Da Legal Stuff...

All commentaries published on Web Talk are the opinions of the contributor(s) only and do not necessarily represent the position of any other individuals, groups or organizations.

Now, with that out of the way...Let's Web Talk.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

The Sea Shepherd Society - Dollars and Sense

Boy, nothing stirs the ire of animal rights activists like mentioning their fund raising activities. In recent articles I’ve examined the finances of the Sea Shepherd Society in detail and have more than once alluded to the possible financial motives behind some of these groups. Each time, without fail, those articles have elicited an immediate and vehement response from supporters. I wonder why?

In March and April of this year I wrote a couple of articles in support of the Atlantic Seal hunt. The response was minimal. I have mentioned “the hunt” several times in articles. The response was minimal. It was only when the topic of financing was touched upon that the fur really started to fly, (no pun intended).

I have to admit that all the harsh comments directed at me by the alfalfa contingent finally made me stop and think that I might just be wrong. Maybe groups like the Sea Shepherd Society aren't really that interested in the money after all.

In an effort to ensure that I was not barking up the wrong tree I decided to pay a visit to the Sea Shepherd web site today and have a quick look around. You know, just to see how important and advanced their donation campaign might be. To see how much effort they put into that side of the business. Simply to determine if seeking donations was an overriding concern or simply a necessary evil required to help further the cause.

A visit to the site immediately made a link to their “Join and Donate” page available. Here is where my adventure began.

On clicking the link I was immediately shown no less than thirteen ways for visitors to part with their hard earned dollars. These included several novel and very hi-tech approaches, well beyond the old method of providing a mailing address for checks and money orders.

What follows are some of the methods one can use if they want to “rob Peter to pay Paul Watson”.

Memberships Section:

Online Credit Card;
Call in / Fax Credit Card;
Mail in Donation;
Gift Memberships
Monthly Giving;

Other Donations Section:

Stock Donations (I guess this is where the Society’s Harley Davidson and Exon Mobile stock came from);
Frequent Flyer Miles (yes they take those too);
Planned Giving and Wills (Even after you’re dead you can keep on giving, what a humanitarian the Shepherd is);
Wish List (This is a fun one. I’ll be looking more closely at it shortly so stick around);

Other U.S. Donations Section:

Workplace Giving (If it comes off your paycheck you won’t even miss it folks!!!);
eScrip Shopping Program (another fun one. Stick around for details);
Sea Shepherd Credit Card (I’m not kidding, you can have your very own Sea Shepherd Visa. I just hope it doesn’t have a picture of a dead seal on it. Now that would really be in poor taste.);
Vehicle and Vessel Donation (anyone got a ship they’ve been trying to unload, here’s your chance).

Boy, I have to say, these guys have really gone all out. I especially like the Wish List and eScrip Shopping Program options.

The Wish List is exactly what it claims to be. The Society lists a number of items they need to further their goal of ensuring equal rights for every living thing on the planet, except the people of Newfoundland and Labrador of course.

The Wish List allows visitors to donate everything from marine paint to valve fittings. I have to admit that most of the items on the list seem pretty benign, but I do have to question the dire need for assistance in decorating an onboard theater for their boat the Farley Mowat. Never the less if you want to help in that important cause, they are in dire need of:

“A big Flat Screen T.V.”;
“DVD Player”;
“VHS Player”; and
“Sound System”

In their defense at least they didn’t specify any particular brand names so I can only assume they are open to various configurations. They also don’t mention any specific brand names when requesting donations of “Flat Screen Monitors” for their offices. I guess the old standard monitors that 90% of the public uses just don’t depict doe eyed seals well enough for their liking.

Of course as interesting as the Wish List is, it’s nothing compared to the eScrip Shopping Program. Here you can register your credit card and ATM numbers and by doing so take advantage of their special partner program.

That’s right folks, every time you shop with one of their eScrip partners a percentage of the sale goes directly to helping support the Society.

Pretty neat stuff but it made me wonder what kind of companies might be involved. You know, a frugal consumer like me is always in the market for a bargain, so I decided to check it out.

According to the site there are many companies involved. Of course a large number of them are cruise lines that cater mainly to the more affluent and therefore more likely contributors, but there are retail businesses as well.

One of the more well known is AVON. A company known around the world for its personal products, makeup, perfumes, etc. I don’t know but I wonder if AVON has ever benefited from the testing of cosmetic products on animals. Maybe not, but it would be interesting to find out.

Other retail outlets include the Sierra Trading Post and a company called Orvis. Both of these high end stores sell everything from clothing to luggage. In fact Sierra is quite proud of its line of leather shoes while Orvis is equally proud of its line of Bullhide products including carry bags and brief cases. I’m not so sure how proud the cattle used in making them might be however.

Another couple of neat companies that can help you donate to the “Save Everything” cause are Terminix and ChemLawn, both subsidiaries of ServiceMaster. Since the sole purpose of both companies is to utilize highly toxic chemicals to kill all insect life in the immediate area, the more zealot animal rights activists may want to give this method of donation a second thought.

As anyone can see, the Sea Shepherd Society has gone pretty broad based with its fund raising activities and I haven’t even touched on its Online Store, Online Art Gallery and the page that lists upcoming Events and Appearances so you can pay a fee to hear Watson in person.

It’s amazing that the Society and Paul Watson in particular, have the time to do all their wonderful work protecting the world from itself. I mean just keeping track of all these fund raising activities must really tick Watson off when he’d much rather be running around the globe looking for his next photo op.

You know, I’m starting to think Paul Watson must be super human or something. Naw, that can't be, after all there are no super humans. All living beings are equal, from the tallest man to the smallest bug, right Paul?

Anyway folks I have to run. The local Terminix exterminator is at the door looking for my donation.


BNB said...

Been there did that - got the newsletter (which also asks for money). Also notice the predominent theme of the seal hunt on the site - even when he tries to make himself out to be a steward of the sea and talks about Makah Whaling or Taiji Dolphin he realizes quickly these are causes that are largely unfunded... so it's back to the image of the white faced seal and smiling Paul.

Help support hypocrisy, racism and terrorism. Make donations to the SS.

Anonymous said...

These "money" arguments always amaze me.

What you fail to realize, Myles, is that the money is there because the support is there. Millions of people are willing to donate and sign petitions and protest because they find what your countrymen do to be sick, barbaric, cruel and immoral. To stop this "proud tradition" of yours, we are willing to donate our time and our money to Sea Shepherd and other groups.

What also amazes me is the ignorance of American Law you display. A simple FOIA request will get you all the tax records of any exempt organization in America, and in 90% of cases, the non-exempt organizations as well.

Finally, put this in your craw. How much money is raised for sealers? How much money does the High North Alliance or the Canadian Sealers Association raise for your downtrodden, put upon Fisherman? How many Americans, and Canadians would be willing to donate to organization in SUPPORT of your slaughter?

If all you have to argue is the money raised from people of conscientious, moral sensibilities, all you do is validate every stereotype of the sealer and their supporters that exist in the minds and imaginations of the sane.

Anonymous said...

The Seal Hunt will never be better organized, more humane or more regulated, for one simple reason.

Sealers are stupid, violent men with no respect for the law or the seals. They will always fail to do the blink test, check for impulse reflexes, ensure death. They will always skin seals alive, hook live seals, break every law on the books and attack those who dare suggest they change their ways or behave like men, like human beings.

Because they're not, and they've proven it time and again. Sealers are uneducated. They are ignorant. They are abusive and violent and completely protected by corrupt provincial and federal governments.

Hopefully this March and April the next coast Mother Nature destroys will be yours.

MrChills said...

Hopefully this March and April the next coast Mother Nature destroys will be yours.

I am not going to comment on anything else that was said by you or the bone head anonymous poster above you, as it all sounds the same to me.

I will, however, point out a continuous trend of anti-sealers and their extremely violent tendencies.

It is hard to take you people seriously when you claim that you have so much compassion for the lives of animals and that sealer’s are barbaric, inhumane, when in the same breath you wish death upon humans.

Anonymous said...

Who said I had compassion for animals?

And yeah, I wish death on a lot of humans. Sealers don't rank very high on the list, but the idea that "all mankind is sacred" is crap. The idea that all men are better than any animal is crap. Who'd you rather save, Hitler or Lassie?

Grow up. Better yet, grow out. Just grow some.

Anonymous said...

Who said I had compassion for animals?

And yeah, I wish death on a lot of humans. Sealers don't rank very high on the list, but the idea that "all mankind is sacred" is crap. The idea that all men are better than any animal is crap. Who'd you rather save, Hitler or Lassie?

Grow up. Better yet, grow out. Just grow some.

Patriot said...

What amazes me, and I am referencing anonymous, which means everyone of the anti-seal commenters here because not one of them is willing to say anything without doing it anonymously is that you all believe Paul Watson's bull.

As for gaining access to U.S. tax records, if you had read the article I wrote not too long ago on the finances of Sea Shepherd you would see evidence of the type of people you are being fleeced by.

You might just be better off to "adopt" a sealer and give him the money to stay home. At least you would make some dent in the hunt.

FunkyPretty said...

Can we try to stop focusing so much on the finances? Sure, some people with the animal rights groups are corrupt. As are some sealers. As are some (well, okay, most) politicians. As are some teachers. And church officials. And on and on. Corruption happens anywhere and everywhere. But there is so much more to the whole seal hunt debate than just finances. Can we all just get back to the actual debate instead of focusing on the money?

Anonymous said...

"funkypretty" is absolutely right. It's stupid to argue about the finances because, let's face it, our society requires money to survive. But at least Paul Watson earns his funding through honest moral means. Each dollar he receives is a vote of the people and people have spoken loudly for Paul Watson as a brave, compassionate, intelligent man. And most people, including most Canadians, do not want the seal hunt. That is a fact. And as for the comment, "You might just be better off to adopt a sealer and give him the money to stay home," that's exactly the point some of the anti-sealer bloggers have been making. People are willing to give them money, but not as handouts but for something meaningful in return, like the Chinese have learned how to do. Right now, the only things N&L is exporting are violence and immorality. That is a fact and that's how the world sees them. N&L is in a moral spiral downward and instead of heeding to the wisdom of the civilized world, they are regressing to medieval times. If the matter were not as serious as it is, they would be the laughing stock of the world. Their ignorance prevents them from seeing this. Canada has abandoned them and they don't know it.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. I learned some valuable insights from the anti-hunt postings here.

Paul, my check is in the mail now. I will send you what I would have spent on my trip to N&L next year (which wasn't much because there's not a lot up there to buy).

ETM, Washington DC

Harry Boland said...

Well said.

As for Myles, well, "its sustainable, humane and vital to the coastal economy..."

ain't no more bigger bullsh*t than that.

Steve in USA said...

No Longer Crazy American...

To the poster who declared that a simple freedom of information request would get you all the information you want, it's actually not quite that hard unless you want the most recent year tax returns. Guidestar.org allows free registration and access to 3 prior years of the reports.

Everything in those reports is available and I suggest you spend a little time actually reading through and understanding them.

And for a real treat try the last page of the IWAF report, which makes for very interesting compariosn with the front of their report.

Also as far as the Watson/SSCS, from reading the balance sheet for the most recent year, in the upper portion it lists suspect Accounts receivable for a reasonably large amount.. the overwhelming bulk of which is..... TADA!!!! Northern Development..

But people would rather feel good about contributing to a cause than feel bad about being skinned.

Anonymous said...

I was reading through some of your archives, Myles, and shock of shocks, I found you propagating the same bullshit lie that so many of your barbarian brethren do, so let me set the record straight -

- the seal hunt in Alaska is nowhere near the size of the Atlantic Hunt. The seal hunt in Alaska is conducted through a waiver in the MMPA and is ONLY - ONLY - performed by native alaskans (Eskimos, etc...)...

- and constitutes a kill of around 2,000 seals.

Most Americans oppose this hunt as well, as we oppose the desires of the Makah.

But to say that the two hunts are equal is an out and out...

wait for it...


You want to defend your countrymen, do it with facts. If you know any.

BNB said...

On the question of finances, there is an obvious indication that much more is made on the seal hunt protest than is made on the seal hunt itself. Time and time again the hate mongering, racism and hypocracy is revealed in statements like "I hope the next coast to be destroyed is yours."

More money than common sense. I honestly can't see the mindset of a person who has bought into an ad campaign that takes their money for a protest half way around the continent but feels fine about the things happening in their own neighbourhood or state.

Steve has made the point well - it's about feeling good about yourself and if that sort of contentment comes simply at the cost of a couple of bucks? Have your contentment.

We are living different lives my friend.

Anonymous said...

Anon from DC here again. A few comments about bnb's well-intentioned but striklingly errorneous and short-sighted points.

On bnb's first point that "much more is made on the seal hunt protest than is made on the seal hunt itself," doesn't that tell you something? What it tells me is that compassionate people outnumber the barbarians and those who buy the barbarians' bloodied products. You made your own point, bnb.

On another point made by bnb, that people who give "money to protests half way around the continent fine about things in their own neighborhood," that is not backed by fact. In fact, it is far from it. There are some terrible things happening in the US, Europe, Australia, China, etc., and millions of people are devoting their lives to ending these things, with great success I should add, thanks to our global, interconnected economies. As N&L'ers who sell their plundered bloodied goods know, money speaks. The seal slaughter is high on everyone's agenda because that is one of the most barbaric things going on in the world today, a thing N&L'ers seem to take perverse pride in. So, my point is, bnb, just because you say something is a fact, that doesn't make it a fact.

On bnb's final point, "it's about feeling good about yourself and if that sort of contentment comes simply at the cost of a couple of bucks," you made the point of your opponents very well again. Isn't that wahy the seal slaughters slaughter the seals, becasue of the contenment they get from a couple of busk from selling the seal skins? Or do they really do it to tale out their violence on non-human creatures for fear that they will take it out on their own children and wives? Moreover, there's nothing worng with people who live full lives from limiting their actions to donating money to those who are in business to end suffering. Why do we pay doctors to cure us? Because we know the money will be well spent.

Thanks you for the opportunity to comment.

ETM from DC

Patriot said...


Glad to see you've come "out of the closet" so to speak. Keep up the rational and educated comments please. It is sorely needed around here lately with all the aonon commcents.


Patriot said...

To Anon from DC,

You said:

On bnb's first point that "much more is made on the seal hunt protest than is made on the seal hunt itself," doesn't that tell you something?

Basically all that tells me is that protest groupss and animal activists are very vocal. That doesn't make them right or educated on the subject. It simply makes them loud.

Anonymous said...


You lied. Two responses, and you lack the balls to deal with the issue.

The Alaskan seal hunt is in no way comparable to the Atlantic Seal Hunt. It is simply a flat out lie.

So show some stones and admit it. Isn't that what honest men do?

NL-ExPatriate said...

You forgot the biggest contributor of all our governments!
By providing charitable donation tax exemptions status to the SS we are in effect condoning vigilantism.
Where Paul leader of the SS sheep is Judge Jury and Executioner. In his Pirate ship designed with a concrete bow for ramming A hull ripper dubbed the can opener. He sails around outside of all the laws of society and delves out his form justice contrary to the laws of the people.

It is because of Governments Complacency that he is not only capable of breaking the law off the land and endangering lives but he gets tax breaks while doing it?


Anonymous said...

Stupidity masked as indignation, NL.

Put your intelligence where your mouth is. Convictions, my friend. List them - all of them - what crimes, what courts, what penalties.

Mr. Watson is quite well versed in maritime laws. I am interested to see if you are. If he has broken the law, shouldn't be too hard to find the cases.

You want to make charges, back them up. Start googling, little Monkey.

Barring that, if you are too lazy to get off your state subsidized ass and use facts, at least have the courtesy to Swallow Myles instead of spitting his crap back.

And for the record - Myles is STILL a LIAR who has still NOT REFUTED his ASININE, BOGUS LIE regarding the Alaskan Seal Hunt, which he says is bigger than Canada's.

And you all wonder why nobody takes any of you seriously?

Mike-K said...

For the record, I am a SS supporter, although I do not have an overly complimentary opinion of Watson.

What does surprise me is how much vehemence you all direct his way, and how you think he is somehow worse than you - that those who say "stop the seal hunt" are somehow worse than those who attack them with hakapiks. Your sealers are thugs who punch girls and attack baby animals. You ever pick a real fight, well, anonymous let us know what happened against the Boys of Toronto.

What's even worse is that none of yoiu have offered any defense of the hunt or the sealers - merely charges against Paul and the SS that would be libelous if printed in an actual newspaper read outside the ethnic conclave of the Sealerdom.

The world is against you on the seal hunt, and you all whine like little pussies. Grow the fuck up. I'm American and the world is against us for things that are a whole hell of a lot more important than fur coats, and you don't see us demanding to examine the financial records of Al-Qaeda.

If you want the hunt - live with the consequences. Boycotts. Poverty. Slurs. Ignorance.

Its the price of doing business...

...and at 4K a year, not a very good business.

MrChills said...

Your sealers are thugs who punch girls and attack baby animals

...and you all whine like little pussies.

If you want the hunt - live with the consequences. Boycotts. Poverty. Slurs. Ignorance.


No arguments from my side on any of this stuff as I will say again, it all sounds the same; however, I love reading the comments.

About living in ignorance, I am living it right now reading your comments. Keep up the good work as it puts a smile on my face and makes my Coffee break here at the office a lot more interesting.

BNB said...

I'm trying to decide my favourite. "Ethnic conclave of the sealerdom" is pretty good, but my favourite has to be "thugs who punch girls and kill baby animals".

It's all going in the tourism brochure baby - good stuff, keep them coming.

NL-ExPatriate said...

You know you SS supporters wouldn't seem like such Hypocrits if you actually proposed some realistic solutions instead of backing an unrealistic agenda all the while knowing that it will never never come about.
And Why would anyone who is gaining financially from the propaganda and slur campaigns against Sealers and NL in particular ever propose any kind of realistic solution it would be like signing your own pay cut. Hence the reason why Protestors don't attend any kind of meaning full events to try and come to a peacefull and intelligent solution. All they have to say is bulls$$$! They don't want their to be any sort of compromise or realistic solution hence their absence at the meetings in St John's this week on the seal hunt.

I propose using Factory Slaughter House/Ships to utilize all of the seal from a sustainable hunt. Where only the older male seals are killed and all of its parts are used either as a food source or is rendered into animal and fish food for a larger aquaculture program. Until such a time as more markets and uses can be found.

This would ensure a sustainable seal hunt.
Some suggestions I've made in how to morally kill the seals is electric stun guns. To either allow the seals to brought onboard the slaughter House/ships where accepted killing practices take place under the watchfull eye of inspectors.
Or seals could either be netted like they used to be or chokered in some way to haul them on board using a cable, choker or net system.

If the seals are to be killed on the ice using hakapiks they could use some sort of hook in the mouth to haul them on the cable whole to the ships. Since pulling them against the grain of the fur from the tail may prove to be too difficult.

Since adult seals could weigh upwards of 100 lbs some system to haul these heavy carcasses over slippery ice is needed. IMHO this is the only reason they are skinned on the ice and the carcass left to rot. A better method of getting the whole carcass onto the ships is needed.
Sealers could use ice gripping boots to allow them to pull the heavier full carcass seals to collection points if they don't already use them?

Hunt mainly the adult male seals allowing for the propagation of the species, and lowering the feces output of the adult seals because the younger seals use more of their diet to grow and less feces is put out for the cod to eat which causes the cod to have worms.

Anonymous said...

