Mar 17
Canadian Politician Proposes A Law To End the Bloodbath in Canada
On March 28, the annual Canadian harp seal hunt is set to begin. It is the only commercial hunt in which the target is the infant of a species. Baby harp seals, 2-12 weeks old.
For 6-8 weeks, the ice floes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland & Labrador will turn blood red as hunters use clubs to bash in the skulls of 275,000 baby seals.
Every year, 15,000 to 150,000 baby seals manage to get away. They die anyway, of their injuries. Sometimes they fall off the ice floes and drown in the ocean because they’re still too young to swim.
The Canadian government has legislated a “total allowable catch” of 275,000 baby seals.
Remember, the ones that got away don’t count. They die wearing their fur.
In 2001 a report by an international veterinary panel concluded that 42% of the animals had been conscious when they were skinned.
The baby seal pups (mostly dead, but not all) are skinned on the ice; their carcasses left behind or tossed in the ocean. The hunters want only the fur. Their little bodies becomes garbage.
The pelts are then shipped to Norway, Finland, Hong Kong, Turkey, Russia, and other countries, where they are used to make designer clothing, toys and accessories.
For the first time in history, a Canadian politician is proposing a law to end the suffering of baby seals.
Senator Harb he has asked all Canadians to help flood Canada’s Senate with messages of support. Please help us reach 275,000 emails: one for every seal that will be killed this year.
Click here to sign the petition
If you are a Canadian blogger please pass this on. Snow shouldn’t be red with the blood of babies. Let’s get Senator Harb one signature for every seal pup that will die this year. Together, we can make a difference.
Warning: Graphic Photos Below…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Popularity: 22% [?]
From time to time, we disagree. I agree, those photos are gruesome. So too, is the site inside anywhere the meat we eat is killed, cleaned, butchered and prepared for sale in those lovely little packages we see in the supermarket. I know from personal experience… I worked in one during the years we were out of touch. The reason those photos are so bloody, is not because they are skinned alive… that is a ridiculous myth perpetrated by animal rights activists. If in fact, the purpose of the hunt is to obtain the pelt, why would they skin alive and ruin the pelt? Now, I’m not saying I agree that they need to be killing them for the pelts… but I am saying that I believe it behooves *everyone* to read more than the information distributed by the side against any action. Animal rights activists have a poor record for being truthful.
So why is the snow so bloody? Following links at that link, in the PDF from the Report of the Independent Veterinarians’ Working Group on the Canadian Harp Seal Hunt, I noticed this:
“The three steps in the humane killing process — stunning, checking that the skull is crushed (to ensure irreversible loss of consciousness or death), and bleeding — should be carried out in sequence as rapidly as possible.”
So indeed.. that’s going to make the ice/snow pretty awful looking to you or I seeing a photo or a video. Not unlike how awful it is to watch your boss skin, clean, butcher and prepare bambi’s mom on the kill floor at work… and then wash and disinfect the floors, walls, etc. Getting used to working there took a bit of time. It’s gruesome… but you see, we don’t see all of that when we put that package of meat in our shopping cart… we don’t have to think about it so it’s better to go after what we can see… like a hunt that happens very publicly and outdoors.
From the site I linked:
“As any abattoir worker or hunter will explain to you, based upon experience, that skinning an animal is difficult enough when they are dead and near impossible to do when they are alive.
Study after study by reputable, international veterinarians have shown time after time that skinning alive is a lie perpetrated by so called independent studies conducted, paid for and written by the staff members of animal rights groups and never peer group reviewed for methodology or accuracy.
“From a total of 509 animals examined at this time there was reported to be only one other case of the animal not being rendered unconscious. This appears to be a fantastically high average of humane killing.” (99.82%)”
Dr. Keith Rondald, Dean, College of Biological Science, University of Guelph”
More myths available at the Fisheries Canada site. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/myth-eng.htm
Again… I’m not advocating for the seal hunt… I’m advocating for people to do homework and stop automatically believing everything they hear from an activist group, especially one that has a bad record for making stuff up and creatively editing to achieve their desired result and win people over. Misleading people is wrong.
For every person who signs that petition… I want to know if they are vegan. If not… they’re a hypocrite because while crying over one type of animal, they condone (by eating) the same type of killing of another… I guess… because the ones they don’t cry over are tastier than seals.
