Help ban seal hunting

[ss1]

If you feel strongly about this please take time to fill this out, it only takes a couple of minutes. (you might need to copy and paste the link into your browser to access)

http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=seals

Thank you.

 

[emma69]

I feel strongly about it - living in Canada it has become clear that seal culling is an essential part of both the economy, and ecological necessity. There is not the populous of fish to support the amount of seals born each year. If the population was not managed, seals would starve, and the whole population would be in danger. The quotas are very carefully managed, and patrolled, to ensure there will still be a seal population in years to come. In addition, every part of the seal is used - it's meat eaten, or preserved for future food, the blubber is used, the skin is used, even the organs are used. It really is not all that different to any other animal - they live a 'free range' lifestyle, and once they are killed, every part of them is used. The hunters respect the animals, and despite what an aging crooner wishes people to believe, there is very little suffering.

 

[Sooty]

Is it that time of year again? Shame we can't recycle debates on this forum! *insert grinning smiley here* If seals looked like spiders nobody would give two hoots...

 

[rubyslippers]

If you'd bothered to follow the link, you'd see that the request is to give your opinion on the subject of seal culling - which will go towards a consultation paper. It is not a request for petition signatures, with a view to a ban.

You seem to know a bit on the subject Emma69, your contribution would probably be greatly recieved? Although you should note that the shortage of fish is due to mans greed rather than that of the seal population.

Sooty - If seals looked like spiders no one would care about them being bludgeoned?? So..... then if horses looked like chickens no one would have interviened in Amersham? If you had a brain you'd be dangerous? Since when was animal abuse an isue of what an animal looks like?

 

[Sooty]

Sorry, I assume everyone has a sense of humour. Forgot I was in the hunting forum! In answer to your question - yes. Literally millions of chickens suffer far worse lives and deaths every single day, year in year out, in the production of cheap meat and eggs. It has yet to make the news as an item of shocking cruelty. What happened to the horses in Amersham is exactly what happens to chickens. Who needs the brain again...?

 

[antiantianti]

I If seals looked like spiders nobody would give two hoots...

I hate people deliberately squashing spiders. What is worse it is bad luck.

 

[Eagle_day]

Shocking, isn't it?

So hard on the horses ....

 

[Tinkerbee]

No

 

[oakash]

Emma, you are absolutely right. I worked with a Canadian who, years previously, had worked on a sealer ship in the Arctic. He said exactly what you do!

So no, I wouldnt want to ban the seal cull, although of course they are appealing animals.

 

[peakpark]

If you'd bothered to follow the link, you'd see that the request is to give your opinion on the subject of seal culling - which will go towards a consultation paper. It is not a request for petition signatures, with a view to a ban.

Sooty could be forgiven for thinking that the request concerns a view to a ban as the thread is titled 'Help ban seal hunting'.

 

[Asimmons]

If you want to make a difference...join the Sea Shepherd organisation. They are fab against the whalers. Very inspirational people. we met them in Melbourne aboard their black pirate ship!

 

[oakash]

Apricot, what you sem to be saying is'Join the sea shepard organisation in order to destroy the balance of nature.' Of course no-one wants to see seals disappear altogether, but there has to be a balance, and with so many people on our planet, it is up to mankind to control other species to maintain that balance.

 

[Tia]

I agree with everything Emma has said on the matter. I don't like seal culling, but it is something which needs to be done.

 

[rubyslippers]

Oakwood
You say that; "Join the sea shepard organisation in order to destroy the balance of nature." because "but there has to be a balance, and with so many people on our planet, it is up to mankind to control other species to maintain that balance"

History has constantly shown us that it is mankinds intervention which upsets the 'balance'. The very term 'natures balance' should tell you who should indicate where the responsibilty for balance lies - nature! WHen man interviens to cull, it is because we have over fished, and we want to continue to do so.

It is man who has cause the decline of cod opulations - lets go cull the trawlermen!

 

[carmenlucy123]

i think seals need culling not that iv researched this subject at all so this is a sweeping statement but could they not use those guns that dont have bullets? help me out here.... is there such a gun im sure they used them on cows....

anyway its the battering to death with big stick that is upsetting im sure most couldnt stomach it...

 

[Tinkerbee]

Good job most dont have to do it then

 

[alleycat]

Yes, you're right, rubyslippers- Nature DOES maintain its own balance- but Nature's own way of balancing populations is culling is by starvation and disease. Better that we maintain the balance we have by culling, IMO.

 

[carmenlucy123]

yeah im a shambles i found a magpie the other day half dead and i picked it up to wring its neck and couldnt so i just put it in a box and left it to die hahaha i hate magpies aswell im always cursing them still

 

[wrighty]

Been away but I'm sure some will be happy with my return.

Just a few things to start me off.
"pirates are still pirates and can be hung for that crime"
Not in this counrty, there are no crimes punishable by death in this country any more.
"27th of January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK."