Here's a realistic solution in 3 easy steps.

1 - Stop Killing Seals



Your fisheries are dead. Your crab sales are plummeting, your salaries are dropping, and every scientific study says the cod ain't coming back in our lifetimes.

Fisherman have killed their own industry. Time to cut bait and move on. Its called evolution, globalism, modernism, pick your isms...

...just stop with the anachronism, archaism and barbarism.

Anonymous said...

I hope you all realize that if Gomery is to be believed, your entire Government was bought for less than anti-sealing groups raise in a year.

Which reminds me of the old adage - The only thing worse than a whore, is a cheap whore.

How sad it is that you are jealous that those who find you despicable are so much better paid.

Anonymous said...

NL-expat offered some interesting ideas (to abolish suffering and give moral purpose to the seal hunt, where there is none now since the hunt is only for fur, an immoral purpose), but in doing so shed light on the brutality and immorality oif the hunt now. But also, it is way too late for that. The game's over. The world has seen the evil that the men in Newfoundland and Labrador (and Ottawa too) can do and it has had enough. The sealhunt must be shut down entirely, forever, and it will be. Mark my words. Then two words will say it all: Never again. Paul Watson, you are a Saint. You are the reincarnation of St. Brendan. In a world that is characterized by greed, corruption and evil, you have sailed your ship bravely through the chaos with the hope that others will learn compassion. Sail on, my friend. The world is behind you.

Brendan Hubbard

BNB said...

Yes St. Paul save us. Save us from this land where priests rape orphans and we kill seabirds for fun. Save me from this place where it is unsafe to walk George Street without a Torontonian. Save me from the barbarians and wife-beaters. Bring my to that place reserved for all good Saints. The legendary lands of Toronto and Omaha where meat comes shrink wrapped and frozen and there is no need to kill.

I regret that I have but one life to offer.

I too have met Paul Watson - on a couple of occasions actually. The last time was when he was combing seals to utilize the fur without killing - look that one up. He is indeed a remarkable man.

Anonymous said...

Enlightening, as always.

So much so that I just wrote a check for $1000 to SS, another for $1000 to the IFAW and a third for $2000 to the Humane Society.

Plus, I spent $45 on Crab from Alaska and Cod from Iceland. God Bless Point of Origin labels.

So. Thanks to Patriots, the opponents of the seal hunt have just made more off one woman than any sealer made off his "catch".

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

(November 7, 2005) – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced today that five more restaurants in the Los Angeles area have responded to The HSUS’ call for a boycott of seafood from Canada until that country’s annual slaughter of hundreds of thousands of seals is permanently halted. The HSUS has also noted that Canadian snow crab exports to the United States have dropped by $156 million—nearly ten times the value of the seal hunt and a thirty-six percent drop since the seafood boycott began.
The hunt is undeniably cruel—baby seals are clubbed or shot to death primarily for their pelts—many are skinned while still alive and conscious. The U.S. has long banned imports of seal products, but the market for seal pelts in Europe provides an incentive for the sealers to take to the ice every spring to kill as many seals as they can. This year’s hunt, with over 300,000 baby seals slaughtered, was the largest killing of marine mammals in the world.
The California restaurants joining the boycott are:
Geoffrey’s Malibu
• The Arroyo Chop House
• Malibu Seafood and Fresh Fish Market
• The Kitchen
• Pacifico’s
They join other restaurants across the country such as Tavern on the Green, and companies like Legal Sea Foods, Down East Seafood, Whole Foods Markets, Wild Oats Markets, Original Fish, The Plitt Seafood Company and Spectrum Organics in the United States, and Marks and Spencer in the United Kingdom in taking steps to reduce or end their Canadian seafood sales.
“We applaud these restaurants for joining the campaign and their support is timely. This week, The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is meeting in Canada to determine the sealing plan for the next five years,” said Pat Ragan, director of The HSUS Protect Seals campaign. “It is imperative that American consumers send Canada a loud and clear message that they will not buy seafood from Canada or travel there if this cruel hunt is allowed to continue.”
Seventy percent of Canadian seafood is exported to the United States, producing $2.8 billion annually for the Canadian economy and making the industry a viable target for a boycott. The implementation of country-of-origin labeling for seafood products will makes it easy for consumers to determine which products come from Canada. More than 120,000 individuals have already signed The HSUS boycott pledge on the web site, http://www.ProtectSeals.org, which also provides a downloadable pocket guide to the most common Canadian seafood products, such as snow crabs.
Sealing is an off-season activity conducted by commercial fishermen from Canada’s East Coast. Even in Newfoundland, where more than 90 percent of the sealers live, sealing income accounts for less than one percent of that province’s gross domestic product and only two percent of the landed value of Newfoundland’s fishery. “The Canadian government and fishing industry clearly have an economic choice to make,” said Ragan.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization representing nearly 10 million members and constituents. The non-profit organization is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals and equine protection, disaster preparedness and response, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research and farm animal welfare. The HSUS protects all animals through education, investigation, litigation, legislation, advocacy, and field work. The group is based in Washington and has numerous field representatives across the country.

Anonymous said...

Brendad Hubbard here. For those of (like myself) who are are opposed to the seal hunt (and especially those who financially support those organizations, inlcuding the SS, who are opposed to the seal hunt), you might wish to visit Patriot's Oct 17th posting where he encourages us to continue posting our comments because he makes money off each comment posted and that enables him to continue his web-site. I for one am glad to see that (although a bit puzzled that he admitted that when he criticizes Paul Watson and others for their own fundraising) and would encourage all of those opposed to the hunt to continue posting comments, frequently if possible. I myself have gathered strength in my own convictions about the terrible seal slaughter and picked at the same time have learned an enormous amount of information about why the hunt should end just from his site alone and comments posted by those opposed to it. But I have also learned more about the situation in N&L in general (and not only from Patriot's seal-hunt postings), information that allows me to understand the people in N&L much better. And that information will surely contribute to the formation of solutions to offset whatever income is lost to N&L when --- and I do mean when --- the seal hunt ends. And when it does, Patriot more than anyone else (yes, even Paul Watson) will be able to claim a role in ending the seal hunt simply because of his web site. So to Patriot I say, even though I disagree with you 100 percent on the seal hunt, keep up the good work and keep your postings on the seal hunt coming and keep up your other writings as well. And to those of us opposed to the seal hunt I say, keep your comments coming because you are all adding value. And to those in N&L I say, please keep your comments coming too, especially about N&L, becasue they are shedding light on matters that will help end the seal hunt and bring perhaps a new prospertiry to N&L, a prosperity that will be achieved in ways that do not involved scorned practices. In fact, what Patriot is doing is precisely what others (especially the sealhunters) in N&L should do. He has learned how to use modern technology in this globalized economy we are in in order to earn his living, without killing any creature myself. Of course, if you look at the numbers of comments posted, it is clear that Patriot stands to gain by the seal hunt not ending. So I plead with those of you opposed to the seal hunt, that when it ends, and it will end, tp make it a practice of yours to visit Patriot's site daily and post a comment or two on his other writings to allow him to stay in business, and I mean that sincerely. He does throw a lot of light on the issues facing the people in N&L, whether you agree with him or not. And by the way, when the seal hunt does end for good, I would encourage you to take a trip there yourself. I will not explain why here now, nor will I explain the caveats I would offer, but I will when that time comes.

BNB said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

BH here again. I just noticed a few typos, etc. in my prior, but you'll be able to figure them out. Sorry about that.

Anonymous said...

Give to which cause, bnb? Who has the ex-coast guard ship to run, Patriot or Paul?


BNB said...

It appears we are on this message board at the same time. I had deleted my post because the conversation about the amounts of money are sad to me. I was being sarcastic in asking for Anon to dig deeper and give more moeny. Truth is - as I've said before - we live in different worlds. A person who has the time and money to devote so much ANY cause is beyond my comprehension. This lady pumps out $4000 on a whim. This is a person of a different class and her elitism is not something I care to deal with. In recent months I had donoted to Katrina Relief, Pakistan Relief, Tsunami Relief and local food banks and Christmas charities. But my money cannot nearly match that of her whim. This is not a person I would ever have a conversation with in real life. I am educated with a university degree and make a comfortable living. But I work hard for my money.

Sorry about deleting the post but that's the reason. To answer your question the SS has the coast guard vessel. They've come a long way from the days of the Clevland Amory. Remember that one?

Anonymous said...

BH here, bnb. Thanks for your comment. But you didn't have to tell me that you are educated with a university degree, because I figured that out from your writings. Either that or you are a very thoughful person, probably both. And compassionate whether you admit it or not.

I agree 100 percent that people live in different worlds. But I am learning (slowly) not to critizie (or envy) people on how they spend their money, as long as their not hurting anyone by it (that's when I go into action --- as my new 9-square-foot sign as of today on the back of my vehicle --- Fur Is Murder --- proclaims). Unfortunately, whether we welcome it or not, thanks to this thing called the global economy and the technology that is bringing it about, we are learning more about how other people and earn and spend their money. The people who welcome it are the ones making money off it. Of course, if they put their money to good use (e.g., by helping others), that's one thing. But I'm afraid that's not the case, but I don't know. As we get deeper and deeper into this, there will be numerous disruptions (look what's happenening in France! Look at 9/11 etc.). This afternoon, a friend invited me to a lecture by the Dalai Lama in DC. He believes, and I agree with him, that science and technology are moving faster than people have had an opportunity to absorb in their spiritual lives. He's absolutely right. But it's more than sceince and technology, it's capitalism (and whatever the Chinese call their strange equivalent of it) too. We are all seeing disruptions in our lives because of it. People in the US are shopping like mad at Wal-Mart to save monye, but the fact is they have too because Wal-Mart and others pay their people so poorly and have put mnay out of work because they buy their goods from China now, where they pay their people virtually nothing and treat them just as poorly.

I agree too that we have come a long way since Clevland Amory. Tonight on 60 minutes here in the states there will be a segment on the extremist wing in the animal rights (I call it animal ethics) movement. While (as a lawyer) I cannot condone criminal activities (or else I would lose the tool I have to help solve problems and reduce suffering), I happene to agree with their ultimate goal, just as George Bush agrees with the ultimate goal of those who murder people associated with abortion clinics (to end abortion). The challenge we have is to convince others that we know a better way to live listen or be convinced ourselves. To your credit, bnb, it is clear to me that you have taken up that challenge.

Time to take the dogs for a walk. Keep up the good work (and get off George Street before midnight).


Anonymous said...

BH here again. Just saw a few typos etc again in my prior (e.g., their instead of they're), but you'll figure them out.

ISDABY said...

several points to make.
1- 'financial shenanigans' are significant because it raises the question of motiviation...is it about the money or about saving seals...we 'anti-anti-sealers' see it as a money grab, with good reason. One of these reasons is the interview Watson did in 1978(?) with Barbara Frum in which he states unequivocably that seals are 'NOT ENDANGERED' (this was when the herd was down to around 2 mill, now its at 5.9 mill) and they (Greenpeace at the time) use white coat imagery because it "opens peoples purses",.Was he lying then or now?
2) We get ticked off becaue the attacks on the seal hunt automatically slide into racist attacks on the people of Newfoundland, with little or no discussion of the issues, and little knowledge/understanding of anything other than 'what Paul Watson puts on his website"
issue: Harp seals are not 'endangered species' the population is stable and has increased in recent years inspite of recent, large commercial hunts.
Issue: Clubbing seals is proven to be a 'humane' killign method, when done properly.
issue; much video so-called 'evidence' used by antisealing groups claims that seals are skinned alive, and show footage of a twitching seal, being skinned, as evidence. However, there is this thing called involuntary twitching in muscles/nerves when animals are killed. It happens in chickens, cattle, horses, humans, adn yes, seals (called swim reflex). It does not mean that the seal is being skinned alive (this imagery is widely used to attack other kill industries as well...).
issue; no one claims that seals have destroyed cod stocks, but many are concerned that with stocks so low, seals are slowing their return. The issues are different. While cod make up a 'small' percentage of a seals diet, that percentage is a huge amount taken from the cod stocks...
Issue; the image of a seal dying slowly, gurgling in blood, is shown to proove that 40% are skinned alive..when all it prooves is that the animal you are watching is suffering a slow horrible death .For the meat eaters among you , you should know that the same amount of poor kills can be found in your friendly neighbourhood slaughterhouse...chicken nuggets, or bacon anyone?

issue, issue issue,

lets talk about issues folks. IF yuo have nothing more to say than to cast insults, then you have nothing worth saying.

ISDABY said...

...just to add that to balance the IFAW's much repeated claim that 40% of seals are skinned alive, the CVMA sponsored report shows that only about 2% are skinned alive, adn recommend that further improvements be made to reduce this number even more. Opponents of the seal hunt prefer to make tremendous efforts to discredit the authors of the CVMA report rather than discuss what makes the two groups look at the same activity and come up with such widely different answers.

Who is afraid to discuss facts? and Science? The Ani-sealing lobby thats' who, they prefer pseudo science, and carefully crafted mythology playing on emotion, not facts.

Anonymous said...

BH here responding to isdaby's comments.

I agree with you and commend you for offering that it is rather senseless to talk about finances and peripheral things because we all have to earn a living and our money all has to come from somewhere. And I for one do not make it a point to jump on people on how they earn their living or spend their money, as long as they are doing so ethically.

I also commend you for wanting to focus on the issues only. I agree and/or add that facts and dialogue, coupled with mindfulness, are the only way that we are going to solve all the problems facing us in this new century, and you are trying to achieve that by putting facts and issues on the table.

But I have to disagree with you on at least two points for starters.

First, assuming even that the seal hunt was conducted for food consumption, which it is not, I personally would still oppose as long as it was not carried out humanely or even ONE seal were skinned alive. (Other reasons follow, but this is enough for starters.)

But second, we do not have to get to the above because the slaughter is carried out for the fur of the animals, for fashion, and that is wrong. And as long as that happens, people like myself will oppose it and the other hunts, trappings and breeding for fur animals worldwide. For me there is no compromise on this issue. Using animals for fur is immoral and unethical by any standards.

I agree with your - and a few others' --- comments about what goes on in slaughterhouses (as well as factory farms and the trucks in which animals are transported to the slaughterhouses) is just as bad if not worse than what goes on with the seal hunt . Of course, pointing to what someone else is doing is no excuse for one's own conduct, but putting that aside, when I took the time to look into this matter several years ago and learned the facts, I became a vegan. (By the way, I should add that even John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods (the fastest growing food chain in the US), also became a vegan in 2003 when he too took the time to learn about what really goes on. That is why he rasied he purchases his store's meat products from farmers who raise their meats humanely, and also why his store has joined the boycott of Canadian seafood. As I told him several weeks ago when I met him at a (vegan) dinner, in the 25 years since he started his company, he personally has done more to reduce the suffering of animals on this planet than all the combined leaders of the Christian faith since its founder.)

I would like to offer one other point of view. If N&L were isolated from the rest of the world, no one would have any economic or legal reason to complain. But it is not, N&L is part of the global community and its fishermen over the centuries have worked hard and risked (and given) their lives to serve food to the world so people could live. But also, because we have entered a new world, a world in which we are all becoming part of the same community, it is not going to be an easy ride for any of us as one community tries to impose its values on others and vice versa by way of our trade. None of us will be around to see how this chapter ends, but if it is meant it be that it will end the way I hope it does and am living my life to make sure it does, I am glad that I will not be around then.

These are only my points of view. My hope is that I can convince others who feel the opposite or that they can convince me.

Again, I appreciate your serious contributions.

ISDABY said...

Thanks BH for sensible discussion.

The 'commercial' seal hunt is of course primarily for fur and has always been, although there have been times when more meat was taken than at present (but still a side line to fur)...seal meat is a welcome treat in many Newfoundladn households, however, gettign it is does nto require the large commercial fur hunt.

My comparisons to slaughterhouses is not an attempt to 'spread the blame', but to point out to people who don't think twice about where their food come from, as well as those who know full well but accept it, that the way seals are killed is as 'good as it gets', and compares well with the more 'accepted' killing industries, but it looks bad. For you to say if only one seal is skinned alive that is too many, I can't argue with you there, because that is clearly where 'you' draw the line. However, one of the many problems I have with the antisealing lobby is how information is contrued and miscontrued to paint the worst imaginable scenario to present to people...they tell people all over the world , most of whom don't know anything about the issues except for the phamphlets put in their hands, that baby seals are being skinned alive by barbarian savages...what else do you think these people will conclude...they do not have the information to make an 'informed' decision, only to respond with their guts...emotionally. So, for people to claim that x% of people all over the world are opposed to the seal hunt becaseu its disgusting...more accurately you can say that they have been led to believe its disgusting...by propaganda. One of the repeated mantras...'its inherently cruel' to clubb seals... is interesting in light of the fact that IFAW sponsored vet report, the same one that said that 40% are skinned alive (...I take issue with that too), says that clubbing seals 'properly' is humane. How then is that 'inherently' cruel to club seals..I can go on...the antisealing lobby is well aquanted with the tricks of manipulating teh masses. Maybe there aer many out there like you, who are willing to discuss the issues, but for the most part the masses recruited to bring down the hunt, are doing so because they have swallowed the line about 'inherent cruelty' and wonton savagery. People at the core of the anti sealing movement are (IMHO) dedicatated Animal Rights Activists who have no problems manipulating the masses to drum up the support they need to achieve their agenda. Seal hunt is just one of many agendas, albeit particularly lucrative...

SOme questions to ask;

is it okay to kill animals for human use? what kinds of human use are 'acceptable', adn who decides? (fur is a luxury item, but harvesting fur brings in much needed income...)

Anonymous said...

isdaby, thanks for your response.

I don't know whether you were just posing the last question rhetorically or for me specifically, but let me answer that from my own perspective. For my own moral reasons, I now believe that it is not "okay" to kill --- or otherwise use --- animals for human use, as of 2005 that is. So for me, I don't need a church or a government or some other authority telling me that what is acceptable or not (I have been let down by authorities once too many times to rely on them for such moral judgments, e.g., the war we are now engaged in), and I decided that I was in no position to play God myself. So I made my extreme decision. And since I made my decision, among other things, I have discovered a whole new way of eating from which I derive more pleasure than when I was not a vegan. If I eventually suffer as the result of this diet (e.g., lack of omega 3, but I do get plenty of it from other sources), I am prepared to live with that (die with that is perhaps the better way to put it). Of course, I do not expect that the world will change to my way of living in this regard overnight. So I do my best to try to change the laws, etc. that assure those animals are treated ethically and have life free from suffering when they are raised, transported to the slaughterhouse, and then slaughtered.

By the way, China in the last few weeks incinerated alive 150,000,000 chickens because of the avian flu. Guess what food they are substituting most? Soy. This is a precise example of what will happen. The human race, because of its size (population and, at least here in the US, people themselves), will be forced to change its diet to better balance the natural forces at work here on this planet, much of which we do not understand, although the scientists think we do. Just as people had to give up cod because, as N&L'ers know well, there is no more plentiful cod, the Chinese have to give up poultry because of avian flu. And extending this to extremes, so also people might have to give up beef because of mad cow disease (among others), tuna because of the mercury, pork for this reason or that, and so on. And those reasons do not even get to the ethics of how the animals are treated but only the natural forces at work, although I happen to believe they are related.

