's already essentially brain-dead and therefore couldn't give a damn what happens!
And I think that people who simultaneously argue that we're no better than animals but yet we have the choice to rise above our instincts are logically inconsistent, because what they're really doing is putting non-human creatures on a pedestal. Nature doesn't give a shit how proteins are recirculated; only human beings get agitated about this.
I think a better way to interpret these arguments is that we think that people have no more inherent right to life than animals do - in that sense we are no better - but we are moral agents, unlike animals. Morality is, to me, what separates us from other animals. When we decide to sacrifice the use of animal products because we think it's wrong to increase the suffering of these animals, we are better because of it.
As for an appeal to "Nature," I don't think that Nature cares whether I'm a cannibal, either, but that wouldn't be much of a defense. posted by me & my monkey at 2:48 PM on March 30, 2005
Shane makes a good point, if you believe in free will, which I don't, so I am forced to conclude that beating young amphibious mammals over the head is merely part of the universe unfolding as it should, or will anyway, regardless of the number of card-carrying vegetarians getting righteous on the subject. Also- that being uptight about animals getting anally electrocuted is not a good way to win people over to your argument. You need to be more constructive - where would you prefer to have them electrocuted, and why is that better? posted by Sparx at 3:00 PM on March 30, 2005
you'll find plenty of concentrated toxins, antibiotics, growth hormones and lordy knows what else swimming around in your cheeseburger
And there's nothing more sustainable than industrial-scale soy production, right, tr33hggr? Or is all the tofu you eat made from organic, pesticide-free soybeans that are processed by hand?
I'm not trying to snark here, I just find the argument that a vegetarian diet is inherently better for the environment to be a terrible starting point for a discussion of any ecological issue. You want to argue that it's wrong to slaughter animals for fur (or meat, or sport)? Fair enough. But if the animals in question are not endangered, then you're making a moral argument, not an ecological one.
And frankly the greatest threat to the harp seal - and to us - is that their habitat will no longer be able to sustain their numbers due to climate change, and a vegetarian eating exotic grains shipped and trucked from the four corners of the earth is definitely not doing any better by Mother Earth in this regard than I am when I buy locally raised lamb down at the farmers' market. posted by gompa at 3:01 PM on March 30, 2005
ok, I'm off the soapbox. posted by exlotuseater at 3:06 PM on March 30, 2005
no one needs to eat animals to survive.
Tell that to someone who has a legume allergy. posted by shawnj at 3:06 PM on March 30, 2005
Floydd :"Someone should form a seal-clubber-clubbing-club"
A member of which would be a seal-clubber-clubbing-club-clubber.
A dance club for them would then be a seal-clubber-clubbing-club-clubber-club.
And a regular patron of that dance club would be a seal-clubber-clubbing-club-clubber-club-clubber.
Vaska :"Yeah, I've heard the cow is sometimes still alive. I didn't say it was perfectly humane but it seems better then smacking a terrified animal over the head repeatedly."
I dunno. "Whacking an animal on the head and then ripping it apart regardless of whether it's dead or not" seems to be equally applicable to both seals and cows.
xmod2 :" Q: What kind of person would club a baby seal?
"A: The kind that relies on the income from the pelts to provide food, shelter and clothing for themselves and their family.
"Funny, that's the same justification I use for clubbing people!"
Man, what is up with people thinking Grimgrin's answer has anything to do with justification (you're not the only one, xmod2).
Boss: "Bugbread, you were supposed to be at work at 9:30. What time is it now?"
Bugbread: "9:49"
Boss: "That's your justification or being late?!"
