Canada's seal hunt about to begin

[made of stone]

Yes, I think it's important to be able to voice our opinions on things without blaming or putting others down.

Many thanks for your last two posts, Sarapva.

The first one very eloquently articulated some points that i'd hoped to touch on myself on this thread, (obviously without success though!)

Sarapva's second post (quoted) reminds me that I was far too rude in one of my posts here to Obeika. I apologise to him for my part in the mutual antagonism between us, and very much hope that this thread (which has raised so many interesting points so far, many of which might deserve their own thread on the right forum!) will continue in a spirit of friendly discussion, and also mutual (attempted!) understanding.

 

[Sarapva]

Thank you, made of stone! I didn't mean to imply that I thought your or Obeika's posts were inappropriate. I thought they were very civilized in an argumentative way! I only meant that I didn't want anyone to be judged (including myself) or put in a certain category that would close people's minds to this topic. Keep up the arguments! It helps to hash things out sometimes.
:box:

I looked up this quote from Mahatma Ghandi:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Ghandi, In Philosophy

 

[KirinMan]

made of stone, that was most gracious of you, thanks, I also hope we may be able to find mutual ground here as well.

I also apologize for making you feel that you were rude to me.

Now then niceities aside here..... (just joking) back to the topic at hand. I have a question for you Sarapva and anyone else that wants to answer as well.

Where do you stand on the culling of the seals in relationship to the need of the economy of Canada and the fishermen to protect their fishing grounds from the seals? Outside of the skin market, which as you noted is shrinking as people become more aware of the "way" the seals are killed, there is debate that the seals would have to be culled either way, just a difference in numbers. Not to belittle the numbers, granted a huge difference.

Many times for the sake of man animal herds need to be culled to protect man. I know of locations in the United States that have serious problems with overly large deer herds. The deer cause damage to crops, are the cause of fatal car accidents and things like that. Now one could argue that ok you can eat the meat.

So to extend that argument to the seals, if the meat of the seals was used in some manner, even as pet food, I don't know if that is viable, but using it as an example for arguments sake only, could you justify the killing of the seals to protect the fishing beds?

Is it the manner in which the seals are killed that bothers you the most?

Or just the thought of them being killed?

 

[Sarapva]

That's a good question, Obeika - for me, it's the way they're killed that bothers me. I don't really have a problem with death or killing if it's done with consideration to the animal, which might sound like a contradiction in terms, but I don't think it is. I think it's possible to kill without having negative feelings toward what you're killing (like I guess people who kill for meat don't necessarily "hate" the animals they're killing - the opposite is probably true). It seems to me that if a person has true respect for something that's alive and fully capable of feeling pain (and in this modern age I don't think there are many left who still don't know animals feel pain), if they happen to have the job of killing it, they should do it as quickly as possible to minimize terror and pain. I've heard that some seals are shot instead of clubbed to death - this seems like a more humane way of doing this because, from what I've read, the baby seals don't know enough to run away from people so they could be shot in a way that kills them instantly instead of clubbed to death.

I don't really have an opinion on whether animals should be killed or not for economic reasons. If this has to be done, my argument would be that it should be done with intelligence and compassion. I don't like the idea of killing animals just for their fur, which is so completely unnecessary unless you're living in the arctic and can't buy clothes. For fashion, the idea of ripping off an animal's skin and putting it on the back of someone going to parties or social gatherings is just repulsive and disgusting, not to mention a huge waste. I think that if animals have to be culled for whatever reason, their meat and skins should be used intelligently, ideally to help people who really need it.

I'm glad that you and made of stone are on "speaking" terms again, Obeika. Let's have some good, fist-pounding (but not punching) arguments!

 

[KirinMan]

for me, it's the way they're killed that bothers me. I don't really have a problem with death or killing if it's done with consideration to the animal, which might sound like a contradiction in terms, but I don't think it is.

I don't think that is a contradiction in terms at all. Even the manner in which the death penalty is carried out in the US is a hot topic of conversation to many. I only use that as an example.
I agree with you that with the knowledge and technology available today a more humane method is available. I would also bet that the reason that the seals are clubbed is due to economic factors, nothing else.

For fashion, the idea of ripping off an animal's skin and putting it on the back of someone going to parties or social gatherings is just repulsive and disgusting, not to mention a huge waste. I think that if animals have to be culled for whatever reason, their meat and skins should be used intelligently, ideally to help people who really need it.

That's part of the problem I think. We humans have been using animal skins for covering our bodies for thousands of years and there is to some an allure of having that "rare" animal skin for a coat. I think it is partially due to the prestige or affluency that isome/many (?) people usually think of when a person sees another wearing such an article of clothing.

However we humans also like our leather shoes, yet usually don't give a second thought to the cow, pig, or other animal that provided that leather for us that is also because we eat the meat that those animal's provided for us. I understand your point about the waste, taking the skins purely for their value.

Would you feel better about it if there was an acutal use for the carcass after the seal was killed?

I'm glad that you and made of stone are on "speaking" terms again, Obeika. Let's have some good, fist-pounding (but not punching) arguments!

Ok...me too!

 

[Sarapva]

I would feel better about it if the seals were at least killed in a humane manner for their skins and, yes, if the rest of the carcass was used instead of just thrown away. But overall I don't feel good at all about killing animals purely for their fur that people who already have enough will buy. I know fur has been a sign of prestige and affluence, but I think that's changing now. When I see old movies with actresses wearing fur coats, it's a little surprising because you don't see many fur coats in movies anymore (at least in American movies, since fur has become so controversial). I think the attitude toward what used to be a sign of prestige is changing to a more realistic one: that the fur is actually just the skin of a dead animal. I saw an old movie recently (I don't remember the name) where an actress had a fox stole, which was actually the whole fox, head and tail. It looked so funny to me that she'd be wearing this fox around her neck! But 50 years ago that probably looked fashionable.

The death penalty is a good example of "humane" or "inhumane" killing. I think the same thing should apply there: that if a person has to be killed, it should be done as painlessly for the person as possible. After all, it's their life taken that's the punishment, not the pain caused during their death.

Leather is another thing that's losing popularity in the U.S. (leather stores have been closing down like fur stores) because of the animal rights movement. The argument is that even though leather is a "by-product" of animals killed for their meat, not supporting the leather industry sends a message that people don't want anything to do with the cruelty of the meat industry.

I used to think that PETA was extreme in some of its stands against leather and wool, but now I see that they take these stands because of the "whole picture": buying leather supports the meat industry, and buying wool supports what has been found to be cruelty in the wool industry (live exports of sheep to other countries, and other abuses on sheep farms). PETA's stand is that animals "shouldn't be used for food, clothing, experiments or entertainment". The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Animals are feeling, thinking beings that have their own lives until we disrupt that and enslave them for our own purposes (which I know also happens to people sometimes).