Although I cannot count myself among the extremely religious (spiritual, yes), I do look for values in the Bible. From all that I read, the Bible says to take only what is necessary to live. Is cutting open a ewe's womb to rip out the fetus so someone can wear a karakul lamb coat necessary to live? Or this: Sixty percent of the American population is overweight, many thanks to McDonalds. If those people are at least 30 percent over weight as the studies say, my simple math tells me that that at least 18 percent of our food here in the US is unnecessary to live. That's 18 percent of 10 billion animals a year in the US alone (1.8 billion animals) who suffer and die each year in the US alone unnecessarily, because people eat more than is necessary to live.

Besides the food argument, the one issue that people who are proud of our position at the top of the food chain (but who did nothing to get us there) like to raise is the issue of the use of animals for medical research. Look how many lives it has saved, they say. Put aside the fact that my research into this (as a concerned individual and not as part of any group) has allowed me to conclude that most of the research is duplicated, useless or fruitless, and a lot even purposeless. Put aside also the terribly cruel things that are done to the animals in the course of that research, much of it behind closed doors and in violation of humane laws. Conceding that lives have indeed been saved in the past, I now believe that alternative methods are now available that would totally make unnecessary the use of animals any longer if our governments would only drop the requirements for animal testing. I have also concluded that unless we move to these new methods soon, many lives that might have been saved (or much suffering that might have been reduced) will not be because animal models are not effective (look at the headlines in the paper today where the drug companies are losing money because their drugs, all tested on animals, do not work as they thought they would). Every day we waste on using animals means one day longer people will have to wait for human-effective drugs to come on the market. (I recently opted to seek always alternative "medicine" remedies first before opting for drugs and surgery, and I have been successful in this.)

Let me go to your main point now, the way that information is construed and disseminated by the, say, animal welfare groups. I cannot disagree with you one bit on this point. Because I contribute to a number of animal welfare organizations (as well as human-welfare ones too), I am on just about everyone's mailing list. As a result, each day I get at least 10 pieces of paper mail and 10 e-mails from them to wade through. I just hate it when I open the mail and find some heart-wrenching story about some poor animal named this or that, so I often throw out these pleas for money unless I have time to do some research myself into what good the organization has done. (The WWF, among the slickest marketers, had me fooled for years until just recently when I discovered, among other things, that they were started by a bunch or poachers out to conserve for their own good.) Five years ago, I retired early from one job and was ready to take another job (in Russia) but I decided to give it all up and spend my time, energy and retirement income on a single cause. The cause I selected was the unnecessary suffering of animals at the hands of the human race, so I have the time to do the research, to watch the videos, to go to events and annual meetings and ask questions, to look at both sides. No one with a job, family or other demanding interests could do what I am doing just as I did not have the time to do this before myself (and, as a result, I admit that I often gave in to those dramatic, heart-wrenching pleas). Now, after I wade though all that is dramatic and sensational and heart-wrenching that is put before me, I decide whether to contribute (to all causes) on the basis of the minimum I know to be true and whether I can trust the organization to do what they say they plan to do. I am not entirely satisfied with the results, but I have the patience to wait and watch and change my mind later (as I did with the WWF). Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, 21st century marketing requires all fundraisers --- whether trying to sell a car or run the Red Cross --- to acknowledge that people have no time to study things and put before them things that will make them decide to give before they put the piece of paper down. Because people know that I spend time on this, they call and write me about whom they should give to for this cause or that. Frankly, I think word-of-mouth references like that cause more people to give than any ad does.

Thanks for letting me put my thoughts in writing, isdaby. The topic is so important to me I cancelled my plans for this evening to work on it. It's too bad that the topic that brings us here involves both the suffering of animals, the suffering of people who care about animals and the suffering of people trying to make a living. It's also too bad there wasn't someone up there refereeing all this and calling time out when things get too rough (then again, maybe there is but he or she is now busy in China or Iraq).

bnb, if you're reading this, thanks for the lead to the Mina Wallace book. I just bought a copy on amazon.com.

Anonymous said...

I know where your coming from
I stopped wearing leather gloves and shoes years ago.
I was tempted to throw paint onto my leather couch before I donated it to charity.
I sold my Mercedes Benz at a loss because it had leather seats.

And the best pair of Ski-Doo mitts I ever owned were made from Seal leather.

Oh and the SS Sea Shepard was originally started by a bunch of dodge drafters.

Harry Boland said...

The money argument is crap. To suggest that SS, IFAW or HSUS is in it for the money is ludicrous paranoia. Anyone who believes that Rebecca Aldworth or Paul Watson would rather keep their jobs than end the seal hunt is so completely devoid of common sense or common morality, they're not even worth talking to.

The bottom line here is that nobody on the sealing side gives a damn if its humane, or sustainable, or any of that. Polls show that the majority of their own provincial and coastal mates want the hunt stopped, so obviously there's an underlying reason.

The real reason for supporting the hunt is because its Newfies, Labradorans and Frogs doing it. Myles can make bullshit accusations til his rectum rips from the strain, but the fact is his "patriotism" is nothing more than a carefully orchestrated charade for his own jingoism. Its not that killing seals is right - its that NEWFIES are right. Because their Newfies.

But they're not alone. Its a common psychology, common to every culture in the world. Spaniards and Mexicans have bullfights and cockfights. Irish have the IRA, Basque's ETA. Americans have the "my country, right or wrong" mentality. The idea that an act is right because the ACTOR is right is basic human psychology.

The problem though, is humans ought not to be basic. We ought to be better. We ought to grow and evolve and develop and progress, and we ought to kick the asses of anyone who refuses or doesn't want to.

Sooner or later the seal hunt will be stopped for a very simple reason - there are more of us who want it stopped than there are of you who defend it. And we have more money - in fact, we have YOUR money. What percentage of NFLD exports are to America? Crab Fisherman have already lost $156 million, according to your own DFO. Your major market is already drying up as China modernizes for the Olympics. Even if the Canadian Government buys each and every pelt, it won't matter because the industries NFLD and its sealers depend upon will continue to take more and more lumps as American consumers express their will.

Its rather pitiful that great minds (turn my head and cough) like Myles spend so much energy on defending a $16 million dollar slaughter instead of spending more time trying to make that slaughter unnecessary by finding these fisherman solid, high paying jobs.

But maybe he can't. Maybe Myles can't, because maybe Paul is right. And maybe it isn't about the $4k per sealer, or the tradition. Maybe its just that you truly are barbarians.

So the jingoistic cycle continues in NFLD, as it will most certainly continue every where else in the world.

ISDABY said...

to Harry Boland, I have heard your kind of arguments time and time again, they have a 'familiar' ring to them...

so...other than 'its not popular to kill seals' or 'its not ethical' or , everyone hates you' or 'Paul and Rebecca say its wrong', just what is 'wrong' with the seal hunt. Pick it apart, tear it wide open, but don't give me that crap!

WHY is it unethical? why is it gross? why do so many people 'oppose' it? I have given reasons that I think they oppose it, you tell me...(...Paul Watson tells us its wrong...):(

For my part I couldn't care less if the hunt stopped forever, I have no stake in it whatso ever. but I would rather it be stopped for valid reasons, rather than it be steam rolled by bullshit propaganda by people who can't even string real arguments together.

Among the anti sealers I hear a number of voices...the minority seem to be vegan ARA's whose personal belief system tells them that killing seals, just as killing any animal is wrong, and they are willing to discuss issues with you in a sane manner. These people tend to make sense, although I disagree. Then there are the 'loud mouth shnooks' who seem to get a thrill out of shouting down at 'savage Newfies', cast insults and arrogance about like candy, with a liberal dose of ignorance...these are 'hard to take' because they are full of 'it'. Then there are the hard core ARA's for whom this cause, like many others, is just a means to an end, and it makes no differnce to them wether 40% or 0% of seals are skinned alive, its just plain wrong and they will do anything to stop it, including twisting, distorting, lying and cheating. These are very hard to take too because they subvert everyone's beliefs to achieve their goals...kind of like 'neocons' in the democratic world... but that is only the humble opinion of an ignorant, baby killin savage.

Patriot said...

Hi folks, I posted this comment on the other thread related to sea shepherd not attending the public seal discussions but figured since many of you have moved on to this thread with the discussion I would post it here as well.

Happy reading:

Hi folks, interesting discussion. bye the way, you may be interested to read the following response from Paul Watson on this piece, entitled:

Fear and Loathing in Newfoundland

Government blasts Sea Shepherd for Not Attending a Meeting on Seals That We Were Not Invited To

By Captain Paul Watson

The big story in Newfoundland this week is that the Canadian federal government is hosting a meeting to discuss the setting of kill quotas for the Canadian seal slaughter and that Sea Shepherd and other organizations have refused to attend.

The meeting sponsored by the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans has invited sealers and fishermen to attend. Apparently humane organizations, conservation groups and animal rights groups were also invited, or so we are now being told.

The government is saying that the groups opposed to the hunt have refused to attend and they are using this in a propaganda campaign to suggest that we are not concerned with the fate of the seals.

According to the biased Canada Free Press, Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan has been quoted as saying, "It's unfortunate" and noted that, "This is a multimillion-dollar business for these organizations".

Mr. Regan of course is speaking out on something he is certainly misinformed about. The total annual budget of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society does not exceed a million dollars.

Fur industry public relations spokesperson Myles Higgins is saying that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has refused to attend the meeting because we don’t really want solutions and that we need the seal slaughter as a fund raising campaign.

Of course it was the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society that has consistently offered alternatives to the seal hunt like the utilization of naturally molted seal hair as a fibre with eider down qualities. An alternative that the Canadian government absolutely would not allow us to explore.

And of course, the seal hunt actually costs us more to oppose than we raise in donations because we do not have the fund-raising machines available to the larger organizations that oppose the seal slaughter. Every campaign to protect seals actually puts us into debt.

But the real reason that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not attending the meeting in Newfoundland this week is very simple.

We were not invited.

We did not get a letter, a fax, a telegram, an e-mail, a postcard or even a telephone call inviting us to attend this meeting.

Very convenient. First they don’t invite us to their meeting and then they issue a media release that criticizes us for not attending.

In other words, they don’t want us at their meeting but they also want the media and the public to believe that they do want us at the meeting and that we are being irresponsible in not attending the meeting that they did not invite us to.

In fact DFO never even informed us that the meeting was taking place so that we were not even in a position to ask if we could be invited.

Geoff Regan really should change his job title from Minister of Fisheries to Minister of Propaganda.

Patriot's Response:

First of all, even though Paul Watson started his comments by egotistically referring to himself as Captain, I will not.

This guy has no official papers making him a captain according to U.S. law, where his vessel is registered. Instead, he struts around in a modified, official uniform that makes him look official but has been changed just enough to ensure that he is inside the law. A costume if you will. So, I will simply refer to him as Paul.

Anyway, Paul if you say 5 times in your brief message that you were not invited to this public discussion. I am not surprised. It was after all a PUBLIC meeting. There are often public discussions held on a myriad of topics and generally most people are not invited, thus the term PUBLIC.

In the case of these meetings they are always maded known prior to the event taking place and anyone who is truly intetested in the topic at hand would be expected to be on top of their game and be aware of such happenings. Apparently other organizations were, but not yours.

In reality your claim that you were not invited to a public meeting, the time and location of which were public knowledge does not hold water. In this light, I can only assume you did not attend for one of a three possible reasons.

1) you were not on top of the game and did not know this was happening which doesn't speak well of your handling of the issues;

2) you did know but did not want to attend, which was my assertion in the piece;

3) you were not able to attend either because you are not permitted on land in the province due to some illegal activity you may have committed in the past; or

4) you are afraid to land in NL because you have bought into your own rhetoric and truly believe that the people are barbarians who will skin you alive when you arrive.

Either way, there is no doubt in my mind that a lack of invitiation didn't stop you.

As an aside to the key point, I would appreciate it if you would get one thing straight. You refer to me as "Fur industry public relations spokesperson Myles Higgins", the only accurate part of that statement is the spelling of my name.

I do not represent the fur industry in any way. I am simply an individual who, unlike many of your flock, have my own personal opinions.

As a matter of fact, I will tell you something about me that you don't know. I do not believe that anyone needs to wear fur. I see no real value in it with the modern man made materials on the market and I don't own anything made of fur. Having said that, I also do not feel that my opinion toward the products gives me the right to push my beliefs on others or to cause problems in an industry.

To continue. At one point you say the fisheries minister is wrong when he says protest groups are a multi-million dollar industry yet in the next breath you say"

"The total annual budget of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society does not exceed a million dollars"

followed by:
"..we do not have the fund-raising machines available to the larger organizations that oppose the seal slaughter."

So let me get this straight. according to you, The annual budget of Sea Shepherd is just under 1 million and you don't have the fund raising capacity of larger protest organizations, which I can only assume means they take in more money. How can you say this and also say that the minister is misinformed when he says "multi-million dollar"?

As a matter of fact if you read my follow up article to this, "Sea Shepherd Dollars and Sense" you would see that I did a review of your fund raising, at least what was available on your web site, not the deals with people like Singh. Believe me, if you really "...do not have the fund-raising machines available to the larger organizations.." then they must really be doing some quirky stuff.

Finally, as a part of that statement you mention that "..the seal hunt actually costs us more to oppose than we raise in donations..."

How many years have you been protesting the hunt Paul? If your statement is true and it actually costs you more than you raise, how have you found financing to continue the fight? Money doesn't fall from the sky, so you must be finding it somewhere. Maybe this is where people like the florida land developer and the movement of assets between him and Sea Shepherd and yourself comes into play. I wish you could explain it.

Patriot said...

Please excuse the typos in the last piece. (including the number 3 where 4 should be)

BNB said...

BH: I hope you enjoy the book, I hope to read it myself over Christmas. I will say to you in all sincerity that the vegan lifestyle is one to be admired. In refering to posters on this site I have called them hypocrites, racists and terrorists and I can point to the proof of each of these accusations. Your most recent posts show an opinion that is neither of these so I thank you for that. I also respect that you protest other issues showing that your morals have some foundation. There is a lot to be said for the vegan lifestyle, for example it requires a lot less resources to raise a pound of grain for human consumption than to raise the grain - feed it to an animal and then eat the animal. It makes environmental sense. So I have no argument with that opinion. However you must realize that you are in the minority. If the claim that the greatest percentage of many civilized countries oppose the sealhunt (was it 80%, 90% and 60% something like that??) then it must be known that the great number of these are not Vegan.

Anon above is an example of why I feel it necessary to post. He is all of these things - A Hypocrite, Racist and Terrorist. Not sure if it is the same guy/girl who gave their couch to charity and sold their Mercedes but this is in itself Hypocracy. When there was a worldwide ban on Ivory it was piled up and burned, such that today - any ivory is illegal to trade (except Mammoth ivory?!). So morally if you oppose leather - destroy it and don't contribute to the industry again. Your racism is blatant and I don't care to draw more attention to it. Take a lesson from Isdaby, Patriot, Mrchills et al or BH. You represent the vast middleground which has no moral foundation in fact. More money that common sense.

Isdaby: You've pretty well expressed my opinions - thanks.

Patroit: Paul is on side with anon above, a hyprocrite racist and terrorist. You are doing an excellent job of exposing that. Keep it up.

One of Paul's recent quotes "[N&L] where Priests rape orphans". If that isn't racist hate mongering I don't know what is.

Harry Boland said...

Isdaby, et al...

Has it ever struck you (any of you) how much deeper the hatred for people like Paul and Rebecca exists in people like Myles than vice versa?

Just to prove my point, people like Myles actually BEAT UP Paul Watson and attacked Rebecca and her helicopter. I don't recall ever hearing of either of them, or even the afamed Dr. Vlasic, attacking any of them.


But he's not a Barbarian (Myles being a stand-in for the sealing crowd).

Why is the seal hunt immoral? Any number of reasons.

I understand the need to kill animals, to control herds, to provide food, to prevent the spread of disease - as we speak, thousands upon thousands of birds are being killed to prevent the spread of Avian Flu, just as a few years ago thousands of cows were killed to prevent Mad Cow.

Do I abhor those deaths? Absolutely, if for no other reason than I hold to the Gaiac belief that the Earth reacts to itself, that our own commercialisation of meat, and poultry, is killing us and our planet. Anyone who doubts that, check the waste from a meat or hog processing facility.

As for the seal hunt - there is no purpose. Seals are not overpopulated - no matter what shit the DFO is spreading. They are not spreading disease. They are not infringing upon human habitat. They are not a source of food.

And the seals hunted are baby seals. No sensible industry targets baby animals, of any kind. To call this a "hunt" is an insult - it IS a slaughter. And yes, I oppose veal as well. And foie gras.

As Myles admits, this is for fur - a vanity item, a luxury, unnecessary.

Specific to this hunt, it is cruel - clubbing, hooking. Seals are skinned alive. There is no evidence that sealers abide by any of the DFO regulations - even Daoust admits that 87% of his observed kills violated DFO regulations. Mass slaughter in a wild habitat is reminiscent of the bison slaughters on the plains, the seal slaughters of decades past - acts which nearly wiped out the species.

The politics are immoral, in that the CG has actively scapegoated the seals to immunize itself from the cod collapse, and after carefully planting that seed in the Fisherman's mind, backed off carefully in the public view.

And economically, states subsidizing failed, unprofitable industries for the sake of political pandering is abhorrent no matter what the industry.

Then there's the final blow - sealers like doing it. Its clear from the tapes, from their behavior in front of journalists and observers...they like it. And that, to me, is sick.

But reasons are kind of beside the point, in the end. In a globalized world, the best reason the seal hunt is immoral is because WE SAY SO.

There must be common morality, for is there isn't all manner of violence, genocide, rape, pillage and plunder is legitimized. These ARE cultural issues - not the culture of the Newfie, but the culture of the West.

You and yours are fighting a losing battle against modernism. That defeat is inevitable is (for you) sad enough, but what's even more depressing is the vehemence with which you make this fight.

Wasted energy on a wasted future.

Anonymous said...

Here it is. Hot off the press. The final word. God's rep has spoken. The truth has been found. Debate no more.

Landmark Report Calls for End of Commercial Seal Hunt on Ethical Grounds
(Tuesday November 15, 1:37 pm)

-- Coinciding with the official opening day of the 2005-2006 commercial sealing season, The Humane Society of the United States today released a ground-breaking report by Oxford University Professor Rev. Andrew Linzey who argues that Canada's commercial seal hunt cannot be morally justified and that basic principles of humane slaughter are violated in the course of the hunt.

"Because of the physical environment in which it operates, and the way in which it must be conducted in order to be commercially viable, Canada's seal hunt is -- and must always be -- inhumane," states Linzey. "The Canadian Government should make the commercial seal hunt illegal."

The report, entitled Public Morality and the Canadian Seal Hunt, has been endorsed by over 65 leading academics, some from Canada, including best- selling author and Nobel Laureate John Coatzee. The report was published jointly by The HSUS and Respect for Animals. It will be presented to parliamentarians in Europe and Canada, as well as representatives of the U.S. government.

Linzey is a professor of theology at Oxford University and has written or edited 20 books, including major works on animals. He is the author of The Ethical Case Against Fur Farming, which was instrumental in achieving a ban on fur farms in the United Kingdom in 2000. He also provided extensive testimony during the public hearings on fox hunting in the United Kingdom, which was subsequently banned. In 2001, he was awarded a Doctor of Divinity degree by the Archbishop of Canterbury in recognition of his "unique and pioneering work" on the "rights of God's sentient creatures."