And finally…. assuming now that all the petition signers are vegans… I also expect them to be against abortion. If it’s not ok to slaughter baby seals, why is it ok to slaughter baby humans? Science has rendered the old arguments to be nonsense… we now understand enough to know a human embryo is a human fetus is a human baby…. and they are slaughtered in enormous numbers daily with nary the same outrage. Abortion methods are horrendously gruesome… no one gives the human fetus a pain killer, no one considers the suffering of the human fetus… and are the animal rights activists outraged over that?
For every bloody seal photo, I can show you a bloody kill floor photo from where your burger meat/steak or chicken is processed or I can show you bloody photos of aborted fetuses… babies with ten little fingers and ten little toes and yet small enough to fit inside the shell of a large walnut.
Are the animal rights activists outraged about that? Many of them identify themselves as Pro-Choice. I expect every one of them to be as outraged about these other truths…
… or I think they should shut up about the animals.
(I told you we don’t always agree…. I’m not heartless, but this particular argument is largely based on bull$hit and emotions instead of actual fact. I absolutely still love you and that big heart of yours that wants to save the world, all its people and animals. You’re a good person and I do know how deep down, you post things that I, like a big meanie, then go and take issue with, because you have the right intentions. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same for all of the animal rights activists.)
It is the only commercial hunt in which the target is the infant of a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veal
So ok, a calf isn’t as “baby” as the seals when culled (the polite way to say slaughtered… so that it’s all palatable to us because we never see what goes on) but they are still in their young stages… depending on the type of meat desired, only a few months old. Kept first in hutches they can’t move around in “to protect them from disease” and then moved to stalls they can stand and lie down in but not move around… this is their life until they are slaughtered (which is bloody and gross I assure you…) and carved up into neat little portions on disposable trays and packaged with plastic wrap for us to take home on market day.
Those who like foie gras…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras
The ducks are force-fed to fatten them up. #3 son has an affinity for ducks and I have to say they grew on us too. To this day, he would be so upset to know that. Yet… we consider these two outrages to be ok… because they give us something tasty.
I’m not signing the petition because unless I am ready to become a vegan (not just a vegetarian… a vegan is the only fair way to go…) then signing it makes me a hypocrite.
Gosh. If you get all those signatures and emails, there’s either gonna be a HUGE load of new hypocrites in the world, or a HUGE demand for vegan recipes online.
I’d best go see what domain names are still open and cash in on a new site or two.
I don’t recall saying that — didn’t even caption the photos. The snow is bloody because 275,000 baby seals are killed.
To me, that’s like saying if you don’t protest “ALL” the wrongs in the world, how dare you protest one above others.
People eat animals. Animals eat animals. Baby seals are killed for vanity, not food. For fur coats and fur collars. I don’t see killing for food and killing for vanity as the same. It makes me sad to think you do.
This argument is not based on bull$hit and emotions — 275,000 baby seals will be killed for their fur. That’s fact.
From the second post
First, I do not support the way the meat industry treats animals. I buy free range when I do eat meat. I do not eat veal or goose liver pate.
Again, that’s like saying if you don’t protest “ALL” the wrongs, how dare you protest one. Baby seals are not killed for meat - they are killed for their fur. I don’t think observing that and protesting makes anyone a hypocrite.
“Eating meat” and “wearing fur” are not the same. Not even close.
I don’t know if that’s over the top sarcasm or bad humor. Either way, I don’t think there’s a whole new crop of hypocrites in the world. But I’ll repeat; “eating meat” and “wearing fur” are not the same.
It makes me kind of sad to realize you can’t see that. It just seems so narrow minded and I would not have thought you to be narrow minded.
Linda, not seeing it your way doesn’t make me narrow minded unless your way can be proven to be the definitive, unquestionable and correct way to see it. Since we both know what we’re dealing with here is our individual *opinions*, perhaps you should consider that *your* not seeing it *my* way makes *you* narrow minded?
LOL.
First things first though.. you did post this as part of your post:
In 2001 a report by an international veterinary panel concluded that 42% of the animals had been conscious when they were skinned.
Um, that’s the same as saying they’re skinned alive. Aside from that… it’s old data. More current data shows marked improvement, with 98% of seals found to be properly killed before being skinned.
Next… I *repeatedly* stated that I *wasn’t* making the argument that the seals *should* be killed for pelts, so why you would take the approach that I am, is quite a mystery to me unless you’re trying to sway me with an “Oh no, Linda is disappointed in me, I must be wrong” approach.
