I agree with that and perhaps government supported training and testing is required.
However even if every hit resulted in a cub death. People would still be outraged.
-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Canada seal hunting
- Thread starter 2StepSteve
- Start date
I agree with that and perhaps government supported training and testing is required.
However even if every hit resulted in a cub death. People would still be outraged.
Maybe because meat has always been a critical part of our diets ever since we walked the planet, there is a genuine need for it, meat is not classed as a luxury, chicken and fish are in the top 10 sources of protein (everywhere I look)
As for fur, well how many fur coats do you own? i'm sure most of us get by with wool/cotton/nylon/sythenetic.. as do the rest of the world, many aspects of the fur trade are banned in european countries, is this ban wrong?
There is 0 need for it, if you think its needed then please list some reasons why seal pups must die in order to make fur coats.
Do you have any mercy?
I've not been brainwashed by anyone, I simply understand the balance between something being "needed" and the way some of us stamp our feet and go to any lengths and cause any amount suffering to obtain it, without mercy or regard for the welfare of the animal being killed.
With regard to the differences between killing for meat, and killing for fur, I think most people would agree that the need for fur is far lesser than the need for meat end of.
Meat is not needed and certainly not in the qauntity we currently eat it at.
I don't own fur coats as It's not a look I like. However I do own three leather jackets and would even if we didn't get meat from them.
Yes I think the ban on fur is wrong, fur is a remarkably good and suitable material. You'll find cold countries will not ban fur, because it is far superior than anything man made. In exceptionally cold temperatures.
I don't own fur coats as It's not a look I like. However I do own three leather jackets and would even if we didn't get meat from them.
Yes I think the ban on fur is wrong, fur is a remarkably good and suitable material. You'll find cold countries will not ban fur, because it is far superior than anything man made. In exceptionally cold temperatures.
Any healthy diet consists of meat. I know we'll never agree but humans are designed to eat meat and veg.
Where its needed I have no problem, eskimos for example as it provides a means of survival, if its worth the suffering to the animal in order for someone to survive in a cold climate then fair enough, seal pelts don't get used for this though.
Go to Nunavut and try to tell the locals that seal meat and fur is a luxury. They rely on it heavily to survive.
I don't agree with killing seals (or any animal for that matter) purely for sport unless it is a pest, or killing seals purely to fulfill commercial demand for their fur. However, I fully support the right of humans to kill seals in order to feed and clothe themselves.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Going more than marginally off topic but humans are omnivores i.e. they can eat both meat and vegetables - that doesn't mean they have to eat both. Or if you want to put it this way, I'm vegetarian and about as healthy as they come so no, health and a healthy diet doesn't require meat.
, seen a couple of clips and imo its ****** sick, i could never kill a seal, ive also seen clip of whale and dolphin hunting, makes me so angry, and would love to smack a piece of wood around there heads, especially when they hit them with a big stick, and its not true that they die with the first hit....but at the end of the day these thing are happening in the world and much worse, and will never be stopped.
They put a big metal bolt up there the cows head and with in a faction of a second its out cold on the floor not feeling anything at all and probably has no idea its still alive when they butcher it.
And to who ever said they dont think fish feel pain then you have obviously never caught a trumpeter fish
I have no problem with them killing seals, provided that they do it humanely and use the meat as well as the fur. Clubbing them to death is simply barbaric; there is no justification for killing seals in such a slow and unnecessarily brutal manner. The old "we don't want to damgage the fur" thing is just pathetic; are they trying to tell us that a single bullet hole (or bolt hole) to the head will make the entire fur unsaleable? Somehow I doubt that the head is the best part of the seal's fur, so it can't be any great loss.
If they can get close enough to kill them with clubs, they should be using a captive bolt gun and finishing them off with a knife. This is cheap, humane and effective.
And to anyone who thinks that fish don't feel pain (definitely a huge "WTF?!" moment there), read this. Which is precisely why I believe that angling is cruel.
However, I do support foxhunting (and hawking), because the slaughter of one animal by another is perfectly natural and will continue to occur with or without human intervention.
If they can get close enough to kill them with clubs, they should be using a captive bolt gun and finishing them off with a knife. This is cheap, humane and effective.