"Dr. Linzey brings to bear his considerable experience in the field of animal welfare, providing a point-by-point rebuttal to Canadian government arguments in support of the seal hunt," said John Grandy, senior vice president of The HSUS. "The report demonstrates the many reasons why Canada must end its annual slaughter of defenseless baby seals if it is to retain its image as a progressive and civilized nation."

Canada's commercial seal hunt is by far the world's largest and most brutal slaughter of marine mammals. Over the past three years, nearly one million seal pups have been slaughtered for their fur, and official Department of Fisheries and Oceans kill reports confirm 97 percent of them were less than three months of age. Veterinary studies and video evidence show routine violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations at the commercial seal hunt, including the skinning of live seals.

The HSUS points out that in addition to the signatories of the report, support for a ban on the seal hunt is coming from governments worldwide. The Italian Parliament, the British House of Commons, and members of the United States Senate have all conveyed to Canada their opposition to the commercial seal slaughter.

In March 2005, The Humane Society of the United States launched a global boycott of Canadian seafood products. One of the primary species targeted has been Canadian snow crabs, which account for half of the value of Newfoundland's fishery. Not surprisingly, in the months since the boycott was launched, the value of Canadian snow crab exports to the United States has declined by $156 million -- a 36 percent decline and nearly ten times the value of the seal hunt.

"Public Morality and the Canadian Seal Hunt shows that Canada has the ethical imperative to end the commercial seal hunt. Now, it also has a clear economic reason to do so," concluded Grandy.

For a copy of the report and/or a list of signatories, please contact Rebecca Aldworth at 514-395-2914. For more information on The HSUS seal campaign, please visit http://www.ProtectSeals.org.

ISDABY said...

Harry B says,

"There is no evidence that sealers abide by any of the DFO regulations - even Daoust admits that 87% of his observed kills violated DFO regulations."

I have read Daoust report a number of times adn don't recall seeing this. He claims that 98% of seals killed are done so in a 'humane' manner. He observed the same videos as IFAW did and cited significantly fewer violations than they did, and, that many of the violations cited were not re: animal cruelty. so where does your 87% come from? could it be a miss quote? or complete error? intentional or unintentional? Intentional misrepresentation is common in the antisealing lobby, Just read Paul Watsons ravings to see that.

HB, you do give some 'arguements' but your point still hinges on morality and majority rules...morality is highly subjective, hence the debate rages on 'animal rights vs animal welfare, abortion, sunday shopping, pre-marital sex, contraception (in catholic church at least),euthenasia (re: human suffernig), etc...this to show how variable 'morality' is.

HB says "... people like Myles actually BEAT UP Paul Watson and attacked Rebecca and her helicopter. I don't recall ever hearing of either of them, or even the afamed Dr. Vlasic, attacking any of them. "

- People like Myles would have written scathing articles on the subject (pen mightier than hakapik)...to put his name in there is stupid and disingenuous.
- Who beat up Watson? he claims that DFO guys did when he was incarcerated in Canada in the 80's, did he press charges? no, he just hurles accusations from afar. SSCS was chased in the Magdelan islands, was he 'beaten up'? I don't think so.
- who can blame a 'small' group of sealers (6-8?), confronted by 18-20 SSCS crew, in the middle of nowehere, for getting agitated and aggressive. SSCS is known for their pirate tactics and intimidation. They are known for SINKING ships (Iceland and elsewhere), and having threatened to sink sealing vessels in Newfoundland in the late 80's, and are KNOWN to hate sealers. How can the sealers be blamed for reacting emotionally (even if it was kind of stunned of them to actually take the bait that way)
- Jerry Vlasak got a smack in the gob then posed for the picture. SSCS was there to provoke a confrontation and they got what they wanted. I got that much out of Ian R. of Harpseals.org last spring (re: 'general discussion')... Watch the videos (the edited parts even) that show SSCS pushing back, and moving toward the sealers, no one was backing off being pursued...they where there for a fight and got it. I would love to see the unedited video to see how much provocation they actually did. As an outspoken advocate of murder (vivisectionists and sealers alike) I find it hard to pity Vlasak for getting a punch in the beak.

Anonymous- for an theological academic to condemn the seal hunt as somethnig that can not possibly be conducted humanely, I find questionable, and this is why. 1) what is this persons source of informatino (likely HSUS and SSCS)? 2)has this person consulted with experst such as Dr. Daoust of UPEI, who claims that 98% are killed humanely? 3) if the seal hunt can not be conducted humanely because of moving ice and cold wether, the huge area it covers, and short season, then that concern can also be applied to sport hunting that is conducted by many individuals over wide areas with few patrol officers, sometimes in short seasons...where these hunters have only a few weekends a year to get their limit, and are likely to be hung- over from their campfire party...etc. Are you going to sell that one to the world? I know the ARA's would run with it, but it will not get the public support you need...

I firmly believe that people around the world, academics and ARA's and common meat eaters, who view the seal hunt as horrific, do so through biased eyes. They see somethnig they do not understand (most urbanites are far removed from the food chain (never seen an animal die that wasn't hit by a car...), so fur hunting is even further from their understanding), then they are hit with propaganda from HSUS, IFAW, SSCS, etc, that tells them that 40% of these sweet baby seals are SKINNED ALIVE, then they say its done by greedy, ignorant savages, who enjoy it...then when anyone on the sealing side , from government down to sealer speaks up, they are condemned as heretics...smeared and insulted, and demoted ot subhumans whom you do not have to regard as credible on any subject...this is why the opposition to the seal hunt is as 'high' as it is. Oh, and by the way, polls are not reliable. Antisealing lobby loves to use polls to prove how much support they have , but as soon as another poll comes out to contradict them, they claim 'polls are easily rigged' so whos polls should we believe?

Anonymous said...

see link to Daoust's CVMA report on sealhunt.


I looked it over and found the reference HB refers to in the latter part of the results section.

"A large proportion (87%) of the sealers recorded on the 4 videotapes failed to palpate the skull or check the corneal reflex before proceeding to hook or bleed the seal or go to another seal."

this is not evidence that seals are skinned alive, as Dousts remaining testimony shows that 98% are indeed not alive or conscious when skinned. Hwoever the above statement is used to make you belive that the hunt is inherently cruel and out of control. Clearly these sealers were violating the regulation that states they must palpate the skull and check blink reflex. That regulation si there to 'ensure' that seals are dead before skinning. Sealers should be doing this all the time. That was in 2001, what is the percentage in 2004? However, that these tests are not done, does not mean the seals are alive when skinned. Just as 'not comnig to a complete stop' at a stop sign is not proof that you are a reckless driver adn are going to have an accident, although clearly a complete stop would be prefereable.

Checking blink reflex is a law and for good reason, it will ensure seals are dead, rather than have sealers simply use their own jugdgement that the seal looks dead...by the way, Daoust also discusses what a dead seal looks like vs a 'stunned but alive' seal...so its not simply random, just that these tests would remove 'subjectivity'. SO, my piont is that there are 'violations' and there are violations. Just as rolling through a stop sign is not the same as speeding through a school zone at lunch time.

Read the report in its entirety. And know that Daoust goes to the ice every year since then and comes back saying 'its being done humanely'.

Anoyomous said...

On one hand you say you want the seal harvest to stop completely then on the other hand you complain about how it is carried out?
Make up your mind stopped completely or carried out in a more humane fashion according to agreed upon practices?

Harry Boland said...

Anon wrote - "this is not evidence that seals are skinned alive, as Dousts remaining testimony shows that 98% are indeed not alive or conscious when skinned. Hwoever the above statement is used to make you belive that the hunt is inherently cruel and out of control. "

Actually, no. Daoust used his observation to make the point that the DFO needs to better enforce its regulations. As for Isdaby, the science and statistics behind PD's 98% have been widely challenged for a number of reasons - methodology, interpetation, etc...

As for Paul being beaten - Martin Sheen was there, reporters were there. The SS "provocation" argument is crap - why is it SO FUCKING HARD for you Newfies to control yourselves? Are you not men? Are you not civilized? What do you do to your wives and children when they "provoke" you?

And what kind of legal system accepts "provocation" as a defense? "I'm sorry, your honor, but the bitch kept nagging and I just couldn't take it any more!" Do you all NOT listen to Johnny Cash"

And you wonder why you all elicit nothing but scorn and pity?

And yeah, Isdaby, Morality is important. A common morality IS important. Your brave soldiers are in (or were) in Afghanistan because we share a common morality.

ISDABY said...

the anon re: daoust is mine, my 'handle' didn't go there by accident.

Harry, you really sound familiar, your not "Mt. Hood' from GEneral discussion board are you? If not, google him. you sound like his parrot...if so, sorry to hear from you again old boy!, I've been avoiding that board to be gone from your hatemongering blatherings (if your not him, sorry but you really sound like 'him'...with the hatefilled blatherings and all...)

HB says "As for Isdaby, the science and statistics behind PD's 98% have been widely challenged for a number of reasons - methodology, interpetation, etc..."

-let me see, the commmon attack on Daousts work is that it was done from the deck of a sealing vessel hence they were on their best behaviour. However, only a portion of the study was done that way, a huge amount of it was done in the same manner as IFAWs study ie; examining skulls of seals previously killed (while they were not watchin...). and a significant portion was to review the SAME videos that the IFAW vets studied...so accusation of bias are misleading. Others (mt hood for one) claims that Daoust is somehow not competent to do this work...but how can that be , he is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) and a veterinary pathologist, reknown in the veterinary community... Sounds credible to me. Just as some may criticise his methodology (it is a peer reviewed study by the way), he is critical of IFAW's report methodology...

as for SSCS provocation not being a valid argument? what would you do if you were sorrounded in an open field in the middle of nowhere by a group of men you know are capable of violence and who hate you and what you are doing. Watson makes no secret that he uses intimidation, and has infact sunk ships, so why is it so difficult to understand that sealers get antsy when he shows up...

As for the RCMP taking provocation as a reason to not charge the sealers, you'll have to ask them. But my money is on the fact that Watson is known to provoke confrontations for this very purpose. RCMP have alot of leeway in wether or not to press charges in 'minor' incidents. Google Canadian Law if you are so concenred about that.

"Newfies" did not beat up Paul Watson. If so, please give us some documentation. Maybe Quebecois did, but that's their problem. As for Martin Sheen, I like his movies but I don't see how his mere 'presence' somewhere is proof of the assertion. There seems to be a trend among SSCS supporters that they are kind of 'star struck' as if celebreties and authors have some moral superiority to the rest of us....

Harry Boland said...

If surrounded by people who hate me, I CONTROL MY FUCKING TEMPER!!!

You know? Because I'm not seven. However sticks and stones (which sealers carry) do break bones (as the videotape shows) and if names really hurt you that bad, you're a pussy. Be A Man. Act Like A Man.

How fucking hard is that?

I'm sorry, all anybody ever gets from you guys are excuses, lies and "hey, hey, hey, the other guy's made me do it." No wonder your sealers don't wnat real jobs - too much work. No fucking wonder your province is so fucking backward - you all have the maturity of psychopathic fourth graders.

And before Myles deletes this, fuck him too cause he's worst of all - he lies outright (Alaska's seal hunt is MINISCULE) and not only does he lack the balls to admit it (big shock from a Newfie), all he can do is bitch about how much more money than him everybody makes. Maybe if you chose to write for a constituency that had greater than a high school education, your circulation would increase.

God Help All of You, cause nobody else is gonna lift a finger.

ISDABY said...

Dear Harry, you need anger management therapy, just like Mt. Hood...

"And before Myles deletes this, fuck him too cause he's worst of all - he lies outright (Alaska's seal hunt is MINISCULE"

you seem transfixed by this error, just as Mt. Hood was...so Myles 'erred', at least he doesn't keep repeating it to the world in the hope that the ignorant masses will believe it by repetition...I doubt it was a deliberate lie because its too easy to get caught like that. However, your obsession is telling. All you have is insults adn anger and bullshit.

Paul Watson lies every time he opens his mouth about the seal hunt. How does that compare to myles' error?

BTW, many anti-sealing lobbyists are the first to admit that watson is a lunatic and actually does more harm to their cause, than good.

ISDABY said...

Harry says "If surrounded by people who hate me, I CONTROL MY FUCKING TEMPER!!!"

actually I find that hard to believe considering your reaction to be contradicted and challenged in typed script on an anonymous web forum. If a bunch of sealers came up on your front steps what would you do? I know if Paul Watson came to my door I'd call the police, cause he'd be up to no good.

MrChills said...

To the Honorable Harry Boland,

Just my two cents here… But upon reading your post, it would appear that you don’t practice what you preach.

I can only assume that from the constant bigotry that you have displayed on this Blog, you are indeed, surrounded by people that hate you. I hope that your post will not be deleted because you have obviously lost your temper with the ALL CAPS and the continuous vulgar language in the last post.

You can indeed turn around and respond to me by belittling my intelligence and sense of the world due to the fact that I am from Newfoundland. I actually encourage it as you have time and time again displayed in writing that you sir, are the only person in the discussion with the maturity of a psychopathic fourth grader.

Harry Boland said...

I have yet to see one clear lie that Paul has made. Myles made an out and out lie as a way of discrediting American opposition to the Canadian hunt by posting us all as hypocrites. At best - AT BEST - he is a piss poor journalist in desperate need of a researcher.

But we all know that is not true. He is a liar. And I make the point time and time again because his whole point is discrediting those who disagree with him by accusing them of inaccurate facts and playing on emotion - the EXACT same thing he did here.

As for venting on the net - what better place for it? there is no violence here, just an exchange of words - mean words, harsh words - but just words.

This stands in direct contrast to what happens out on the ice and in the minds of sealers, Newfies and the RCMP. The sealers feel like hitting someone with a deadly weapon. The sealers go ahead and hit someone with a deadly weapon. Newfies say, "oh, that someone had it coming." The Police say, "the only reason that unarmed person got hit with a deadly weapon is because they provoked the innocent sealer into violently attacking them."

Do you have any idea how Third World that is? That is not the mentality of behavior of civilized people.

Of course you don't.

For all your bullshit, Paul Watson has never been convicted of a crime outside Canada, and I'm pretty sure he has never been convicted of a crime there, either. He has never been indicted for Tax Fraud or filing false returns, and neither has the SS. His organization is wide open - make all the accusations you want - they are easily refuted.

Yours is a case of a people excusing barbarism and barbarity in the name of jingoism and "pride". It's not new. It's not even novel.

It is, however, pathetic.

ISDABY said...

Dear Harry Boland,

Lets talk about lies.

PW- The slaughter of seals is incredibly cruel (a post mortem survey has shown that 42% of these babies are skinned alive)

Me- it would indeed be cruel if 42% were skinned alive. However that is not so. IFAW report is not conclusive but the authors ‘believe’ that they can not be sure that seals whose skulls were not mashed could not have regained consciousness. CVMA (Daoust) report contradict this by showing only about 2% may be skinned alive. The difference being that IFAW did not accept that seals clubbed by hakapiks, without serious skull damage, could be dead or unconscious. Whereas Daoust compared this to other studies that show seals and other animals did would become deeply unconscious or die after such a whack , even with no serious skull fracture, because the brain is still seriously damaged. This report is publicly available, is credible even if disagreed with. SO, for Watson to make his bold claim with this knowledge, including the fact that the IFAW report is not nearly as ‘conclusive’ as his statement, is a LIE.

-PW- "It is a threat to the survival of the species" – this too is a Lie, given that he harp seal herd size is increasing in spite of recent large commercial harvests. He has no real information to back up his claim. Therefore he is lying .

-PW "It is a threat to the survival of cod" – this is not scientifically concluded by anyone. Some feel that seals are a threat to the cod stocks others feel they help cod stocks by eating the predators. The only thing that is conclusive is that it is a complex issue that no one fully understands, and that its not conclusive. Hence, another lie.

-PW "It is a slaughter done mainly for unessential, vanity, and luxury items, and therefore, is unnecessary" – While of course it is a ‘slaughter’ ultimately for fur industry (vanity), but it is also an important source of income for some fishermen in late winter. Not everyone wants the ‘make work projects’ or da Welfare!! Hence it is not ‘unnecessary’ and frivolous. Sealers are not electricians and teachers getting a few extra bucks on the side.

-PW "It is unethical to slaughter newborn seal pups (About 95% of the seals to be slaughtered are babies less than four weeks old)" - maybe it is maybe it isn’t. Animals are killed for human use all the time, wether they are adults or young is a debatable issue. This is a matter of opinion. How old are your lambchops?

-PW "Eleven of our crew were arrested for filming seal killers without permission from the government." – They were arrested for being on the ice without observer permits. This is one of his favourite lies, to say that it is illegal to film the killing. Its not illegal to film, but one must have an observer permit. I think they only cost about $25???(could be wrong so don’t call me a liar!) Watson uses this line as his reason for using so many images of the white coats on his website, when white coats are not killed. Says he can only use ‘stock photos’…however, many of the white coat pics are ‘very recent’…hmmm.

-PW "Despite the regulations and despite attempts by the Canadian government to prevent us from entering the ice floes, we did break our way into the floes and we were able to block and annoy the sealers." – Government of Canada forced them to comply with the same regulations as all seagoing vessels coming into Canadian Waters (yes these are Canadian not international waters!!). He fails ever to mention how he would be on the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence had the Coast Guard not saved his sorry ass and towed the Farley Mowatt to a safe port. Oh, and he is bragging about blocking and annoying sealers, then whining because they got fed up and fought with his crew. Like I said, and like Ian R who was one of the crew said on the General Discussion forum (harpseals.org) they (SSCS) got what they went there for.

-PW " During March and April, Canadian seal killers viciously slaughtered over 320,000 seals. Thousands more have washed up on the beaches of Newfoundland." – this implies a sense of enjoyment in the slaughter. Its simple ‘work’ to the vast majority of these guys. Its probably more accurate to say that US marine ‘enjoy’ what they are doing in Iraq. AND, the seals that washed up on the beaches of Newfoundland were whitecoats, proven to be killed in a previous winter storm that pressed the ice floes together. PW made the bold claim that these seals were evidence that white coats are being killed illegally and these are the ‘struck and lost’ ones. Another lie.

I think it would be enlightening if a few others would post a sample of two of PW’s lies, just for fun….

BNB said...

If Paul can be taken at his word then Harry aka Mt Hood aka Anon has some explaining to do with this one: Can we guess who said this?

"Well, I think that of all the animals in the world or any environmental problem in the world the harp seal is the easiest issue to raise funds on. Greenpeace has always managed to raise more money on the seal issue than for the campaigns than has actually been spent on the campaigns themselves. The seal hunt has always turned a profit for Greenpeace and other organizations.

It's easier to make money because there are over a thousand animals on the endangered species list, and the harp seal isn't one of them. See the thing is the seal is very easy to exploit as an image. We have posters, we have buttons, we have shirts, all of which portray the head of a baby seal with the tears coming out of its eyes.

Baby seals are always crying because the salt tears keep their eyes from freezing. But they have this image - they're baby animals, they're beautiful, and because of that, coupled with the horror of a sealer hitting them over the head with a club, it's an image that just goes right to the heart of animal lovers all over North America.

And now we have people from Greenpeace California they're coming from the highest standard of living region in North America and they're traveling to the place with the lowest income per year on this continent telling them not to kill seals because they're cute but not endangered species. Yet off the coast of California there are three species of dolphin, the spinner, the spotted and the white belly being slaughtered towards the brink of extinction by American tuna boats. And then the slaughter of sea turtles in Mexico.