Someone asked "Who would do it?". Grimgrin answered. What's with all the "justification", "justification"? posted by bugbread at 3:17 PM on March 30, 2005
legume allergy? wtf, this thread has jumped the shark. posted by anthill at 3:20 PM on March 30, 2005
Well, right about that time people
A fur-trapper (who was strictly from commercial)
Had the unmitigated audacity to jump up from behind my igloo (peekaboo) )
And he started into whippin' on my favorite baby seal
With a lead-filled snowshoe... posted by fixedgear at 3:25 PM on March 30, 2005
i wish i had a baby seal smock. because i just like to say smock. posted by quonsar at 3:27 PM on March 30, 2005
This thread needs some Frank Zappa lyrics. posted by letitrain at 3:28 PM on March 30, 2005
Jinx, fixedgear. posted by letitrain at 3:29 PM on March 30, 2005
and a sears and roebuck poncho or two. posted by quonsar at 3:30 PM on March 30, 2005
And there's nothing more sustainable than industrial-scale soy production, right, tr33hggr? Or is all the tofu you eat made from organic, pesticide-free soybeans that are processed by hand?
Bad is not the same as worse, apparently:
"After cattle ranching, soybeans are the main driver of Amazon destruction," said Roberto Smeraldi of Friends of the Earth Brazil.
In addition, I suspect that a certain amount of that soy goes to, guess what, feeding livestock.
I'm not trying to snark here, I just find the argument that a vegetarian diet is inherently better for the environment to be a terrible starting point for a discussion of any ecological issue.
I think the key words here are "all other things being equal." For the amount of grain fed to livestock, you could feed more people than you can with the livestock itself.
You want to argue that it's wrong to slaughter animals for fur (or meat, or sport)? Fair enough. But if the animals in question are not endangered, then you're making a moral argument, not an ecological one.
While I disagree with your dismissal of environmental arguments in favor of a vegetarian diet, I'm perfectly content to rely on a moral argument here. I think it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, which is why I don't eat animals. I do wear leather shoes, and I do eat dairy products, but I'm not going to try to rationalize this - I think that's wrong too, and I'm willing to acknowledge that I'm a worse person for doing so. posted by me & my monkey at 3:32 PM on March 30, 2005
Won't someone think of the shellfish. posted by seanyboy at 3:39 PM on March 30, 2005
hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely.
posted by Robot Johnny at 10:23 AM PST on March 30 [!]
Quickly and humanely, eh? Um, did you even watch the video? posted by jikel_morten at 3:43 PM on March 30, 2005
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot beef: 16
Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed on the amount of land needed to feed 1 person consuming meat-based diet: 20
Starts to make ecological sense to go veggie, doesn't it?
On preview: what me & my monkey said. Most of those rain-forest encroaching soybean fields are used to feed animals for human consumption.
And yeah, FYI, I do eat organic, locally made tofu.
Um, that came out more snarky than I'm feeling. Sorry. posted by Specklet at 3:44 PM on March 30, 2005
So... How many vegetarians are needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot beef? posted by 327.ca at 3:48 PM on March 30, 2005
Stop comparing animals to humans? Humans are better than animals? Humans = animals. That shit about humans having dominion over animals is religious clap-trap.
I know I can live without hamburgers. However, I've chosen to eat meat and it's a moral choice I have to live with. And yeah, I'd starve to death before I'd eat one of my pets.
On topic:
The seal clubbing is, apparently, to correct an imbalance of animal populations. Animal populations are self-correcting. Or, it would be, if humans would quit being so selfish (myself included). posted by deborah at 3:49 PM on March 30, 2005
I don't need to eat animals to survive but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop just because it bothers some people. I don't like it when people chew with their mouths open but I don't expect them to change for me.
The seal hunts are unnecessarily barbaric, bloody and throwbacks to a time when not everyone had a camera to record the carnage. Times have changed, these bloody seal club hunts should change with them. posted by fenriq at 4:07 PM on March 30, 2005
Wow, this is weird, I never thought I'd be playing good cop to Shane's bad cop.
Next time I get to be good cop.
On second thought, this bad cop shit is great catharsis! posted by Shane at 4:17 PM on March 30, 2005
Seals aren't cute, they're pretty ferocious actually. posted by Space Coyote at 4:17 PM on March 30, 2005
I just find the argument that a vegetarian diet is inherently better for the environment to be a terrible starting point for a discussion of any ecological issue.