"Of course no-one wants to see seals disappear altogether, but there has to be a balance, and with so many people on our planet, it is up to mankind to control other species to maintain that balance."
I think it has been said but why do "we" humans think "we" have to control other things on this planet, we're the ones f***ing it up, not the other animals, insects, birds etc.

"Nature's own way of balancing populations is culling is by starvation and disease. Better that we maintain the balance we have by culling, IMO."
Nature doesn't cull, nature uses survival of the fittest, the naturally weak and the injured are killed off by others or they starve, there is nothing wrong with this as it is the way things have been for MILLIONS of years, when "we" kill for our food we either go for the biggest and strongest (therefore weakening the species) or we just scoop up everything around and throw back the smallest (usually already dead so the population suffers)

There are many examples of humans F***ing about with nature causing massave damage to local animals and people.

 

[emma69]

Given that humans are not about the commit mass suicide, and that there is currently not enough land based food to stop fishing, what do you suggest? Maintain a healthy seal population with a closely controlled cull, or let the whole species risk extinction, because of fierce competition for food?

 

[wrighty]

How many times do we see this arguement?
How stupid does it sound?

We as the advanced animal on this planet have the responsibility to look after the planet and it's other inhabitants, not to use what we think we need and bo**ocks to the rest.
We don't need to kill seals, to protect the over fished seas, to protect the seals.

OK, next bit. (slightly off track but still in the same area)

"there is currently not enough land based food to stop fishing"

There would be if more of the grown food was used to feed people and not to feed animals that we feed on, raising animals is a very wasteful way of feeding the population.

For example (Figures/feed are used as a reference, I doubt they are correct)

1 cow needs 1 acre to live on, this cow will feed 1 family for a week.
1 acre of wheat is needed to produce enough feed for the cow, therefore 2 acres are needed to feed 1 family for a week.
OR
1 acre of wheat will feed 10 families for a week, as the other acre isn't used to feed the cow the wheat can be used to feed MORE FAMILIES, therefore 2 acres are needed to feed 20 families for a week.

 

[antiantianti]

Feeding grain to cattle isn't particularly sustainable. However livestock can be reared on marginal land which isn't suitable to grow crops. Extensively managed farmland in the uk is also very bio diverse as it consists of a patchwork of hedgerows, woodland and permanent grassland. Also grassland is far less prone to soil erosion and large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere are released by repeated ploughing.

 

[antiantianti]

"Nature doesn't cull, nature uses survival of the fittest, the naturally weak and the injured are killed off by others or they starve, there is nothing wrong with this as it is the way things have been for MILLIONS of years"

Nature does cull by predation. Once we have removed an animals predator it gets out of balance. It's population then becomes limited only by territory and food supply rather than downward pressure from predators. Predators naturally tend to catch weaker sicker animals. That's why we need to manage the fox population and why hunting with dogs is the best way to do it.

 

[emma69]

Humans and animal co habit in many areas of the earth. And the changing landscape means that management of some species is necessary both for their own safety / survival, and that of other species. Especially in situations where animals have no/few other animal predators (e.g. deer in the UK, elephants in africa, seals in Canada) Why do you see human culling as any different to say, a lion killing an antelope? it is the stronger, killing the weaker, for food. As a side effect, the lion manages antelope population, which ensure that grasslands are not over grazed, which keeps the anteloped within the reserves, which ensures their relative safety.

re crops v livestock - I eat a vegetarian diet, so have no problem with this theory from a personal point of view. However, there are many areas of land which would not sustain crops, or would require intensive farming to produce food. In addition, good farming practices ensure that breeds are preserved - if no one ate beef or drank milk, cows wouldn't be around much longer.

 

[Tia]

QUOTE FROM WRIGHTY:
"For example (Figures/feed are used as a reference, I doubt they are correct)

1 cow needs 1 acre to live on, this cow will feed 1 family for a week.
1 acre of wheat is needed to produce enough feed for the cow, therefore 2 acres are needed to feed 1 family for a week"



Unless I am seriously misunderstanding you, then yes you are right, your figures most certainly are not correct.....unless the family you are talking about have a hundred people in them. I don't even use half a steer over a year to feed my family, so I can't imagine how any family could ever use a whole steer in a week. That's around 1,200lbs of beef.

And it certainly doesn't take anywhere near one acre of corn/wheat/hay/whatever to feed one cow for a week. That would be like suggesting a 1,500lb cow eats (on a bad harvest) 200 bales of hay a week.

Anyway, that aside, where animals have few or no predators around their habitation then humans often have to be that predator to control the balance.

I agree with most, that seal culling is not a pleasant killing to watch (what death ever is!), however the small consolation is that absolutely every part of the animal is used. It is a very necessary part of the slightly depressed economy in that part of Canada and shouldn't really be seen as any different from any other form of farming.

My criticism of the anti-seal cullers, is why do they always always show photos of the cute fluffy white seal pups, when these are not the ones who are culled?! (Obviously that is a rhetoric question.)

 

[antiantianti]

lol Tia that isn't quite right because it takes 2 1/2 years to fatten a steer. If you produced steer every week on those two acres you'd need a stocking rate of 63 steers per acre!