What happens within Greenpeace when you raise a point like that? They know they can't raise any money off of it. They know that if they send a crew down to try to interfere with the killing of sea turtles in Mexico that they're not going to get any support. And they know that the problem with the dolphins is that there's so much competition there is so many groups that are trying to raise money to protect dolphins and protect whales . . .

I think that the problem that is happening, and that it deserves criticism, is that the organization becomes more important than the issue."

Anonymous said...

BH (Brendan Hubbard) back again after an absence of some time.

I think I have stated my own position (for whatever that is worth) several times but let me restate it as simply as I can. Because the seal hunt is carried out for the fur trade, I am against it and I think it should be stopped. That's my position. How it is carried out (whatever the truth really is) is of concern to me certainly, but I do not have to get to that. For my own part, I will not travel to Canada and boycott things Canadian as a means to pressure the government to do something to stop it (which also means providing N&L what is necessary to deal with this lost income as must should do to the extent it can). But I agree fully with those who have said there are other terrible things going on in this world against animals. The seal hunt in Canada is not the only tragic event of this type occurring in the world. I wrote a letter just today to the Governor of Montana expressing my outrage at the unfair hunt of the bison that started today (I will no repeat what I questioned in that letter, which I signed). I also wrote a letter to the Washington Post today condemning that paper for carrying on a love affair with kid-trophy-hunters (two weeks ago the second bear hunt in 50 years in Maryland was opened by an 8-year-old girl killing a 210-pound bear; last year it opened with the killing of a 10-month-old cub). (The Post will not publish that letter because of what I questioned in it, but they needed to see how angry people can get about what they report.) The list of countries, states and companies I boycott because of unethical animal practices (mostly fur- and trophy-hunting, factoring-farm and research practices too) is getting too long for me to remember and rather restrictive on my travels). If Harry Boland is no more angry than his words convey, I can honestly say that I am probably angrier than he is because I what I have learned about what is going on in this world today with regard to human use of animals. We are a taking-species and unless we all do something together in a big way, right away, to save this planet, if we do not make ourselves extinct we are certainly going to make life difficult for those we turn over this planet to. Frankly, I believe that all of these individual problems (like the seal hunt), as serious and complex as they may be, are simply opportunities for us to practice for the bigger problems that are coming (if not here and we don't know it). Take the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Republications (I am neither Republican nor Democrat) have been trying to get in there to drill since at least the early 80's (not for oil but for gold for their supporters' pockets I honestly believe). Even though (as someone who has driven from DC to there twice) I know personally the damage that will be done there, for me the main issue is not the drilling but whether or not we as a people, as a government, can find solutions to our serious problems without admitting defeat and contributing to the planet's ruination. Fortunately, Bush's fall in the ratings due to his credibility with the people is the thing that might save that issue as the Republications in the congress abandon their leader in mid-stream to save their own skins. Thank God for the middle ground people whom these politicians are scared of.

Back to my main point which isdaby raised: who gets to call the shots on morality since it is all subjective? You are absolutely right. And even beyond that, take any one individual and ask him or her a few questions and in two minutes you'll be able to find huge, glaring inconsistencies between his own words and practices. I have decided that I do not want my government or my church telling me what is moral or not (legal? sure, because I don't want to go to jail --- buts as a lawyer I am going to fight hard to change laws I do not like, like the laws that require terrible research on animals for useless purposes). Therefore, I have made it my life's aim to live by what I consider what is right, what is ethical. and to live those ethics as consistently as I can, and to accept the consequences if I am wrong. I still doing a pretty bad job, but at least I am trying. But in this regard, while I commend Patriot for deciding that he would not wear fur, and agree with him that that alone does not give him the right to counsel others that way, I disagree in that I believe it gives us the OBLIGATION --- not the right --- to counsel others, whether it's by what I did last night in giving a hunter-friend of mine a DVD on why he should become a vegan or driving around town (the country really) with 9-square-foot signs on the rear of my truck proclaiming what I learned. People are just too damned busy (and unconcerned) to get it by following someone's example (we all know that). And hell, if we don't have that obligation, what the hell is the Bible (or Koran, etc.) doing in print?

Shifting to another point before I walk my dogs (they don't have a right to be walked, but I sure have an obligation to walk them) I too join the writer above who pleaded with Myles not to delete anything written above (does he have that power?) because not only would that be wrong (in my estimation) but it would serve no purpose. We anti-hunt people need to see how angry those in N&L are and learn things we could learn in no other way. Likewise, those in favor of the hunt (wherever they may be) need to hear how really angry the others are. The hunt will end, I know that for sure. Maybe it will come back again (like I did already) or maybe it won't. But if this is managed properly and ethically, everyone will be a winner eventually, especially the animals involved.

I do have one other observation to make. I have seen only sketchy facts on this but I understand that the seal hunt was restarted because of new markets for the seal skins in Russian, the Ukraine and other former communist countries, and even China. If that's the case, let me offer some advice based on a personal decision. I had an opportunity to take a position in Russia five years ago that would have made me a very rich man. I walked away from it because if I took the position, made possible by Russia's newly found wealth and "freedom," I would have been forced to compromise my values. No one's newly found wealth was going to compromise my values, no matter how much they were willing to pay. And certainly not a country that practices godlessness so well for 70 years. It's too bad that Adam Smith, who wrote the Wealth of Nations, which gave capitalism its credibility and first really big push, didn't push his first book a little harder. Guess what it was called? "The Theory of the Moral Sentiments." Perhaps if it had made the best selling list instead of his second book, we'd all be trading in moral chips and selling compassion. Now wouldn't that have been nice?

Harry Boland said...

Nearly all of Isdaby's points are matters of debate. Bitch as much as he wants, the Daoust report is simply not accepted as valid science by any entity outside of Canada. Its the same point by point.

Paul's comments on fundraising are irrelevant, and probably true. Its no different than the NRA raising funds on the 97 year old grandmother.

His other points are made by misstating or misinterpreting Paul's remarks - as an example, Paul has not said the seals are endangered, he has said the inexact science that sets the quotas and the sheer, complete incompetence in enforcing them combined with the complete ignoring of struck and lost numbers has endangered the seals. These are not the same arguments - you want to call someone a liar, Isdaby, you ought to at least take the time to think about what they're saying.

To place opposition solely within the Greenpeace sphere is moronic. Polls show better than 80% of Americans and 90% of Europeans believe the hunt is immoral and should be ended - including Senators Coburn, Allen, Lugar, Graham, Allard, Santorum - not exactly bleeding hearts there, guys.

Yeah - I hope the US Marines enjoy their job in Iraq. Of course I do. I hope the feel they are doing something wortrhwhile, and noble, and honorable, because they are. How you sorry sons of bitches continue to believe life with Saddam was somehow preferable to life now is moronic.

Perhaps the fact that you DO Live in the most economically depressed part of Canada ought to teach you something - like, for example, graduating high school IS A GOOD THING and going to college is even better. Poverty? Not so much. The Cod ain't coming back and you're killing off the crab. Maybe its time for some of your fisherman to find a new line of work.

Finally - morality is not subjective. Not really. The Western Nations overwhelmingly agree on an enormous number of matters. Canadian and American laws on public behavior, private enterprise, and economic freedoms are damn near synonymous.

The Taliban claimed subjective morality. China claims subjective morality, North Korea, Iran, South Africa - and in damn near all of these cases Canada was at the forefront of articulating the common morality.

Every one of your friends and neighbors believe this hunt is abhorrent. Your own people believe this hunt is abhorrent. The only people who abide this are the coastal canadians (half of whom find it abhorrent) and the politicians who need jackasses like Myles to agitate all you dumb sons of bitches to vote for them.

The fact is that the seal hunt has done nothing positive for anyone or anything. It does not provide an income - it supplements. It does not restore balance to the seas or cod stocks - it adversely affects them. Most of all, it damages the reputation of honest, educated, decent Newfies and Labs by having to associate with barbarians like you and makes your Country look like some backwater oasis for buffoons and ignoramuses.

It is the sign of true ignorance to mistake certitude for solitude. The only true certainty with the seal hunt is that you and yours are certainly alone in your views.

harry boland said...

Let me make one other point about money, and who makes what...

The average sealer takes hom 5% of the boats take.

The average pelt price is about $70 (after your Government inflates the market with subsidies...

So your proud men club, kill, skin and pelt a baby seal for the princely sum...

of $3.50.


If that ain't barbarism, I don't know what the hell is.

ISDABY said...

To Mt. HOod , Harry Boland (will it be Michael Collins next?) The IRA are terrorists too BTW!


my quote above...""PW- "It is a threat to the survival of the species" – this too is a Lie, given that he harp seal herd size is increasing in spite of recent large commercial harvests. He has no real information to back up his claim. Therefore he is lying .""

this quote came from the above website. If they do not represent his statements what does?
So, I am not misquoting him...you are interpreting him with other things he might have said, but this IS what he says in htis post...can I be to blame for his inconsistencies?

you say "Bitch as much as he wants, the Daoust report is simply not accepted as valid science by any entity outside of Canada. "

WHO does not accept this as valid science? is it the same guy you claimed to prove that the swim reflex was a 'mammalogical fiction' yet could not provide a link? Is it Paul watson and David Lavigne? people challenging a study does not mean the study is invalid. It means that they beg to differ and 'challenge' it.

It is pointless to continue this discussion with you as you will see no other point but the ones coming out of your own forehead. You do not discuss you attack and insult. Seals and newfies is your pet cause that gives you some sense of personal satisfaction or something...ask your therapist what it means...you do not seek to enlighten or change, but only to make yourself feel better by 'defeding the sweet baby seals from the barbarians'!!

NL-ExPatriate said...

"Harry boland Said: For all your bullshit, Paul Watson has never been convicted of a crime outside Canada, and I'm pretty sure he has never been convicted of a crime there, either. He has never been indicted for Tax Fraud or filing false returns, and neither has the SS. His organization is wide open - make all the accusations you want - they are easily refuted."

1977: Founding member of Greenpeace, Paul Watson, expelled from the organisation after a
campaign against sealing during which he threw the sealers’ clubs and skins into the sea.
1977: Watson establishes Sea Shepherd organisation. States that Sea Shepherd is not a protest
organization. “We are [a] self-appointed policing organization given credibility by the terms of
the United Nations Earth Charter of 1982.”
1978: Watson admits to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) programme As It
Happens that his work is aimed at raising funds for his organisation, Sea Shepherd.
Watson: “You see, the seal is very easy to exploit as an image. We have posters, we have
buttons; we have shirts … all of which portray the head of the baby seal with tears coming
out of its eyes. Baby seals are always crying because the salt tears keep their eyes from
freezing. But they have this image of ... they are baby animals; they are beautiful. And
because of that, coupled with the horror of the sealer hitting them over the head with a
club, it is an image which just goes right to the heart of animal lovers all over North
1979: A Sea Shepherd vessel rams the whaling vessel “Sierra”, causing considerable damage.
“Sierra” survives attack.
1980: The IWC at its meeting in Brighton, United Kingdom, assigns high-level protection to two
Canadian Government delegates after Watson threatened to kill them for voting against a
moratorium on sperm whales. Delegates given Royal Canadian Mounted Police protection until
their return home to Canada.
1980: The “Sierra” is sunk in Lisbon harbour. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility. Investigation
shows limpet mines used to blow up the vessel.
1981: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and
Ibsa II, in the Spanish harbour of Viga.
1983: Paul Watson and “Sea Shepherd” vessel engineer Paul Pezwick, tried and convicted in a
Quebec, Canada, court for “interfering in the annual seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence”. Trial
followed arrest in March 1983 when “Sea Shepherd” vessel boarded by Canadian police. “Sea
Shepherd” fortified including electric barbed wire around the deck’s edges. Seventeen crew
arrested. Watson and three others flee across ice to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, but caught and
arrested. Watson charged additionally with piloting a ship in a dangerous manner, intimidation of
the sealers and being unlawfully within a half mile of the seal hunt – a violation of the Seal
Protection Regulations. Watson sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.
1983: In retaliation for Watson’s arrest by Canadian police, animal rights extremists slash car
tires and spray paint slogans on walls of buildings in the inner city of Quebec. “Fisheries Murder
Seals” and “Set Paul Watson Free” slogans spray painted on the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans offices in Keele Street. Animal Liberation Front delivers letter to the Quebec Star
newspaper admitting causing several thousand dollars worth of damage to the Department’s
Keele Street offices.
1986: Sea Shepherd attempts to stop Faroe Islands pilot whale harvest. Using rifles, Sea
Shepherd activists shoot at Faroe Islands police in an attempt to sink their rubber dinghies. The
vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters. The police report of 7
October 1986 states: “One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a “Speed Line” line
rifle. The attack … endangered the lives of the police crewmembers ... and signal flares
containing phosphorous was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used “toads”
(rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends) against the rubber dinghies … petrol was
poured over the side of the ship and signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in an
attempt to set the petrol on fire.”
1986: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik,
Iceland, and for malicious damage to a whaling station. (This act of violence was carried out after
Iceland stopped whaling in line with the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling.) Attack
carried out by Sea Shepherd members Rodney A. Coronado and David Howitt. (Coronado linked
to Animal Liberation Front and arrested eight years later by United States FBI for his part in an
ALF attack on Michigan State University research laboratory. Charges included use of an
explosive device, theft and arson.)
1988: Paul Watson returns in Iceland demanding to be held responsible for the sinking of the
whaling vessels in Reykjavik in 1986. (He is arrested and held for questioning and told he could
face several years’ imprisonment. In a press release, the Icelandic Ministry of Justice stated: “At
questioning, Paul Watson has admitted that he has given some remarks that connect him with the
sabotage, but in spite of this he now claims that he neither took part in the planning nor the
execution of the sabotage.”) There was no evidence incriminating Watson. He was ordered to
leave the country and declared persona non grata in Iceland.
1991: A US crew member on a Mexican fishing vessel, reports that Sea Shepherd, some of whose
crew were armed with rifles, rammed his vessel causing considerable damage.
1991: Scott Trimmingham, president of Sea Shepherd quits in protest. “We had rules about not
hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to
be changing.” Outside magazine (Sept. 1991). Paul Watson admits there are arms on board “Sea
Shepherd”. “We confront dangerous people. As the captain, it is my responsibility to protect the
lives of my crew ... Therefore, I have prepared myself for the possibility of defending my crew in
a situation that could go never occur, but if it does I will use firearms to first intimidate and then
to defend,” Watson tells the Los Angeles Free Weekly (April 24, 1992).
1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa Rican fishing vessels.
In a written complaint to the local authorities the fishermen report that the Sea Shepherd crew
shot at them with bullets containing a red substance, hitting two of them and causing them great
1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the whaling and fishing vessel
“Nybræna” at her moorings in the Lofoten Islands, northern Norway. Attack committed by Paul
Watson, girlfriend Lisa DiStefano and one other Sea Shepherd member. Watson later states: “The
scuttling of the Nybræna was not a terrorist or criminal act. We were responsible for removing an
instrument of death and destruction without causing death or injury.” Charges laid against
Watson, who fails to turn up in court. Watson convicted in absentia and sentenced to 120 days in
1992: Sea Shepherd vessel “Whales Forever” collides with Norwegian Coast Guard vessel
“Andenes” on July 4. Charges against Paul Watson include negligent navigation, refusal to leave
Norwegian waters on orders of the Coast Guard and transmitting false distress signals. (Tape
1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel “Edward Abbey” (formerly
US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel. Sea Shepherd crew do not carry out
the order, but instead fire a shot across the bow of the Japanese vessel. The Japanese vessel does
not stop. (Recorded by Yorkshire Television Documentary “Defenders of the Wild – Ocean
1993: Paul Watson claims in an open letter to the people of Norway that Sea Shepherd has sunk
eight ships and rammed and damaged a further six vessels. In the same letter, he states: “The Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society is a law abiding organization. We rigidly adhere to and respect
the laws of nature or lex natura. We hold the position that the laws of ecology take precedence
over the laws designed by nation states to protect corporate interests … the smell of guilt is
already a stench in the nostrils of God.”
1993: Federal Grand Jury in Michigan State hands down five-count indictment against Coronado
for illegal use of explosives, extortion, threats to interfere with interstate commerce and interstate
transportation, to commit arson, theft and destruction of government property and for receiving
stolen property. Indictments stem from February 1992 fire-bombing of Michigan State University
in East Lancing. Coronado involved in sinking two whaling vessels in Iceland in 1986.
1994: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the combined
minke whaling and fishing vessel “Senet” at her moorings in Gressvik. The vessel was salvaged,
but the water had caused considerable damage. Paul Watson tells Norwegian newspaper
Dagbladet on January 26 that former US navy “Seal” commandos took part in attack on the Senet.
“Certainly these men are trained to kill, but they are also well disciplined and respect my orders,”
he told the newspaper.
1994: Sea Shepherd loses observer status at the International Whaling Commission. IWC
Secretary, Ray Gambell, declares that the IWC and all its member states ardently condemn Sea
Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.
1994: US National Fisheries Institute asks for investigation into Sea Shepherd. “The recent
alleged actions against Norwegian fishing vessels constitute a clear case of piracy,” it says in a
letter to former US IWC Commissioner James Baker. “Acts of violence against fishermen of any
nation cannot be tolerated. Their safety and livelihood could be threatened unless US officials
vigorously condemn violence on the high seas.”
1997: Paul Watson arrested at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands, for the 1992
attempted scuttling of the Norwegian combined whaling and fishing vessel “Nybræna”. Arrested
by Dutch police after Interpol issues warrant. Serves 80 days in prison in the Netherlands, the
equivalent of the necessary two-thirds of the 120-day prison sentence handed down by Norway.
2000: Watson campaigns against the Makah people of Northwest United States. He uses
intimidation to prevent the Makah from carrying out their IWC approved catch of the gray whale.
2002: Watson tells Animal Rights 2002 Conference in Washington DC that if a person dies from
one of his actions, he would consider it “collateral damage”. He believes it is not possible to
“commit violence against non-sentient objects. Property damage is not violence.”



1964: Film of a seal being skinned alive is used by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to vilify Canadian sealers, and is screened on CBC television. Following a public outcry and investigation, a man in the film signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them." A Federal Standing Committee castigated CBC "for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening," but the damage had been done.

1998 - 2002: In a case filed by the Canadian government against Jason Penney and other Newfoundland sealers for acts of alleged cruelty, the court refuses to admit as evidence a gory videotape produced by IFAW. The footage lasts 23 minutes, and contains no fewer than 77 cuts, suggesting some changes could have been made, says the judge, who also calls the cameraman "a sophisticated con man". (See Court Finds IFAW Video "Evidence" Inadmissible FCUSA press release, Apr. 21, 1999) The Crown appeals and Penney is subsequently convicted by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, but in 2002 the Court of Appeal overturns the conviction after finding that the trial judge admitted the video as evidence without considering the credibility of the witnesses.

In its ruling, the court writes: "Evidence establishing that the video has not been altered or changed is a precondition to its admission as evidence. Current technology is such that it is not difficult for a competent person to alter visual evidence. In this case, the video was, for a lengthy period, in the possession of a company that edits videos."(3)

Nice people you support. Who are the ones working outside the law of the land as accepted by the masses? If you have such mass support why the need for such tactics?

MrChills said...

Let me make one other point about money, and who makes what...The average sealer takes hom 5% of the boats take. The average pelt price is about $70 (after your Government inflates the market with subsidies...
So your proud men club, kill, skin and pelt a baby seal for the princely sum...of $3.50. Canadian.If that ain't barbarism, I don't know what the hell is.