And for me it's one of the least compelling reasons.
I think it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, which is why I don't eat animals. I do wear leather shoes, and I do eat dairy products, but I'm not going to try to rationalize this
M&M - I do too, though would rather not. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite (bring it on!), but I'm also willing to acknowledge that the industrial harvesting cotton kills animals on a mass scale - snakes, rabbits that get caught in the harvester. "Fake leather" products are made of ugly petrochemicals., There's blood on everything we buy, in short, and that's one of the largest crimes of all. posted by tr33hggr at 4:20 PM on March 30, 2005
the industrial harvesting of cotton posted by tr33hggr at 4:22 PM on March 30, 2005
Space Coyote :" Seals aren't cute, they're pretty ferocious actually."
Shocking, the number of self-righteous vegetarians on mefi... posted by nightchrome at 4:52 PM on March 30, 2005
Astrakhan, also known as “broadtail” or “Persian wool”, is another bloody "fashion" item. It's lamb hide. The mother’s throat is slit and her stomach slashed open to remove the developing lamb. A mother typically gives birth to three lambs before being slaughtered along with her fourth fetus, about 15 to 30 days before it is due to be born. As many as 4 million karakul lambs are slaughtered for their fur every year. If you'd like to know more about "Persian wool" check out Furisdead.com posted by chance at 4:55 PM on March 30, 2005
Shocking, the number of self-righteous vegetarians on mefi...
Is it really so shocking that so many people desire an end to unnecessary suffering? Anyway, who here is being self-righteous exactly? I don't see anyone on either side of the debate acting in a way I'd characterize as self-righteous. I certainly wouldn't characterize myself as a moral exemplar - I'm sure I do ten immoral things before breakfast, typically. But I think it's funny that with this issue more than others (in my opinion), people tend to characterize their opponents as self-righteous. People here argue about politics, religion, and so on without such sensitivity. posted by me & my monkey at 5:04 PM on March 30, 2005
It is very unlikely the Canadian Government would take the political hit it does without some good reason. I suspect they have concluded that the harm to the seals is less than the harm to the Inuit who hunt them.
I'm siding with the natives in this, not the seals.
If the practice is unacceptable to society, the practice will eventually cease through attrition. There is no need to punish the Inuit for doing what they have done for generations. Hell, they've been fucked-over enough by the government, give them this at least.
I am assuming most of the hunters are Inuit. posted by five fresh fish at 5:16 PM on March 30, 2005
I am assuming most of the hunters are Inuit.
No. They're Newfoundlanders. The Inuit do hunt seal, but in vastly smaller numbers. posted by 327.ca at 5:19 PM on March 30, 2005
Shocking, the number of self-righteous vegetarians on mefi...
posted by nightchrome at 4:52 PM PST on March 30 [!]
Ahh, the self-righteous card. I was wondering when someone would spring it. posted by jikel_morten at 5:30 PM on March 30, 2005
Jeebus freaking christ, have you ever had a roomate?
Hmmmm... if killing seals is wrong, surely killing horses is wrong. Should I quit buying horsemeat sandwiches at the German deli? It's awful good, hate to give it up. posted by five fresh fish at 5:34 PM on March 30, 2005
But I've never said folks shouldn't be able to choose their diet. I'd like them to be responsible about it, yes, and if they're not prepared to eat their dog or cat as quickly as they are a cow or chicken, then yup, I'm going to call that hypocrisy.
I don't own a dog or a cat. I can't see as to why I should be forced to possess one in order to eat it. For that matter, I don't think I should be forced to eat cat meat. I prefer cow.
I utterly fail to see any hypocrisy in that. I'm not forced to
Subscribe
Someone should form a seal-clubber-clubbing-club. They'd go out and club anyone they caught clubbing a baby seal.
posted by salad spork at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2005