Seal-ing the Deal (or, Join the Club)

I've always enjoyed "clubbing the baby seal" as a crude sexual euphemism.

What's with the accompanying image of a whitecoat seal pup? Killing whitecoats was outlawed in 1987. It's dishonest to use pictures of them when discussing the modern seal hunt.

Ok what about the government going to china and signing a deal to use omega 3 in hospitals? Go to intrafish you will find it. How about business men trying to market penises for tea? For Aphrodesiacs in over populated aids ridden China? Who pays to police the "hunt"? Who pays to break the ice? I could go on and on. This person is not misinformed.

It is subsidized and all your links are Canadian and from the DFO what do you expect them to say? Oh we pay to market "healthy seal oil" oh we....get a clue, this hunt is for pelts! Do not forget the same org. that is regulating this hunt also regulated the fisheries to collapse.

Specification of Seal Oil
Technical Data Sheet

1. Ingredients 100% Natural Seal Oil with 0.3% D-Alpha Tocopheryl Acetate added as anti-oxidant 2. Physical Appearance: A clear, yellowish, oily liquid with pleasant fishy flavour and aroma, The Gardener Colour standard is 2 – 4. 3. Microbiological Specification: Total Aerobic Count:

Looks greatly healthy to me, is it like malachite green fish? A banned chemical in world trade that is sold by Canada also?

Laws enforced...OMG! I will not entertain this. But to say this....

What about over quota? The same people that say it is regulated also say "It is hard to regulate a hunt this size in such a large area that is why we go over Quota."

And your humane hunt, using the 2002 report while ignoring the 2001 report purposely that says 48% did not have sufficiant wounds to cause death!

I have personally spoken several times with Dr. Alice Crook, co-author of the 2002 report on the seal slaughter (Canadian Veterinary Association - CVA -Special Report vol. 43, 2002), the one that states 98% of the seals are killed in a humane manner . Dr. Crook stated she knows full well how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in Canada have used her 2002 report as a blatant piece of propaganda. During an earlier phone conversation in 2003 she told me she was not happy that the DFO were using this report, she also stated that in no way does this report endorse the hunt (read: slaughter). Dr. Crook went on to say she is aware that the vast majority of sealers are not following the reports recommended procedures (blink test and cranium palpation) to ensure the seal is actually dead before it is skinned (proving the slaughter is not humane). She also said that the sealers have resisted the recommendations the CVA presented them with and are going about things as business as usual. In short the lunatics are running the asylum.

I spoke with Dr. Crook again in early September of 2005, she informed me that the CVA's 2002 special report vol. 43 has been updated with a new report that is the result of a new collaboration of veterinarians calling themselves the Independent Veterinary Work Group (IVWG - August, 2005 www.ivwg.org). Dr. Crook went on to say that one of the main reasons for the new IVWG report was because the sealers have not been following the recommendations presented to them in 2002 and because the slaughter is not being regulated, monitored and enforced in an acceptable manner.

Well things have changed and even these pro DFO veterinarians can no longer turn a blind eye to what is a reality. Here are but a few of the highlights from this report:

1.) "Because of its remoteness and difficult environmental conditions it (the slaughter) is generally considered not to be well observed or monitored"

Comment: The DFO claims the slaughter is humane yet without effective monitoring there is no way to prove this is so. In fact left to their own devices sealers (who believe seals are nothing more than a species of fish as noted in the IVWG report) will act with haste to ensure the maximum number of seals killed regardless of whether or not they are doing so in a humane manner.

2.) "The Group (IVWG) further notes that there many be an element of conflict of interest in the DFO being both an advocate for the seal hunt and its regulator."

Comment: The DFO is the same organization that back in the 80's mismanaged the slaughter and attempted to cover up their incompetence. Later on even they admitted the slaughter was inherently cruel. In allowing the DFO to be in charge of the slaughter just as before is to invite disaster, this organization simply cannot be trusted, the comment above proves this and for as long as they remain in charge the seal slaughter will remain as it is, cruel beyond comprehension.

3.) Sealers do not understand the corneal reflex or blink test and are not utilizing it.
4.) Sealers are not manually palpitating the seal's skull following a hakapik blow to
ensure the animal is dead.

Comment: The sealers have no wish to follow the recommendation of any outside organization. In fact historically they have reacted violently to any advice offered. In the report it state the "Sealers have asked for the groups help to make the hunt as humane as possible" this was most certainly pressed on them by the DFO due in part to the rising resistance to the slaughter. In fact I believe the DFO orchestrated this report only for the result to backfire on them (they most probably thought they could control the IVWG) Please do not forget that 3 years have past without any of the recommendations presented by the (pro DFO) Canadian Veterinary Organization being adopted. The IVWG report of 2005 is proof positive of this.

5.) "The season is too short resulting in increased competitiveness and reduced caution
and adherence to procedures."

Comment: Sealers are paid for seals killed not for being humane. Add a complete lack of monitoring on the part of the DFO and again you have a recipe for disaster.

6.) "International Fund for Animal Welfare videos also show numerous examples of
striking with a hakapik (i.e. seals being clubbed) that are not followed by
checking either by palpation of the skull or observation of absence of corneal
reflex."

Comment: "Numerous examples" equates to numerous seals being skinned alive.

7.) "No Seals should be shot in the water."

Comment: Many Seals are shot in the water (the reason why this comment was made by the IVWG) only to slip under the ice. Many of these seals will die a slow agonizing death; furthermore they will not be counted as part of the final quota.

8.) "The Canadian Harp Seal has the potential to be a humane hunt."