Do you ever look over what you write down or are you controlled by your altered state of emotions. By reading what have you typed here, it appears as though Barbarism (as you so finely name it) is based on the fact that the average sealer gets $3.50 a pelt? If the average sealer was receiving, lets say $3500 a pelt, would it not be barbarism?
On another note, as far as I knew, it has been the better part of twenty years since the “baby seal” has been hunted? What do you consider a baby?

MrChills said...

If after reading nl-expatriate’s last post you don’t agree that The Lord of the Swiles, Pirate Paul Watson is not a lunatic then do us all a favour, go back to bed and call it a day.

Harry Boland said...

-PW- "It is a threat to the survival of the species" – this too is a Lie, given that he harp seal herd size is increasing in spite of recent large commercial harvests. He has no real information to back up his claim. Therefore he is lying .

You base your estimate on the size of the seal herd on the numbers provided by the DFO - the SAME DFO that, as Myles pointed out, claimed that the cod stocks were stable up to and on the day they enacted the moratorium.

Dr. David Lavigne points out that given that the size of the kill has increased, the habitat has decreased and environmental factors have killed even more seals, there is no logical basis for the conclusion that the herd has increased. Furthermore, he points out that the estimates are extrapolations from aerial photography, and thus not concrete evidence.

As for NL-EXP - go back and read through all the sentences you failed to include when cut, copying and pasting, because
you continuously omit these two little words - "conviction overturned."

As for your AR abuses... 1) a man in the film signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them.

Hmm. I wonder if I "employed" a Newfie to let me film him fucking his own daughter, he'd plead innocence based on the fact that he was "asked" (ie provoked), and thus not responsible for his actions. HE SKINNED A LIVE SEAL, ASSHOLE!!! What kind of a man does that?

The footage lasts 23 minutes, and contains no fewer than 77 cuts, suggesting some changes could have been made, says the judge, who also calls the cameraman "a sophisticated con man".

Huh. So the NFLD Judge didn't need EVIDENCE that the tape was manipulated - he just needed a fellow Newfie to "suggest" that it was manipulated. And what evidence exactly did the judge have to slander this cameraman? any? any at all?

"Evidence establishing that the video has not been altered or changed is a precondition to its admission as evidence. Current technology is such that it is not difficult for a competent person to alter visual evidence. In this case, the video was, for a lengthy period, in the possession of a company that edits videos."

Huh. CBC edits videos. As does NBC, CNN, ABC...in what fucked up system does the prosecution need to prove that evidence was not tampered with absent allegations that it WAS tampered with? The fact that this tape was possessed by a man with a PC rules it unconstitutional...?

You say nice people I support? I support a system of law and order. You support a system of physical violence backed by legal stupidity. I doubt you'd have found the same verdict if Mr. Penny had been tried in British Columbia or Ontario.

And let me point out again...YOU are the boys with sticks. All Paul or Vlasak have ever raised are their voices.

harry boland said...

Oh, by the way Mr. Chills...a seal that can't swim is a baby seal. You think 3 months is a mature adult? Fine. The next time your little bastard punches you in the chin, let the RCMP haul the little fucker off for assault.

What kind of standards do you people possess? Do you actually have to wonder why the rest of the world thinks you're Deliverance with funnier accents?

Oh, and by the way, Isdaby - "The Alaskan Seal Hunt dwarfs the Canadian Seal Hunt..."

that's a fucking lie.

Harry boland said...

Sorry, one last point...

If it really bothers you that Paul Watson makes more money than you, GO FIND YOURSELF A REAL FUCKING JOB!!!

Christ Almighty.

Harry Boland said...

And another thing you're wrong on, dipshit...

A sovereign state has complete jurisdiction over internal waters, where not even innocent passage is allowed. Territorial waters extend out 12 nautical miles (22 km) from the mean low water mark adjacent to land, or from internal waters, per the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

NL-ExPatriate said...

I ommited nothing here is the link check for yourself.

Forgot to include it Sorrrry!

Patriot said...

Hi all,

I've been away for a couple of days but its interesting to see that you guys are still goiing around in circles on this one.

Bye the way, to M. Boland or M. Hood, or whoever, yes it appears I did make a mistake with the size of the Alaska hunt. For that I apologize.

I had read a quote in an article that mentioned it and assumed it was accurate. No excuse I know.

As for my not having good research people or not being a good journalist, that comment is the opinion of the writer. I don't claim to be anything other than a person who has opinions and is not afraid to make them known.

Bye the way, on the topic of the Alaskan hunt, yes I was mistaken however I find it interesting that some people keep jumping on the fact that it is smaller than mentioned. Am I to take it from those comments that you don't care about seals being hunted as long as it is not as many as is happening here?

I've heard people refer to the hunt in the same breath as the holocaust (not a comparison I would make). However since it has been made, then I pose this question. Would you be Ok with the holocaust if only a few thousand people were killed rather than millions?

In closing, to BNB, NL-Ex and a few others. Have'nt you folks learned by now from these people that you are only banging your heads on the wall? There is no convincing people who are already convinced they are right. Our only hope is to speak to the masses who have more of an open mind.

Later folks and please, don't anyone kill each other in here.


ISDABY said...

"PW- "It is a threat to the survival of the species"

Mt. Hood- You base your estimate on the size of the seal herd on the numbers provided by the DFO - the SAME DFO that, as Myles pointed out, claimed that the cod stocks were stable up to and on the day they enacted the moratorium.

Hmmm..As I recall, DFO SCIENTISTS were calling the cod stocks in danger...at least some were, but the political masters ruled the day. I haven't heard anything from DFO scientists against the survey. AND, cod was a livelyhood for 20,000 people in Newfoundland, and maybe as many more in other provinces, but more to the point it was leveraged to the advantage of other provinces...is this the case for seals? I don't think so. Its not the same game. When EU countries come looking for seal quotas you will know then that they are screwed.

Mt Hood- Dr. David Lavigne points out that given that the size of the kill has increased, the habitat has decreased and environmental factors have killed even more seals, there is no logical basis for the conclusion that the herd has increased. Furthermore, he points out that the estimates are extrapolations from aerial photography, and thus not concrete evidence.

hmmm. Watsons statement is 'conclusive' that the seal herd IS in jeopardy. DFO conducts surveys in a scientific manner, in a normal manner for such surveys. Has anyone else done a survey? Would SSCS do one , with unbiased academic participation? but "Watson et al" says they are lying, therefore no one should believe them...?! Lavigne criticises DFO survey technique therefore it becomes invalid!? If we take that as evidence the world will come to a crashing halt...ever listen to an openline show?? Everyone is an expert...Lavige is one 'expert' and not an unbiased one at that.

Paul Watson states assumptions and believes as if they were undisputable facts. Not science based but 'conviction' based.

Hood, as for tampered videos...NBC, CBC, CBS, ABC all cut videos, but does that mean that they are somehow admissable in court? That Penney guy was probably guilty, there are some guilty sealers here, they not a bunch of saints...but the so called evidence was 'withheld' for many months, then when it was finally provided it was a copy full of cuts. You tell me what court would accept that as 'evidence'. What jurisdiction do you hold dear, that would not take evidence of tampering as sufficient grounds to 'cast resonable doubt' on the 'evidence and therefor the guilt. Sure all OJ had to do was spread his fingers so the gloves wouldn't fit!!

ISDABY said...


a minor error...on the matter of 12 mile territorial limit, law of the sea etc. Indeed it is true that there is a 12 mile Territorial limit in effect on the coast of Canada and others...I was thinking of Canada's 200 mile Economic Exclusion Zone where we regulate and 'control' fisheries, oil, gas, etc... While this does not preclude foreign vessel traffic travelling in Canadian waters, it does establish the right to regulate that traffic and what that traffic is doing in regard to economic activities in that zone. See above link for more information, Not sure of th date.
So, what does this all mean? That is for someone smarter than me to explain, but I know that it means that when Paul Watson claims no one can touch him outside the 12 mile limit, he is not quite telling the truth. What he does legally in that zone is still subject to , in this case, Canadian Law. I look forward to the court case in PEI re; SSCS challenge of legality of the seal hunt.

ISDABY said...

more to the point above, Economic Exclusion ZOne, allows Canada to regulate and control economic activities such as harvesting natural resources in this zone, but outside the 12 mile territorial zone. SO, I really look forward to the court case. I suspect Watson's motiviation in challenging the legality of the hunt is more about publicity of the hunt itself rather than its actual legality...IMHO.

MrChills said...

Oh, by the way Mr. Chills...a seal that can't swim is a baby seal. You think 3 months is a mature adult? Fine. The next time your little bastard punches you in the chin, let the RCMP haul the little fucker off for assault.

On the Baby subject, is it then OK to hunt a seal once it can swim? Also, what is this about a little bastard punching me in the chin? Are you loosing your mind? Do us all a favour and read over what you type, because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense most of the time.

What kind of standards do you people possess? Do you actually have to wonder why the rest of the world thinks you're Deliverance with funnier accents?
A typical response from a typical Yankee. I know that it is hard for most of you rednecks to understand that people speak different in various parts of the world. However, I, like most people can appreciate the Newfoundland accent as a part of very rich culture, something that the average American knows nothing about.
Now, does the rest of the world think this, or just fanatics like you? I guess the same line of thinking from my end would be… Do you actually have to wonder why the rest of the world thinks that you’re loud mouth, war mongering, bullies that try to tell how the rest of the world should live, when in fact your country is more backwards than most?

MrChills said...

If it really bothers you that Paul Watson makes more money than you, GO FIND YOURSELF A REAL FUCKING JOB!!!
Temper, temper…
I could care less about the amount of money someone makes, or what they do for a living to make that money. What should I assume that A REAL FUCKING JOB - as you so elegantly put it – is? Would it be deceiving the narrow minded public to donate money to a worthless cause? Would it be sailing around the world playing dress up as a Terrorist Captain while sinking boats?
Please enlighten us all to what A REAL FUCKING JOB!!! Is?

MrChills said...

And let me point out again...YOU are the boys with sticks. All Paul or Vlasak have ever raised are their voices.

All they ever did was raise there voice? Can you not agree that by speaking and motivating people to do something makes you as liable as the person actually committing the physical portion of the act?

When people look back at the Third Reich and The Holocaust, they of course label Hitler’s name to the deed, however, did he physically exterminate the people that did they killing or did he just raise his voice?

Using this same logic, read a couple quotes here from you bum buddy Vlasak. The guys is clearly a Terrorist, I know that you Americans have a hard time picturing someone to be a terrorist without wearing a Turban and praising Allah, but these quotes do not lie.

“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that there will come a time when we will see violence against animal rights abusers.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!"" (Showtime cable network),

“I think we do need to embrace direct action and violent tactics as part of our movement … I don’t think we ought to be criticizing someone, whether we’re criticizing [them] because they’re writing letters, or whether we criticize them because they’re burning down fur stores or vivisection labs. I think we need to include everybody in that circle.”
— Animal Rights 2002 convention, 6/27/02

“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that there will come a time when we will see violence against animal rights abusers.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“I don’t think you’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many ... I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.”
— Jerry Vlasak at the "Animal Rights 2003" convention, advocating the murder of doctors whose life-saving biomedical experiments require the use of animals,,

“I think that violence and nonviolence are not moral principles, they’re tactics.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“[The police] are protecting the circus, they are protecting the meat and dairy industry, they are protecting the vivisection industry and I equate them in my own mind on a moral and ethical level with the -- no different than say guards in a Nazi concentration camp.”
— at a panel called “Coping with Law Enforcement” at the Animal Rights 2003 LA convention, 8/2/03

“I don’t have any doubt in my mind that there will come a time when we will see violence against animal rights abusers.”
— "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!"" (Showtime cable network),

“I think that violence and nonviolence are not moral principles, they’re tactics.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!"" (Showtime cable network),

“You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!"" (Showtime cable network),

“You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use.”
— "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“I think that violence and nonviolence are not moral principles, they’re tactics.”
— "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution.”
— "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network), 4/1/04

“I don’t think you’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many [doctors involved with animal testing] ... I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.”
— Animal Rights 2003 convention, 8/3/03

ISDABY said...


refer to November 16 re: Jerry Vlasak ...seems the ALF don't like him 'singin like s birdy...' also reference to Paul Watson disowning his good buddy Jerry, and lying in the process...referring to how Vlasak was 'dropped' from SSCS as soon as his murder phiosophy came out...whereas, when it came out Watson 'defended' Vlasak and only dropped him when Ms. May of the Sierra Foundation threatened to quit the SSCS...so, chaulk it up to 'one more Lie from PW'...its a very large pile...

ISDABY said...

PW says –“ …In only two months, the peaceful, beautiful, and resplendently innocent world of the harps seals – of snowy white babies and attentive mothers – has been transformed into screams of agony, convulsing bleeding corpses, wide-eyed shocked mother seals, and today a beach of rotting little bodies infested with maggots and worms.

This is the work of those rapacious killers who call themselves both Christian and civilized. “

The problem with these statements are this;

• the seal pups taken in this hunt/slaughter are weaned pups whose mothers have left them with no more concern for them than for the man-in-the-moon. That is how nature works. Mommy is not around to be traumatized. This is a lie (does ‘dramatic licence’ cover it??!) meant to pull at people’s heart strings…
• the rotting little bodies he speaks of were the 1700 or more whitecoats that washed up on the beaches near Port Aux Choix, western side of northern penn. His article speaks of DFO’s explanation that they were killed in a storm, but in the statement above he is clearly accusing sealers of killing them. White coats are not taken legally in the commercial hunt anymore. He has said in other statements that there is a landbased hunt for whitecoats, but that is also not true. It is 'illegal' to trade in whitecoat pelts. If there is a black market hunt for whitecoats, it is ‘limited’ and illegal and will be dealt with the same as salmon poaching, moose poachin and bear poaching.

Refer to this link for full text.


Anonymous said...

Paul and SS knew all about teh Seal Hunt meeting in NL, for sure.

They Google'd it.

And just because they didn't get an official invite didn't mean they could 'crash' the meeting, just like the 'crash' this site and the ice flows.

Harry Boland said...

Words, words, words.

Rendell Genge? Action. Physical action. Criminal action.

As for Mr. Chills calling me - ME - a Yankee?



ISDABY said...

Mt. Hood apparenlty is not a yank, he's some kind of irish/polish hybrid new American living out west (allegedly...) who supports the IRA. the handle Harry Boland refers to one of the key figures in that uprising they made the movie about with Aiden Quinn playing BOland and Liam Neeson as Michael Collins, and Allan Rickman as Devalera...they were freedom fighters then, but now the IRA are terrorists, like AL Quida. which is likely why is he has such a woody for Paul Watson.

Harry Boland said...

Actually, the "handle" Harry Boland is my name. Harold Alan Boland. The Harry Boland you refer to in the movie was actually a quite minor figure in Irish History - and one to whom I have absolutely no relation. And for the record its De Valera - two words. And I don't know why you keep calling me Mt. Hood or whatever, but I'd ask you to please stop. You know my name. use it.

The IRA, as you call them, no longer exist. The Provisional IRA is not only on ceasefire, but has surrendered its weapons. The Continuity IRA has not, but has, at best, a dozen members. The Real IRA has around fifty, but forty seven of them are in jail.

Al-Qaeda (not Quida, you ignorant fuck - christ, they're on CNN every fucking day!!!) is an organization set around an ideological mindset. The provos are set around a model of nationalism. the former are quite easily characterized as terrorists. The latter are not.

Paul Watson is not a terrorist. Read Pipes, Pope, Tanter, Huth, "The Logic of Suicide Terrorism", any academic text. Educate yourself. You might learn something. For example, you might learn that words mean things - and almost all of them not what you think they do.

And while you're at it, read "Public Morality and The Canadian Seal Hunt", written by Linzer and endorsed by a former head of the CVMA. He makes the moral argument better than I can, and destroys all your scientific propaganda in exceedingly intricate detail. There are lots of big words, so you might need a dictionary to understand it, but its rather focused and detailed, and backed by the smartest experts on the subject so it might be worth 20 minutes of your time.

If, as you say, you are interested in the "truth" of the subject.

ISDABY said...

Dear Harry if that's who you really are, sounds like I struck a nerve...if you are not Mt. HOod, and of course we'll never know as you or I could be "a couple of 9 year olds in texas" (wink, wink), you really do sound exacltly like him, the way you affectionately call me an 'ignorant fuck' so eloquently and critise miner sepling misteakes... the same self righteous, sanctimonious, superiority, hatemongering crap, even same kind of phrasing...if you are not Mt. Hood in fact, you are in spirit, but if it pleases you, you are Harry B.

I just had a quick look at the paper you mention. All the same arguments I've been thrashing about with Mt. HOod and others over for months...all the criticisms I saw were 'debateable'...which is true of most science. The author is a theologian relying on HSUS and IFAW staff and supporters for technical expertise. Can you tell me this is any less 'potentially biased' than a paper supporting the hunt, written by a priest deferring to the Canadian Sealers Association as technical expertise?

one example of the critisms in it,..they say that the Canadian Government is disindenuous in referring to the Daoust report as a CVMA report because within the published report there is a disclaimer that the views presented do not necessarly represent the views of the CVMA. In my mind that is a standard disclaimer they would use to distance themselves from the political shitstorm surrounding the issue. However, the report also states that teh authors are 'representatives of the CVMA". So, how is it disingenuous to call that a CVMA report?

Harry Boland said...

I'm American, Isdaby. We're all foul mouthed, arrogant fuckers. Haven't you learned that by now?

You want to talk about it - read it. Scientific analysis may be debatable, but not if you're too fucking lazy to read it.

Which actually, is quite symbolic, in its own way. Seems all of you Newfies are too fucking lazy to put any effort into learning anything new.

Must be something in the water.

BNB said...

Harry/Hood or whatever he wishes to go by must have used the word "Newfie" a hundred times as well as every racist stur that he could conjure against Newfoundland and Labrador. But then squeals like a greased pig at the word Yankee?!

I think I'll take Patriot's advice and let him squeal alone in a corner. There was some sensible dialogue earlier with BH for example but Harry Alan is one Racist Yank.

Harry Boland said...

First of all, I was mocking the word Yankee, not taking offense to it.

Second - one cannot be racist against a people who are not a race. One cannot be racist against Newfies because Newfies are not a race of people.

Third - I don't hate you (the key element in racism). I pity you. You make me sad.

Anyway, the worst you could accuse me of is cultural ethnocentrism, but that would require a level of education far beyond that of a man who can't even spell the word "slur".

Harry Boland said...

I almost forgot to respond to Myles' post.

"Bye the way, to M. Boland or M. Hood, or whoever, yes it appears I did make a mistake with the size of the Alaska hunt. For that I apologize.

I had read a quote in an article that mentioned it and assumed it was accurate."

Myles, I did a Lexus search on Seal Hunts, Alaskan Seal Hunts, Inuits, Eskimos and everything else I could think of and have not come across any such accusation or mention - except for this same article you wrote, which I found in three different locations. I wonder if perhaps the source for this "mistake" is in fact, yourself?

"Am I to take it from those comments that you don't care about seals being hunted as long as it is not as many as is happening here?"

Of course not. I don't have much problem with subsistence hunting which utilizes the whole seal, deer, bison, etc... and focuses on adults, although I confess to having no real tolerance for anachronistic "natives" that refuse to acknowledge reality for the sake of "preserving their culture". However, commercial slaughter of baby seals is a horse of a different feather - its for fur, its cruel, inhumane, inhuman, unprofitable and completely unnecessary and populated by violent barbarians who take far too much pleasure in their work (as scene on videotape).