And to anyone who thinks that fish don't feel pain (definitely a huge "WTF?!" moment there), read this. Which is precisely why I believe that angling is cruel.
However, I do support foxhunting (and hawking), because the slaughter of one animal by another is perfectly natural and will continue to occur with or without human intervention.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm going to take a bough here and say Dr Bruno Boughton probably isn't a very good biologist or at least is somewhat blinded by his own leisure pursuits if he thinks that sensory cells would be unlikely to also be linked to fish feeling pain.
Probably they would but that being the case why not do away with the people chasing after the fox on horseback? It is an unnecessary part of the event, if you are going to let animals do their own thing then why should humans get involved?
I concur.
The humans are merely involved as spectators, and perfectly entitled to watch if they so desire. The same principle applies to greyhound racing.
how the hell do you run after and club a dolphin?
that made me laugh so loud thankyou
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It is a bit chicken and egg though, if humans didn't enjoy the spectacle would there be as many dogs to chase down foxes? I'd call people a pretty integral part of most foxhunting since it is unlikely to take part in that form or to the same scale without them. Greyhound racing also doesn't generally end with the death of another animal - imitation stuffed hares not withstanding.
You're Australian aren't you? So presumably the people who introduced the European Fox to Australia so they'd have something to hunt were just spectating too?
Well, you were asking about the role of the humans. I merely described that role.
Yes, it's a bit chicken and egg; less foxes would be killed without foxhunting. But at least the method is a natural one, and corresponds with the way animals naturally behave in the wold. They are simply doing what their instincts have instructed them to do.
At the very most, human beings are making it slightly easier by first locating the fox so that the hounds have something to chase. But not every fox hunt ends with a fox's death, so nature still has a hand in the outcome.
So what about dog/**** fighting, bear baiting etc?
Yep.
Of course. They certainly had no intention of hunting the fox themselves; they wanted to get some dogs and watch them hunt foxes. Since Australia had no foxes, they introduced them.
Yes, they could quite easily have chosen to hunt one of the existing, native species. But in their desperate attempt to re-create Britain in an environment wholly unsuited to the purpose, they chose foxes instead.
The foxes would not have been there without human intervention; nor the hounds either, for that matter. Yet the actual process itself (hounds hunting foxes) is a perfectly natural one. We don't send government inspectors to fox dens in order to check if they're killing chickens, do we? No, we let nature run its course.
Fox hunting is essentially no different; it simply guarantees the presence of a fox. That's all. And as I've already said, the outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion.
Easy.
Dog and cockfighting consists of forcing two animals to fight each other when under normal circumstances they would have no reason to do so. This is unnatural and inhumane.
Bear baiting consists of placing a captive bear (often shackled) in an enclosed area from which it cannot escape, and setting a pack of dogs upon it. This is unnatural and inhumane.
The same is equally true of bullfighting and bull-baiting.
By contrast, fox hunting occurs in a natural environment, allowing animals to pursue their natural course, as nature intended and instinct instructs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
I have to agree here, a lot of what gets reported about the canadian seal hunt/cull is seriously inaccurate, and often just quoted verbaitem from the propoganda published by groups such as PETA.
Every year we get to have this conversation, and the same points get brought up again and again..
Method of killing: Clubbing is best, and generally done with a vet in the vicinity (this is part of the law iirc). Shooting is useless, because a shot seal, will dive under the ice immediately, and drown as it bleeds to death. Poison is pointless, because much of the meat is used by the inuit people, for food and fuel.
Numbers killed: This is always hard to accurately count, though official figures always show that the number killed is less than the quota, and the largest proportion of kills, are made by the inuit (do you have the right to tell them, that the method they have for feeding/clothing/heating themselves is wrong, they dont waste the bodies, they use it all)
Why cull at all? Left alone, the seal population explodes quite quickly, this has a knock on effect on fish stocks, and other parts of the marine biosystem (yes I know, "the entire seal population cannot have such a large effect on the fish stocks" well, yes it can, talk to norfolk fishermen if you like)
I am not a tree-hugging hippy cheese eating surrendermonkey, I may not think that the cull is the most humane thing to do, but I am not going to try and stop it by crying like a schoolgirl every year. And as I said before, it is the right of the native people, to continue their traditions without interference.
And if you don't like what I have to say, I don't much care, you are welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.