The argument *is* based on bull$hit and emotions. Yes, the seals will be killed for their pelts… but rather than make *that* argument, the activists focus on our *emotions* and make false claims about how they are killed… inflating the stories of their suffering in order to get our support via our *emotions* instead of focusing on challenging us to examine our values as to why we kill animals for fashion. They (and you also) publish misleading information about the seals’ suffering and use bloody photos to invoke the natural human empathetic response which is in my book… bull$hit to use when trying to save a cute and loveable baby seal (which looks like something a kid would want for a pet) and then not give the same weight to the same bloody mess that is the killing of cows and pigs and other more utilitarian-thought-of animals.
You also, have done exactly what many of the activists or pro-choicers I have debated tend to do, and that’s sidestep being asked to explain why it is ok to kill human babies but not animal babies. Your reply seems to separate and justify the killing of animals and baby animals when it’s for food when in fact, it is possible for humans to live a healthy life without eating animals and animal products. You also, instead of seeing the very valid point I made about other baby animal suffering (that you aren’t speaking about), excuse yourself because you don’t eat those items. Well… you don’t wear sealskin and you’re taking this stand, so shouldn’t you take a stand about veal and foie gras as well?
So in fact, while calling me narrow-minded, you’re not only being narrow minded yourself, you’re being a ‘menu’ activist, picking and choosing which things to be against when in fact, the argument you made about why they are so different, is a straw man. They are not different. Seals are killed when they don’t have to be. Other animals are killed when they don’t have to be. Usin seal pelts for fashion is a choice we make, not a necessity. Eating meat is in fact, also a choice we make, not a necessity.
And again… unborn babies are by and large, killed for vanity, and convenience. The abortion industry’s own statistics show that the percentage of abortions ever done because the mother’s life is truly in danger is miniscule, with the lion’s share being done because it was not convenient for the child to be born at that time. This is the killing of human babies for vanity… and yet, you don’t see how these issues are related.
No Linda, I do not think as you claimed, that if you don’t protest “ALL” the wrongs in the world, how dare you protest one above others. Not at all. No one can protest all the wrongs in the world. This is again though… a tactic used by those who want to sidestep something they should be against… try make the challenger (me) back down by suggesting that they aren’t being a bit hypocritical in protesting one thing while condoning another. Textbook really. I’ve had it attempted on me oodles.
However… to be consistent… we ought to place *human* babies first… show our respect for life starting with our *own* species first. After that, we should then… if we are going to choose to defend animal life, be consistent when doing so, and so a cow’s life should matter as much as a seal’s life. Unless a person does this, they are, by definition… a hypocrite, whether you like to admit that cold, hard truth or not.
My own personal opinion is that I do not think we need to kill the seals for their pelts. I am though… a meat eater and not planning on becoming a vegan. While the seal killing is ugly, it is not any more inhumane than the killing of cows, calves, pigs, chickens, ducks, etc. Choosing to eat free range doesn’t mean you aren’t still eating them after they’ve been slaughtered. Free range animals get dead just like the seals, and getting dead is ugly and bloody. We have a responsibility to be *consistent* in our activism, otherwise we ARE hypocrites, even if we don’t like to look in the mirror and see ourselves that way.
I am not heartless, nor am I the person you claim “can’t see that”. I’m just being more honest with myself and about reality and life and humanity than you are.
For the record… it was over the top sarcasm (because my humor is never bad… lol) and in fact, every person who is convinced by an argument like yours or the animal rights activists’. to get on board without examining the other issues I brought up… is in fact, a new hypocrite. You can repeat “eating meat” and “wearing fur” are not the same as often as you like, you will be wrong every time you state it. We do not need to eat meat and we do not need to wear fur. It is the same. Both are choices, not necessities. You and many activists are making excuses and picking and choosing what is convenient for you to be for or against. At least I am being honest and not making excuses for my choices.
So please don’t waste another second being sad about *me* ’cause I’d rather you used that time thinking about the totally valid points I’ve made, and figure out why you won’t start with your own species first by taking a pro-life stand and why you’re making excuses for not being vegan.
Or maybe it’s because I haven’t posted bloody photos of dead babies (or cows, or pigs, etc.) to make the point? I can do so if you require it to be able to “see that”.
Still love ya though… so never think the way I argue issues with people means I’ve changed my feelings for them, I just believe in challenging people to think through *why* they choose their issues and whether or not they’re being consistent or not. I think you’re not… but I still love ya ’cause I know you’re *trying* to come from the right place.