"I've heard people refer to the hunt in the same breath as the holocaust (not a comparison I would make)."

Good. Me, either.

"Would you be Ok with the holocaust if only a few thousand people were killed rather than millions?"

Ah. Now we get to it, as well as the previous gentleman who asked what difference the price of the pelt made. The same response answers both charges.

Numbers do not affect the characterization of the act, but of the actor.

Would the death of one Jew be as abhorrent as the death of six million? Of course.

Would the killer of one Jew be as equally abhorrent as the killer of six millions? Of course not.

The numbers don't matter to the dead as they do to the killer. The murderer of one man is evil. The murderer of millions is a psychopath.

Men are governed by motivations, and are judged as such. Why are we so much more aghast at the idea of the man who murders an old woman for the $12 bucks in her purse than we are by the man who murders his wife for the $1million insurance policy?

Because the motivations change the dynamic of the act.

If a man made $1000 per seal, I'd be the first to admit that the characterization of the sealer would change - why? Because there are things we'd do for $1000 that we wouldn't do for less. It doesn't make the act any less immoral, but it does change the tenor of the actor.

When looking at sealers, we are judging men who invade the nurseries of baby animals, club them, shoot them, skin them alive and attack those who are there to ensure they follow the law and who do so for the princely sum of $3.50 a piece. Canadian.

Three and a half bucks.

So why does he do it? Not for food - he leaves the meat. Not for money - there really isn't any. Not for society - society finds him and his actions immoral.

So what motivations are we left with, gentleman?

If a man is willing to engage in THAT kind of cruelty, that kind of barbarism for such a pittance, imagine the evil that man is capable of when there's real motivation behind his actions.

The average sealer would make more working full time at a Boston McDonald's than he would in his present occupation as a fisherman. Yet he chooses not to. He values his time on the ice as greater than his would-be time at honest labor? What does that say about him?

And what does it say about you that you value the slaughterer more than the slaughter?

"Our only hope is to speak to the masses who have more of an open mind."

Look at the polls, Myles. The masses have made up their minds - and thus your constant stream of propaganda at those who have you outnumbered.

"Later folks and please, don't anyone kill each other in here."

I'm American. You can trust me, we're civilized.

As for your Countrymen...well...

***By the way, I really do like your piece on the future of NFLD's energy. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Anonymous said...

"Brendan Hubbard" back again. I'm not too sure I am contributing anything of substance that makes a "sensible argument" and that will get me or anyone anywhere, but I am "listening" and --- the truth is --- learning from just about everything, whatever effect that might have on me. And Patriot is right in saying (in my words) that the blog is really being occupied by the "travelers" to this issue (i.e., those who have done their "homework," in whatever form that was, and came in with their minds made up) instead of the "tourists" (the masses on the sidelines waiting for an opinion they can latch onto). Until a few years ago, I was at best a tourist simply because I didn't have and couldn't take the time to learn about these matters and, more important, think about them for myself. I am now taking the time. In fact, it was precisely on 9/11/01 (returning from a road trip that took me from DC to Inuvik to Prudoe Bay to San Francisco) that, just after a convoy of cattle trucks passed me on the highway outside of Kansas, I decided that I had no desire to travel anymore overseas (like I had frequently in the past) and that I would spend my time instead on matters that gave me much more satisfaction in terms of making the plight of animals better. I do this alone and not with any group, but I contribute time or money to those other groups only when I am convinced that their goals are consistent with my own values.

I do want to address two points that were mentioned by one or more above. The first one involves the numbers involved in a kill or unethical --- by my measure --- practice to warrant MY attention. I can only speak for myself but to me it makes no difference (unlike Stalin who said one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic) whether it's one or a million. For instance, among other causes (causes, hell, sufferings), I am doing what little I can to get the Washington Zoo (just down the street from me) to send ONE very arthritic elephant off to a sanctuary because if they do not, the elephant, by the zoo's own admission, will be put to death. The details are unimportant here but what is important is my involvement. Becasue this act of cruelty (of keeping this arthritic animal in a zoo, confined to a few hundred square feet of concrete floor space) is taking place right outside my door, I have no choice but to raise my voice in protest (it would be wrong of me to protest something 5,000 miles away and ignore something right outside my door). Those concerned with the animal's care are too close to what is really going on and, of course, they have their jobs to think of. So, I will write letters, make phone calls, and next week hang on new sign on the back of my truck that encourages others to do the same. I am confident that eventually that one elephant --- and perhaps the others --- will be sent to the sanctuary that has agreed to take her (and them). What gives me the right to think that I am right on this issue and that the PhD's and vets and executives at the zoo are wrong? My conscience. And thank God that it takes a lot to change that.

While I have learned much in the above postings so far, Patriot's right, I am one of those who has not changed my mind about the basic issue because my position is simple: I am against all killings of animals for their fur. And I try to be consistent. For instance, I will not be seen with a friend who is wearing a fur coat (or trim). When I invite people to my place, any invitations are clear: no furs allowed in my house. (Leather is a different issue for me because few people I know wear the kind of leather that is gong to make others envious and run out and buy a new leather coat, but that is not the case with fur. I do not wear anything leather --- or wool, now that I know what goes on in the Australian wool business --- myself, but not because I buy off on the argument that leather is an insignificant byproduct of the meat business. Even though the world-wide demand for leather does not exceed the supply made available from the meat industry, if it was not for the sale of leather the meat business would not be profitable and the owners of those companies would get into some other business. And the cycle goes on.) The smaller return that those who hold stocks in the meat business get on their investments (or the more expensive meat becomes) the happier I am because I know that fewer animals are suffering (unethically, as those who raise the meant seem to be in the habit of favoring).

That's how I decide myself. And just as I feel obligated to get involved in rescuing an elephant up the street from me, if I have been to a place where an animal issue has come up, as I have been to N&L, then I must also get involved because I know a little more than most people know about the full situation and I have an obligation to share that. (And I can say with some confidence that few Americans have seen N&L like I have seen it, albeit over six weeks one summer.) But why is everyone else picking on the Canadian seal hunt? Those who made the comments about the easy target (to the anti-hunt protestors) of the seal pups are absolutely correct. But why not the Alaskan native seal hunt if numbers do not make a difference? I'll tell you why I think. Not because of its small size but because there's little that anyone can do about that right now because that seal hunt is protected by law, just as the protective animal and environment laws are under attack by the US government now and will be for at least one and maybe three more years while the government is run by the Republicans. So, no one has any legal standing to stop the hunt and no one has any economic leverage. (Imagine the reaction I'd get to a sign on the back of my truck that said "Please don't buy anything from or travel to Barrow, Alaska (or wherever the hunt is taking place) until the seal hunt ends.") It used to be that years (maybe centuries ago) there was a third tool people had to persuade others, moral suasion, but for the most part --- and they admit this themselves) --- the moral (and with it values) community has completely lost its ability in my opinion to make the world a better place. Of course, the fourth tool (estate, really) we all (our countries ) have is the military, but we all know what that is doing. And so, to conclude this, the seal hunt in N&L happens to be vulnerable (compared to the seal hunt in Alaska) because of the economic standing that we protestors have. (But there are plenty of othger organized efforts going on if my e-mail is any indication.) But putting aside the subject matter, N&L is in exactly the same situation as millions of Americans (and maybe Canadians) as their jobs are outsourced to India, China, and elsewhere because those countries have economic leverage over the Americans, i.e., low pay (coupled with no health care, etc.) . Of course, those in US responsible for the economy love it because this helps keep inflation down here (cheaper goods), and those counties are dumping their earnings right back into US capital markets, especially bonds, which keeps interests rates down so Americans --- with multiple bread-winners in the house --- can rush out and buy their expensive new houses at cheap mortgage rates, etc. And the cycle goes on and on and on. No one understands it. No one has the ability to predict where it's going to all come out. And we're all part of it whether we know it or not, no matter what we do for a living, no matter what country we live in.

Another thing I gave up on 9/11 was much of what I used to enjoy as my entertainment (it's unimportant what that was). It was then that I realized why "entertainment" evolved --- to keep our minds off the harsh realities of life (and that's a fact, and that goes back thousands of years), as well as to pass culture on, and it was our culture (learning from those who went before) that got us to the top of the food chain and kept us there. I didn't want to get my mind off these things. Now, if there is one main source of entertainment for me, it's taking a subway ride to the Supreme Court and listening to the arguments before the court. Someday, someone is gong to bring a case before that court that involves the "rights" of animals (I personally do not believe animals have legal rights simply because the human species has no standing to call the shots on some other species' real "rights," just as we cannot say what rights the citizens of another country have except by brute military, legal or economic force; and do we really know the "rights" that whoever is up there wanted us to have for ourselves?). The great apes and other primates will be the first ones to succeed on getting us to recognize our ethical obligations to them, others will follow. Europe is way ahead of the US in this regard already. It's going to take generations for this to happen just as it took generations --- and many lives --- for us to abolish slavery. But it's going to happen. Because if it doesn't, life on this planet is not going to be a pretty picture (as it is not from those poor countries today who are suffering from the developed world's contribution to global warming). But until then, day in and day out, we each get a chance to sit on our own supreme courts, and we get to decide what contribution we will make in our own little worlds, what we eat, what we wear, what entertainment we choose, what protests we join, etc. One thing I can say about everyone on this blog is that no matter what side of the issue they fall on they are at least showing that they are willing to try to make a difference. I just wish that I had convinced some to my side of the argument or that you had convinced me to yours, but if you read this, at least you "listened," which is a lot more than can be said for what Patriot calls the "masses."


NL-ExPatriate said...

Finally a realistic statement from HB.

"I don't have much problem with subsistence hunting which utilizes the whole seal, deer, bison, etc... and focuses on adults"

NL-ExPatriate said...

The majority of North Americans use ten 10 times more resources than were entitled to, Speaking from a global perspective.

I've been to africa where they live in corrugated shacks, mud huts, rock huvels if they are lucky. With no electricity, running water, or indoor plumbing.
The reality is the seals aren't endangered and we do have a moral responsibility to try and maintain the balance of nature because we flagrantly abuse the Worlds resources with little or no concern to how it will affect our fellow man Globally and the balance of nature because Man is the scourge of nature if not done sustainably both pro and con use the Seal hunt as one example.

Do you misuse your fair share of the worlds resources to the detriment of your fellow man? Not your neighbor either.
One way I like to highlight global classes after being to africa is to say there are 4 four classes in this world if not five 5.

North America
Upper class
Middle Class
Lower class

Now use bells curve for a global classification if you will and add Africa.

Their Upper class is equivalent to our middle class.
Their Middle class is equivalent to our Lower class.
Their Lower class is something we can't even comprehend and have little or no understanding of.

So our middle class is like their Upper class to them and as such they see our middle class as Millionaires. What I'm getting at here is that it's all relative I guess.

It's all about balance and should never been seen in black or white. Either Black or White will have dire consequences on the balance of nature.

Sure I disagree with the waste in the seal hunt with leaving the carcasses to rot. But You Yes you animal rights activists have hampered at every corner more value added usages of the seal.
I also take exception to the killing of the younger seals. IMHO the seal hunt could be even larger and still be sustainable without impacting the balance of nature. Extinction is just fear mongering of the highest order.

What about the taking of caplin just for their roe and the dead adult male and female caplin are thrown overboard? This isn't sustainable and needs to be stopped both for the seals and the cod plus any other number of species.
It's all about the balance of nature with Mankind at 6 billion and climbing we are the scourge of the planet some more so than others. Where do you classify yourself?

Anonymous said...

This settles it - Myles is an ass.

Friday Harbor, WA (PRWEB) November 16, 2005 -- On Sunday evening, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a former Board Member of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS), appeared on CBS 60 Minutes to promote his ideas on acceptable violent threats and tactics in animal rights issues. Earlier this year SSCS had promptly removed Dr. Vlasak as a Board member after his interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in which Dr. Vlasak made statements advocating threats of violence to protect animals.

"SSCS adamantly opposes any action that would cause injury to any human being" says Captain Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a marine wildlife conservation organization founded in 1977.

A former friend and colleague of Dr. Vlasak, Captain Watson upholds the decision to remove Dr. Vlasak from the Board of Directors of SSCS as necessary and consistent with Sea Shepherd's long-standing opposition to physical violence.

"When my crew was attacked on the ice this spring, they did not retaliate in self-defense. They took the blows. The fact is that we have never struck or injured any of our opponents, even in self defense," he explained.

Despite criticism by opponents, authorities actually support the SSCS philosophy. Several nations have sought out Captain Watson and the help of SSCS to assist in the protection of their waterways, recognizing that SSCS limits its enforcement actions to resolving issues of illegal equipment usage and preservation of life as allowed under applicable law. Even the Dalai Lama has commended Captain Watson and the Sea Shepherd team for their endeavors in preserving life.

"Promoting a philosophy of violence makes it difficult on all of us," Captain Watson advises, "Not only will people be more likely to engage in unnecessary violence out of fear, but it also makes it more difficult to conduct legitimate conservation activities. We cannot support philosophies or tactics that threaten what I established SSCS to do -- preserve and conserve life."

So - nations ask Watson to help and the Dalai Lama has given Paul his blessing.

And Myles attacks this man? Until he shows proof of a nation asking for his help or demonstrates the blessing of the pope, he ought to be a man and shut up.

Anonymous said...

Go back to your mountains Dali blama.

It's like a spoiled child there is no such thing as bad attention.

In SS PW's case as well Dali's there's no such thing as bad publicity.

All these Anon's seem to have the same writing pattern and book of quotes or list of web sites. Makes you wonder if they aren't doing shifts regurgetating propaganda? Why else won't they register. Are they stupid? Don't they know they can be traced from counters and IP addresses? DuuuH

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure to whom NL-X addressed the above questions, but since I'm still here I'll take a crack at them.

I agree with you about the distribution of the world's resources and the use of those resources in the US. (And I also believe that all these issues are related through one degree of separation or another.) I also think it's terrible that we in the US use 25% of the world's oil (40% or more for vehicles) but have only 5% of the oil resources. This wouldn't be such a bad thing if we were returning to the world something in return that could be translated as fair, but I'm not too sure I am capable of figuring that one out now, but I'm trying. My early indications are sending mixed signals (people want our technology, they want our tourists (their money, actually), they want to do our manufacturing for us, they want to move here), but I still see terrible poverty and misery in the world and only some slight progress toward solving it. I, for one, try to do my share to take only what is necessary, but I'm probably doing a pretty bad job at it compared to what I would want to do and what is possible even today. But I'm learning.

I also agree that the human species is "the scourge of the planet," the first taking-species to inhabit it I believe. We are "advancing" (or so we think) with science and technology but as a species we are doing very little to return some of the benefits to the earth and the other species. (My bet is that if someone could do such a study, the study would show that more 99.9 percent of the good brought about by humans benefitted humans --- don't we as the dominant species, the first "intelligent" species, have other obligations?) In fact, it's just the reverse. We are more interested in our present, physical enjoyment moe than the mental or spiritual enjoyment that comes from helping others (not everyone, but most). We are concerned about our own selves and families (however broadly defined) and really care little about, say, the homeless outside our doors not to mention the children dying in Dafur or Niger or wherever. And the science is coming at us too fast for us to keep up in our spiritual lives or for our relgious leaders to adjust their instutions accordingly. (Religious institutions as we knew them kust 50 years ago are history.) It is not a pretty picture. And there are so many problems for any one to comprehend let alone do something about, and do anything without getting despressed or worse. But this doesn't mean we give up. We have to carve out some little niche for ourselves to make our contribution in and then do what we can. I've carved out mine (suffering of animals) and am prouded of it than all the fancy degrees I have or jobs I'be had over my career. I wish I could do more for it and for other problems too, but I am only one person. Unfortunately, the rich --- who are only getting richer, much richer --- are as a genral rule (Bill Gates is a notable exception) are not carving out such helping niches but moving to gated communities where the unwashed cannot get to them, hiding behind tinted glass in their big cars, going to places where the masses cannot touch them or see them. This is exactly what did in other societies, e.g., the Mayans. And we're all too close to the ground to see the big picuture and to think of anyone but ourselves. For all the proress that's being made in areas where I would like to see the word improved, the situaiton is worsening simply because the population is growing and growing. Nature has already told us we're doing it all wrong but rhe scientists say that's not so. I'm a betting man and I'm betting on nature being right. Again, it all boils down to one thing in my opinion: what are we each doing to reduce the suffering of others (humans, animals, the earth). I actually believe that most people would look at me if I told them that and say, "Look, I've got my own problems to worry about." Although that may be true, it's not good enough to save this planet, in my opinion.

I agree also with the issue of the caplin. And the sturgeon for the caviar too. And look at what the Japanese do to the sharks --- catch them, cut off their fins for their shark fin soup, and throw them back in the water alive. Speak about barbarians (look at what they did to the prisoners of war in WW-II too). And what they do to the dolphins, and the whales. Jesus Christ. There is no way that a personal God could exist in the presence of such brutality. Yet, much of the butality we dole out to each other in the future will be in his/her/its name.

Where do I classify myself in all of this? After being an optimist for so many years, although I still have hope, I see myself as one of the guys playing in the ship band on the deck of the Titantic as it slipped beneath the sea.

crazy american said...

Steve here..

After reading most of the postings over the last week or so, I am confronted by many items that on balance seem to confirm some of the basic weaknesses of most lines of reasoning in these postings.

First, while man is sometimes called a rational animal, it is clearly easier to demonstrate examples in postings above where man is a rationalizing animal.

Second, when any individual or group fails to consider that members of another group may actually think of themselves as the "good guys" they not only miss an opportunity to communicate and educate, they also lose an opportunity to understand and learn.

Third, and this is a peculiar vice of mine, when any individual or group begins to redefine or limit the general definition of a word so as to support a position, a reasoned person must evaluate whether an issue is being clarified or avoided. As an explanation of my point, some members of animal rights groups make claims that they are non-violent, but consider actions taken against others property as being non-violent. Is that because it is non-violent in the general sense, or because it sounds better by excluding a class of activities which most people would consider violent, such as burning homes or ramming ships.

Fourth, as I've read and grown over the years, I've read essays, articles and even one or two books about the eminent doom of mankind. I do not subscribe to the Malthusian doom which many in the social rights movements do, because by and large, man can when desparate enough, find solutions.

Fifth, I am troubled by the gradual loss of the basic respect for the law.

It is only under the most conidered, extreme and rational reasons that an individual has the responsibility to ignore or subvert the law, and in my humble opinion, it is only a responsible act in very limited circumstances. When the consequences of those actions are not deferred, not deflected, not fled from, but are embraced that the act of civil disobedience is validated. It is on this last point that I most strongly disagree with the actions of most of heros of the animal rights activists which I read here.

And lastly, I'm struck by the need of many groups who seek to alter the behavior of others whether on the religious right, the radical left, the jihadists, and yes some animal rights groups like Dr. Vlazik to presume that they have the "right" answer, and thus have the "responsibility" to insure that others behave according to their opinions.

By any name and in any form, this is the beginning of tyranny.

I expect that this will not alter nor ammeliorate the venom and bile which appears to infuse the postings here, but I do believe in both a future which can be better than today, and where reason can be used to overcome inflammed rhetoric.

So take a moment to discount the stereotypes and insults in all of the postings above, read back through them and see where the opinions most at odds with your own can be used to guide towards a solution.