Comment: This statement was made simply because the IVWG is a pro DFO organization with 2 of its main authors directly benefiting from an ongoing association with the DFO, they had to make this comment or else... Make no mistake though, after decades of evidence of abhorrent cruelty this slaughter can never be humane. Furthermore the burning question is if the hunt has the potential to be humane just what has it been for all these the years past?

In all there are 27 pages worth of issues being raised that paint a very poor picture in regards to how the DFO regulates and monitors this slaughter. If you read between the lines there is also a considerable amount of evidence both direct and indirect that supports the fact that this slaughter is not humane.

Throughout this report the reader is left with one burning question; if this slaughter is so well regulated and humane why then are there so many recommendations being made by the very veterinarians the DFO claims endorses the slaughter in its current form?

In closing dastafak has proven the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" correct yet again and is more than 3 years behind the times.

For anyone who is interested in knowing the REAL truth I have attached the new 2005 Independent Veterinary Work Group report to this email (PDF file). Please keep in mind the new 2005 report would not exist if the seal slaughter were humane.

As for footage of seals being skinned alive. There is enough video material to cover the Great Pyramids and then some, the only problem is it is so graphic and horrible to watch the media will not play it. And anyone that decides they wish to see it for themselves, be prepared for the worse.

Steve Thompson
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada

OH MY. haha.
Yes, Torontoist, you are right. Many people don't understand the sealing industry. Nor do they understand the aggregates industry (aggregates you say? yes rocks.), or the forestry industry, or any other 'resource' industry because the dirty truth is, we THINK we understand the way the world works and we like to use fancy words for fancy conclusions but the real answer is we DONT KNOW all that much.

Here's a brief lesson:

Seals are considered a resource to humans, and therefore something has to be managed. But think: Fundamentally, what we are managing is HUMAN BEHAVOUR, not the seal population or the purportedley affected fish population.

I don't believe nature NEEDS to be managed by humans (as someone has stated in comments from the recipe) because the whole concept of nature is to regulate itself (predator prey etc...talk to any ecologist), humans place themselves in a situation where they have to regulate their behaviour such that their disturbance to the ecosystem balance is somehow mitigated.

The reality is, our management strategies are based on a lot of uncertainty, and a lot of the science behind the decisions that have to be made is weak because it is VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT LIFE UNDERWATER. So governments have to make decisions, but make them based on a lot of uncertainties.

Seals are culled because it is believed they deplete fish stock by feeding on them. Simple correlation right? More seal, less fish. However, recent science is suggesting that the relationship is more complex than that. Seal behaviour is believed to create local environmental conditions that are more favourable for specific fish stock. The more seal, more fish. WHAT? Suprised? no. All resource management issues run into this...back and forth business. And resource managers must deal with that, and make decisions fast. Sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes they're right on the nose.

That's life. The best thing we can do is look at a problem more objectively. Of course, policies are not always effective, but let's take a closer look at what we are trying to affect. Maybe the solution shouldn't start at the sealing stage. Maybe it should start at the consumer stage.
More demand for fish -> more fish farming and harvesting -> higher perception from fishers that seals are eating all their fish -> larger demand for seal culls -> more money spent on research that's crap because there's never enough time -> conclusions that only sound good because they have to, to make the opposition shut up.

You see where it starts?

A boycott? No, just consumer moderation. But keep in mind there are demands for Canadian fish internationally. And there are fishing wars over who can fish in what waters, so demands on a single fish stock are doubled or tripled. This is why fish farms were created. So where do we start?

and...just to twist it a bit...let's assume more seal = less fish. Fish stocks are overharvested right now, so there are less fish anyway. So less fish = fewer seal, and a seal hunt ban becomes less effective when it comes down to the wire (in other words, it won't make much of a difference!).

what's TYVM? I know of TVP...and it smells like dog food.

"For Aphrodesiacs in over populated aids ridden China?"

So what do you disapprove of? That they're killing seals to make something as silly as aphrodisiacs? Or that they're selling aphrodisiacs to people who don't deserve to have sex?

I disapprove of A) seal penises being black marketed
B) china having babies expecially girls. C)promoting aphrodesiacs as powder for teas... it somehow seems so immoral....weird even. I dunno. I do know you can not tell the sex of the seal at the age they are killed until they are dead. I do know some of the evidence presented in court was the same number pelt as penis, 7 student scientist testified and had pictures, and other evidence.

Which makes one ask what happened to the female pelts? But the conclusion would be, keep the best pelts and all the penises. I suppose. Or there were only boys that year.

Not that anyone ask me. Was not my comment.

Wait, you disapprove of Chinese people having *babies*?

haha. TYVM..i get it now...wow.

Anyway, how'd this go from seals to babies in China? I guess that supports the 'complex system' theory about this issue. seals are not more important than fish, and fish are not more important than seals. it's all relative, no? unless you are confusing 'importance' with market value, in which case I'm not sure because i'm no economist. But my gut instinct tells me the fishing industry is MUCH larger than the seal industry (not considering a 'black market'). And here's another thing, sealing occurs in other northern countries too, but Canada's getting the end of the stick because of Paul McCartney. I feel a seal song coming along.

Here's a useful site from the CBC that may answer some of your questions. Not about Chinese babies or seal penisis.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sealhunt/

This is the most policy wonk like discussion I've ever seen on this site. I've seen Senate Comissions with less data than this comment thread! Amazing.

As someone from Prince Edward Island... I would advise people to look at all the implications before saying to ban the hunt.
I realize that there are many people against the seal hunt – to these people I would ask
– How would you choose to control the seal population otherwise?
- How would you compensate the fishers participating in the seal hunt?
- How would you compensate all the fishermen whose livelihoods would be affected by the overpopulation of seals?
- And lastly, how would you keep the economy stable in the region with this loss of income and with the damage to the whole fishing industry?