For the sake of getting to the root of this… why don’t you define how and why eating meat and wearing fur are so different when it’s a FACT that:
A) We do not need to eat meat, it is possible to live a healthy life as a vegan. Eating meat is therefore a choice we make because we desire to eat meat.
B) We do not need to wear fur, it is possible to live a healthy life without wearing fur. Wearing fur is therefore a choice we make because we desire to wear fur.
How are they *not* the same? I think we’re down to that claim being your *opinion* and not so much a *fact* of this issue. If activism is based on opinion… solutions can never be found for life’s issues because there will always be people with opposing opinions and who is to say your opinion is more valid than the other person’s opinion. You say it’s not ok to kill the seals while another person thinks it is.
So… please elaborate as to how they are not the same thing. (And before you even bother… yes, some people live in such conditions that they must eat meat. Some people also live in such conditions that they must wear fur. I think we both know that these people are by far… the very minority and so for the most part, points A and B are the rule. If we eliminate the people I’ve just referred to… we are always back to being left with points A and B.)
So, again… how are they *not* the same?
Rational debate over this issue must establish this. Laws must be made on fact not on personal opinions otherwise we are in trouble. Personal opinion said women weren’t equal to men and shouldn’t vote. Fact proved they are. Whether or not we allow killing of seals (or other animals) should be based on fact. If we kill cows, we can kill seals. If we don’t allow killing of seals, we shouldn’t allow killing of cows.
It’s that simple, and I require more than opinion to go on… as should everyone.
I don’t think that’s humanly possible. If you and I, as sisters, can not agree, how are total strangers supposed to agree? There is no such thing as “rational debate.” That’s a nice dream, but it doesn’t exist. Every thing that comes out of every mouth is based on human experience and emotion.
Just one example — if “fact” proved that women and men are equal, why do women still get paid less than men in most cases, and why do women still do 65% of the housework in most households. So much for equality. But hey, we can vote now, so it’s all cool.
Despite the links and the lengthy responses you posted;
Linda, the first of your two points is exactly my point. We kill other animals in ways that are horrible and we justify it when really… we don’t have to kill them, we just want to. So while you keep trying to show how you disagree with me, you’re actually agreeing with me but stopping short. If it’s not ok to kill one kind of animal, it’s not ok to kill other kinds. If it’s ok to kill some kinds, then we should all own up to our own true nature and stop patting ourselves on the back for the right hand trying not to know what the left hand is doing.
You’ve misinterpreted the meaning of being a menu activist. I agree we should all take up some causes… there are far too many in the world for any one person to try take part in them all… but what we shouldn’t do is be inconsistent with what we support.
I think for all those people who are not ready to take the step of being vegan, the more consistent cause/stand would be to try affect how seals are killed, and make sure the meat is not wasted. There has to be a market for it, they’re just too lazy to seek it because they earn enough from the pelts. The consistent (with being a person who knows and accepts that other animals are brutally killed for meat and other uses) stand would be to make sure that industry functions more responsibly, uses the animal fully and doesn’t make their deaths wasteful.
Not being willing to demand a ban on killing seals doesn’t make a person evil, bad, etc… unless everyone who eats cow, pig, chicken, turkey, fish, etc. is a bad and evil person as well.
Rational debate is possible. I think I’m being very rational, honest about the killing of other animals, and at the same time, suggesting that people can be more responsible than they are.
And lol… but if you weren’t my sis, I’d still badger you to answer the questions I posed instead of avoiding them and changing the subject. I’ve not been known to let people get away with that in the past.
It’s tough, isn’t it? Admitting to one’s self, that one is in fact, not consistent is a hard thing to do. I’ll let you off this time… I’m kind of back in the whole ‘poking fun at Obama” mood so can be easily distracted. (He makes it so easy. lolz. I do enjoy being right.)
You’re missing the point. It’s not a case of “if you’re going to kill it, use the meat”. The cruelty is the point. For example, I will buy free range chicken from a local farmer, but I will not buy KFC. The cruelty is the point.
“Getting away with that” is a phrase best reserved for people who are doing something wrong. I’m not “getting away with” anything. I simply have a different opinion that you.
To me, that sounds pretty condescending, but I’ll let you get away with it. *wink*
I happen to think I’m very consistent.
They are opinions. You don’t have to agree with them.
I also don’t think that calling someone a hypocrite or inconsistent have any part in rational conversation. Hence, my comment on the possibility of rational conversation.