Patriot said...

I see you guys are still going around in circles. Don't let me interrupt. I just have one comment for the anon poster who said:

"And Myles attacks this man? Until he shows proof of a nation asking for his help or demonstrates the blessing of the pope, he ought to be a man and shut up."

Comment: I don't know who you are because you have decided to hide behind an anon tag, but I am of the belief that no nation has asked you for help and the Pope hasn't given you his blessing either so if I should shut up because they didn't do this to me, what gives you the right to flap your gums?

Think about that and when you find the answer you may know why I do it.

BNB said...

I had no intention of posting again but some of the last posts are worthy of response. To BH there is far more in your philosophies that I agree with than not. I appreciate as well Steve as a well-spoken individual for sure.

BH touched on some of the finer points of why N&L get their backs up about the issue. Both BH and Paul have stated that the reason N&L is a target is that it is an easy one. Both BH and Paul have stated that there is a hypocrisy in protesting an issue 5000 miles away and ignoring what happens in your backyard. BH has recognized that his fight has to incorporate his neighbourhood as well as the global neighbourhood. That I can respect.

What I cannot respect is what I honestly feel is the unfortunate majority of this protest movement. Marie who spends 100% of her time (by her own admission) on the N&L Seal Hunt at the exclusion of issues in Nebraska. Boland who points the issue to the quality and character of N&L and its people and uses the seal hunt to justify his racial slurs ("race" in the context of being a group of people who share a common history - just because I know things have to be explained to him). And Paul himself who uses the same tactic - calling N&L a place "where priests rape orphans" and a "blight and curse". It is much easier to target a group who you feel are less educated, less moral and inferior. This is what racism, discrimination, elitism is about. In order to launch a battle with a group of people there is a perception that must be in place that the group is somehow inferior to yourself. We see this in the use of the derogatory term "Newfie" and Paul's use of "Bye" in responding to Myles. This was the same purpose of the Legend of the TO Police Officers who "pulverized" the locals. This is what we see in the petty spell-checking of Boland, in his perception of a superior education he is above his online antagonists.

This also points to the money issue again. It is easier for the Maries and Harry's of the world to pump money at a cause and feel comfortable that their $4000 and five minutes online changed the world. While being so far removed from the issue to believe that a seals flippers doesn't have claws.

Sorry Patriot - I get sucked into this... (and I want to make 100 posts)

ISDABY said...

why is the Dalai Lama a moral aouthority on seals? Has he read and analysed literature from 'both' sides of the issue? I think not, and I don't expect PW to have offered balanced information. As for moral authority? COnsider that, as horrible as we may view the Chinese take over of Tibet, the way fo life that the Dalai Lama represents and seeks to recover (to my understanding) is basically medieval feudalism. Tibet was ruled autocratically by the Dalai Lama, whose word was law. Maybe that's why PW and the Lama seems to close...two tyrants in a teapot.

As for the Paper on "public morality and the Canadian Seal Hunt", I have begun reading through it when I can (very busy these days, job, family, activities- A LIFE). However, with only going as far as the introduction I have found some 'concerns';

Discussion claimnig why Daoust report is wrong, and Burden Report ( the IFAW funded 'independant' study) is right...

Intro. sec 2.8/2.9/2.10- claims that Daoust based his conclusion of 98% humane kills on the number of seals dragged on board while still conscious, and that he did not study skulls of dead seals for 'damage'. It claims that Daoust 'ignored' the consciousness issue at time of intended killing. It claims that Doust report is biased by the fact that his observations were taken on board a sealing vessel, while they were obviously on 'best behaviour'.

I will go through the rest of the paper in time but for now let me address these items.

Doust report involves three phases of study. One using data collectec by co-author Bollinger, in 1999, where they analysed skulls of 225 seals, 220 of which were killed before the investigators arrived. two, observations from a sealing vessel in 2001 (as per the accusation) and 3, review of the same video tapes that IFAW sponsored vets used to make their conculsions (40% possibly skinned alive).

How can it then be said that Daoust report is biased because the sealers were 'good' while he was watching. At worst, it is a 'factor' in a three phase study. Consider too that IFWA sponsored report used only about 76 skulls, whereas Daoust referes to 225 skulls, From the skull study alone, Doust/bollingers data shows that all but 1.8% showed 'severe' fracture consistent with death or deep unconsciousness. Doust need not look any further, but he did...

As for the conscuousness issue Doust is alleged to have not addressed, he addresses it in detail comparing to the 'other' report that did not allow that seals without 'masssive' skull fracture could still be unconscious or dead as a result of the blow, due to brain damage...Doust discusses other studies that show that seals and other animals, including humans (boxers i think???) do die from brain damage that results from such a blow to the head, even if the is not fractured. one of the skulls they foudn without serious fracture showed brain damage. SO, how is this 'not addressing the issue of conscuousness'??

while I could say more, and will do likely at a later date, I think I have shown that this paper supposedly proving the cruelty of the seal hunt, is in fact based on lies and misrepresentation. This is just typical of the anti-sealing lobby and inthe ARA movement in general. Problem is that most people just don't take the time to read the available literature to make an informed decision. Whichis why these groups use celebreties and so-called moral aouthorites as their salesmen.

Anonymous said...

BH here for his final comment. I did indeed write (as bnb noted) that (in my opinion) the seal hunt was an "easy" target, but I have to stress the reason: because there is something that people who are opposed to it can do about it (e.g., the boycott). Unfortunately, for whatever reason, "terrible" things (to people as well as animals) are going on in front of most peoples' eyes, things that they can and should do something about, but they do not (for one reason or another), unless of course it's happening to them or their families. As unfortunate is that there are also terrible things (again, to people and animals) going on that no one can see or that no one can do anything about. Put all this together and it makes for a pretty bleak picture. And it's going to get worse before it gets better, if it ever does, because of our clinging to the attitude that worked for us so well in the past, which someone also above noted, but that may not work as well in the future, i.e., in the final analysis we have a way of pulling through. I will still hope --- and work as if --- that's going to be the case and if it is, it will not be so much because of those who solved the problems, but because of those who blew the whistle. Solving problems is easy compared to recognizing --- and getting others to recognize --- that there is one, in my opinion and experience.

Anonymous said...

BH here. I forgot to say that I agree with the comment above my prior comment that bemoans the use of celebreties to serve as our "moral authorities." I agree fully. What a sad state of affairs where movie and rock stars are used to sell us causes, goods and services, politicians, and even religion. It used to be that our moral leaders served that role, but now we all ignore them (as I noted in a much earlier comment). Look what we did to the poor Dali Lama and the Pope in the above messages. But all this begs the question, when we no longer believe the celebreties, whom will we turn to then? There will be no one left who hasn't been discredited.

Harry Boland said...

Isdaby, the point the Linzer report makes is clear - Daoust determined "humaneness" by if the seals were alive when skinned. In his opinion, leaving a seal to suffer on the ice for periods of time, spewing blood, is inhumane, which Daoust doesn't account for. Linzer also makes the point that the methodology of basing his figures only on seals brought on board is inherently flawed.

Daoust counters by saying that seals who's skulls have not been smashed may still be unconscious, and may have been killed humanely. This is a chicken and the egg argument - they may not have been. The fact that the skulls show no sign of mortal injury leads a rational observer to conclude that up to 42% of seals MAY have been skinned alive, while Daoust only says that 98% of the seals he examined ON BOARD were not.

As for Patriot, the point the other guy was making is that its kind of hard for a sealing advocate to attack as corrupt a man who has been asked to undertake activities you all seem to find illegal by the actual authorities with jurisdiction, and a man who has been blessed by the Dalai Lama - a man and religious figure given a great amount of respect in the civilized Western World, which is probably why you don't give him any.

As for the other guy - yeah, its easy to attack people who are poorer and less educated than you for having lower morals and standards - precisely because the reason they have lower standards and morals is BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS EDUCATED and thus POORER.

Its a cycle.

Here in America, we strive to lift our lower classes out of poverty - and usually do a completely piss poor job of it, but we try.

You guys pander to them, subsidize them, and provide them a financial motor to keep the whirlpool of poverty cycling. Look at the pictures of those sealers, guys. Very few are old men. These men, with families, choose to work in a decrepit, failed industry based on government support, welfare and barbarism, for what? Michel Therien says many fisherman live on $12000 a year, and clearly rather than going to college they'd rather go kill seals.

And you wonder why they are pilloried, pitied and pissed on?

You want to do some good for your people, Myles, stop enabling the seal hunt and start enabling the sealers.

Harry Boland said...

Furthermore, you attack the Sea Shepherd for wanting a DVD player.

You think every boat captain is out there hoping to make enough to buy a year's supply of Mac and Cheese?

You really think killing seals to buy a DVD player is worse than buying a DVD player for those who want to stop the killing of seals?

Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything at all to you, Myles?

ISDABY said...

Harry B says "Isdaby, the point the Linzer report makes is clear - Daoust determined "humaneness" by if the seals were alive when skinned. In his opinion, leaving a seal to suffer on the ice for periods of time, spewing blood, is inhumane, which Daoust doesn't account for. Linzer also makes the point that the methodology of basing his figures only on seals brought on board is inherently flawed.

Daoust counters by saying that seals who's skulls have not been smashed may still be unconscious, and may have been killed humanely. This is a chicken and the egg argument - they may not have been. The fact that the skulls show no sign of mortal injury leads a rational observer to conclude that up to 42% of seals MAY have been skinned alive, while Daoust only says that 98% of the seals he examined ON BOARD were not. "

Clearly you did not read my comments above which point out why what you repeat here is 'incorrect, and a misrepresentation of Douast's work. You sire are a disingenous 'Loud Mouthed Shnook'.

ISDABY said...

From the Daoust report. (its worth reading for anyone interested in the subject). Then its easy to see how its manipulated and misrepresented by those horny to discredit Doust's work.


Doust says “…However, as pointed out by Malouf (3), the absence of a skull fracture does not imply consciousness at the time of bleeding, since a severe concussion or cerebral hemorrhage is sufficient to induce unconsciousness or even death in the absence of skull fracture. In humans with blunt traumatic head injury, coma and death may occur with minimal or no contusion as a result of microscopic diffuse brain damage, such as diffuse axonal injury, ischemic brain damage, brain swelling, and diffuse vascular injury (15). In the present study, the skulls of 7 seals collected in the Gulf in 2001 that, on superficial examination, had potentially insufficient damage to cause unconsciousness turned out to have severe fractures of the floor of the cranial cavity. These 7 seals had shown no vital signs, including no evidence of breathing, when brought on deck. Although the medullary region of the brain stem of these 7 seals was morphologically intact, the presence of a fracture of the floor of these skulls suggests a severe concussion and functional inactivation of this part of the brain.

Harry Boland said...

Actually, what I wrote is clear, concise, to the point, and a rather detailed paraphrasing of Linzer's writing.

Daousts assertions regarding the IFAW report are clearly exposed as futile irrationality - or have you not gotten to the F part of the dictionary yet? Linzer's point about "bias" is not a basis for the examination of Daoust's methodology. Daoust's point about brain injuries is again speculative - yes, some people die from head injuries and some don't.

What you wrote makes no sense and does not contradict Linzer, me, or Daoust for that matter, in any way, so what's your fucking problem? If you have a point make it. if not - well, make one up.

I may be loud, but at least I can understand the written word - something you clearly cannot. Which is a shame, because this is not hard material. It is, as you like to say, "peer reviewed", after all. When something is peer reviewed - like Daoust's report - it is examined, and the fault therein exposed.

And - again - for reasons clearly stated by Linzer et al, Daoust's report is not accepted as valid by anyone outside of Canada or the DFO - including the CVMA.

Give them a call and what the official position of the CVMA on the seal hunt and Daoust's report is. That should settle it once and for all, don't you think?

Amused, as always, by your petulant immaturity,


Harry Boland said...

Isdaby, this is why I constantly point out how fucking stupid you are...

" In his opinion, leaving a seal to suffer on the ice for periods of time, spewing blood, is inhumane, which Daoust doesn't account for." - previous post

"These 7 seals had shown no vital signs, including no evidence of breathing, when brought on deck." - your post above


Again - all Daoust proves is that the seal was dead WHEN BROUGHT ON DECK!!!

Linzer's point is that if the seal was left TO SUFFER BEFORE BEING BROUGHT ON DECK - that is inhumane. If it was a human, it would also be ILLEGAL. In fact, according to Canadian MMR, it is still ILLEGAL - even for a seal.

You can argue that point - but at least argue THE RIGHT POINT.

Patriot said...

To all: I have noticed a lot of off colour words such as FU&* being used in this thread and several slurs against peoples in NL and in the U.S. on a regular basis.

This area is intended for open debate but using profanity and running down cultures is not a valuable debate tactic and I won't allow it to continue any longer.

If the language and slurs do not stop, I will close all comments on this thread going forward. The choice is yours.

Harry Boland said...

And for the record - where, exactly, does Daoust define WHAT is humane? I know Linzer does - I don't recall Daoust doing so, and if he did I missed it.

Kind of an important point, though.

I'm going to make my points again, and then ignore this thread cause you're stupidity is not only boring me, its making me forget that 1/10 of you have actually gone to college, so...

The Anti-Sealing movement is NOT an animal rights movement - it is the overwhelming collective moral judgment of the Western World, including the United States, Mexico, European Union, New Zealand, Australia and yes, even Canada.

It is by no definition humane.

It is by no definition sustainable at its current quota and methodology - Pierre Daoust.

It is cruel.

It is barbaric.

It is immoral.

There is no science or ethical argument that supports sealing.

And -

The only people who don't accept that as common knowledge are sealers and their coastal brethren.

Even the government knows that, but like a pain in the ass three year old bugging an overworked, over-stressed parent, they give you what you want to make you shut up and stay out of the way, which dealing with you on these boards, I find to be a completely understandable reaction.

The Seal Hunt is nothing more than a welfare program used to placate uneducated, welfare collecting, high school drop out fisherman who have effectively destroyed their own livelihood and spent the last 15 years trying to blame anyone and everyone for their own ignorance and stupidity, instead of taking responsibility for their own lives, retraining for new work and rebuilding their lives and their community.

It is enabled by advocates among NFLD, LAB and Quebec who have this distorted sense of "culture", who enjoy subsidies instead of work, but most of all have this jingoistic "patriotic" complex that lets them feel empowered by standing up the collective outrage of the world, bathed in a system that lets them indulge their inherent violence against anyone and anything they wish.

Finally, the fact that you all look in the mirror and see what YOU see as opposed to what the rest of us see leads me to believe that we now know what happened to Ken Kesey's missing twenty gallons of LSD.

Which, as an American, we'd kind of like to have back. Might come in handy down at Gitmo.

ISDABY said...

Hairy B. you are 'cherry picking' the time elapsed is just a single aspect, and what ever problems there may or may not be with that aspect (I haven't focused on that part...)does not negate the rest of the report as you and Lizender, like to claim. Doust's assertions are based on several phases of the study, as I continue to point out, including his observations, Bollingers observations, the same videos IFAW provided to the 'other' vets study, and literature.

You , Lizender, Lavigne, etc, try to tear down the whole study on sound bights...while ignoring aspects that you can not criticise.

Try this one...Bollinger's skull study from 1999 (part of the material Doust uses), in itself, shows that 98.2% of skulls examined (previously dead)had severe damage, consistant with death and unconsciousness. This alone supports the assertion of 98% humane kill. Its there to be read, it can not be ignored.

the only thing stupid about me is that I keep responding to you...I need help!

ISDABY said...

It is noteworthy that the Linzey paper, while condemning the seal hunt, condemns slaughter houses in teh US. Stating that the assertion that the seal hunt is no worse than other slaughter industries is not good enough, because these slaughter industries are not up to par...this is an Animal Rights stand that smells of HSUS. Dousts intention in comparing the sealhunt with Cattle and other slaughters, is that these are 'accepted' by and large, and considered normal practice in our lives.

SO, tell me where the bias lies...

ISDABY said...

Mt. Hood, you are getting ahead of yourself, you should read Lindsey yourself...

HB "And for the record - where, exactly, does Daoust define WHAT is humane? I know Linzer does - I don't recall Daoust doing so, and if he did I missed it. "

actaully, lindsey (sec 2.16) offers a definition of humane killing, as the standard definition for vertebrates which is the immediate inducing of unconsciousness, usually by means of the delivery of sufficient energy to the brain, which renders the animal insensible to pain.

Thats what Lindsey uses to define humane killing. and thats exactly what Daoust discusses in his study.

Harry Boland said...

Jesus, that's so fucking stupid I cannot let that stand...

You're right, Isdaby. Linzer DOES offer a definition of humane, which is how he disputes Daoust's assertion.

Daoust DOES NOT offer a defintion of humane anywhere. Absent that defintion, his 98% is meaningless.

If, for example, any seal not skinned alive was killed "humanely" - which does seem to be how Daoust defines it, seeing that his paper is a reponse to the IFAW 42% possible study - that definition does not meet the most basic standard of any rational human being.

Boillinger's study that 98.2% were crushed on examination DOES NOT mean those seals were killed humanely. What if they were struck and left for hours? What if the seal squirmed when knifed and had to be hit again? Your only criteria - like Daoust - is whether a seal was skinned alive. For most of us, seals struck and lost, seals left choking on their own blood while the merciless bastards with clubs demonstrate their buffoonery and ignorance on the next seal, and the next, running around like Hitler's children on a Jewish playground, provides a more moral interpretation of the term.

There were 317,000 seals killed last year, mostly shot. Daoust only examined seals BROUGHT ON BOARD and those ALREADY DEAD on the ice. He HIMSELF admits that 82% of sealers did not perform the blink test - the test DEVISED to ensure death before skinning. If, in fact, 98% of seals he examined died quick, well, that's just good fucking DFO luck - but there are too many instances of brutality on tape for even the most ignorant Canadian living outside the backwater bedlam of the Atlantic Coast to believe that level of bullshit.

The simple truth, Isdaby, is what is humane for Sealers and Newfies is humane ONLY to sealers and Newfies - of which PEI Native Daoust is one, by the way.

The difference is that the defintion of "humane" for Sealers appears to be fungible - anything that the sealer did at the time, up to and skinning it alive. You prove Disraeli's point. Unfortunately for you and the Canadian Government, actual human beings with conscience want to know DEFINITIONS and TRUTH - neither of which Daoust has, because videotape doesn't lie.

All of which is why Daoust is not taken seriously, even by the CVMA and its former head. You make that call yet, you coward? What IS the position of the CVMA?

Again - NOBODY places any faith in Daoust besides, Sealers, the Government and dumb shit, uneducated Newfies like you who obviously CANNOT FUCKING READ!!!

I am astounded by your inability to comprehend the meaning of 1st grade sentences and to see the failings in obviously flawed logic. I now understand why so many Newfies drop out of High School - I wouldn't want to understand me either.

Fuck off and goodbye, you poverty stricken redneck dilettante.

Patriot said...

Sorry folks, but thanks to the lack of common sense, civility and decency displayed by Mr. Boland in the language he chooses to use this thread is now closed to comments.

I believe we have all had enough of this abusive and narrow minded rhetoric.

Bye the way Mr. Boland, if you plan to retaliate by peppering other threads with the same sort of foul language, which I wouldn't put past you, I won't hesitate to allow only members to comment. It doesn't bother me so the call is yours. Either way you won't stop the debates on a myriad of subjects and you also won't continue to spread your brand of racial hate and disgusting language.