"pearl"  wrote in message 
news:fuik8l$3f3$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message 
> news:is3Pj.1112$XI1.136@edtnps91...
>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> news:fuidt6$la$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> > news:4Q1Pj.1088$XI1.127@edtnps91...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> >> news:fuht9q$p6c$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> >> > news:J_KOj.790$XI1.107@edtnps91...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Commercial seal hunting is scientific and conducted with no less 
>> >> >> care,
>> >> >> awareness and concern for animal welfare than German sport hunters
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> their own wildlife.
>> >> >
>> >> > 'Shock pictures: Is this what the Canadian government means by
>> >> > 'humane' slaughter?
>> >> >
>> >> > By DANNY PENMAN -
>> >> > 3rd April 2008
>> >> >
>> >> > The baby seal looks into the eyes of her executioner. Barely a 
>> >> > flicker
>> >> > of
>> >> > emotion shows on the fisherman's face as he smashes a steel-tipped 
>> >> > club
>> >> > into her mouth. She lies whimpering on the ice, blood pouring from 
>> >> > her
>> >> > jaw and nose.
>> >>
>> >> HALIFAX - An environmental crusader at the centre of the anti-sealing
>> >> movement is standing by comments he made 30 years ago in which he 
>> >> rebuked
>> >> other conservation groups for exploiting harp seals for profit.
>> >
>> > Non sequitur.
>>
>> Not at all.  It's meant to illustrate the demonization tactics of"Danny
>> Penman" which contrast with Paul Watson admission it's all about money 
>> for
>> ARAs.
>
> Danny Peman is a reporter with the Daily Mail, you dumb pillock.


Poor pearlie... unable to think critically. In Danny's own words:

First:

    "Having travelled to Nova Scotia to investigate the slaughter at close 
range, I can say categorically that the new rules are being completely 
ignored by the fishermen."

Then:

    "A few seconds later, the pup starts wriggling furiously. She is clearly 
still alive, though in terrible agony. The fisherman smashes her head 
another three times.

    I pray to myself that she is dead before she is skinned - but from where 
I am standing, it is impossible to tell."

Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically" 
that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with his 
own words.

The veterinary experts have stated the "wriggling" is swim reflex, just like 
a chicken manages to fly away into the air with its head missing.  This is a 
case where an observer sees an animal reflexively moving and perceives that 
the animal is making those motions consciously.  Perception and reality for 
ARAs are two different things.  Danny sees one thing, the CVMA veterinary 
experts see another.

>> > In fairness without IFAW and Greenpeace exposing
>> > what was happening the seal population would likely be wiped out.
>>
>> Initially, yes, the awareness these groups brought to the hunt caused it 
>> to
>> be reconsidered in a more scientific and humane manner.  That was then, 
>> this
>> is now.  Now it is a cash cow for ARAs who learned how to exploit it for
>> fundraising.  If ARAs were really "about the issue" they would focus on
>> endangered species that are in much more need of attention.  The proof: 
>> IFAW
>> and HSUS get 80-90% of their funding from the seal issue, and most of 
>> this
>> money is spent maintaining the organizations, rather than on fighting 
>> actual
>> issues.  Animal rights activism is a multi-million dollar business 
>> obsessed
>> with seals to the detriment of all the species in real danger. 
>> P-H-O-N-E-Y
>> A-C-T-I-V-I-S-M.
>
> You're tarring the entire movement comprised of numerous groups
> and individuals with the same brush.  IFAW and HSUS aren't ARA.
>
> Rebecca Aldworth who leads the HSUS effort is right there and
> even hails from there.  She's working for it  T-O  E-N-D.  Get it?

Aldworth milked the hakapik as "cruel and inhuman device" for all it was 
worth, then when the premiers propsed its ban she changed her mind about the 
hakapik.  Now she claims the proposed ban is for "the sake of optics."  She 
wanted to end the use of the hakapik... then she didn't... credibility is 
definitely not one of her strong points.

>> >> Watson also insisted that the sustainability of the harp seal 
>> >> population -
>> >> estimated at 5.5 million by federal officials - is imperilled, even 
>> >> though
>> >> the species is still not on any endangered species list.
>> >
>> > You now regard Paul Watson as credible, remember.  Farley Mowat:
>>
>> I now regard Paul Watson as someone who discredited himself in a rather 
>> big
>> way.
>
> Boot's very firmly on the other foot, as you should well know.

Watson discredited himself and so did Aldworth over the hakapik.  These guys 
are exploiting YOU and laughing all the way to the bank.

>> > 'The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its provincial counterparts
>> > assert that an exploding harp seal population currently exceeds five 
>> > million
>> > animals (independent assessments put that figure at less than three 
>> > million)
>> > ..'
>> > http://bookloons.com/cgi-bin/Columns.asp?type=Excerpt&name=Hereafter
>> >
>> >> He said the combined effects of climate change and the hunt will 
>> >> eventually
>> >> lead to the extinction of the population, which Ottawa says has nearly
>> >> tripled in size since the 1970s.
>> >
>> > Better listen up.  And you will of course repeat these critical quotes.
>>
>> You just don't get it, do you.  Anyone can claim anything -- including 
>> Paul
>> Watson an Farley Mowat -- but without "evidence" it means nothing.  The
>> evidence we do have exposes the ARAs as completely out to lunch, because,
>> (as you acknowledge above) the seal populations are on the increase.
>
> Where do I acknowledge it?  It's you who's completely out to lunch, mate.
>
> We don't lie.
>
> From a 2005 paper.
>
> 'Harp seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modelling populations
> with uncertainty
> by Prof. Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury & Graziella Iossa
> School of Biological Science, University of Bristol, UK
>
> Summary
>
> For the past six years, nearly 400,000 harp seals from the Northwest 
> Atlantic
> population have been hunted annually by Canada and Greenland, the highest
> number since the 1950s.  When such hunting pressure last occurred, the 
> harp
> seal population declined rapidly by over 50%.  With current levels of 
> hunting
> pressure being so high, it is important to have accurate information about 
> the
> total harp seal population size and the subsequent effects of differing 
> hunting
> strategies.  Therefore, in this report we evaluate the scientific model 
> used by
> the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to estimate harp seal
> population size, set harp seal total allowable catches (TACs) and model 
> the
> effect of different culling pressure.
> .....
> In their 2000 stock assessment for harp seals, the DFO predicted a decline
> in the population (from the estimated 5.2 million) over the following 
> years as
> a result of high kill levels in the commercial seal hunt. This is not 
> surprising
> considering that between one third and one half of all pups born in the
> population over the past ten years have been slaughtered. Yet four years
> later, the DFO estimated the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population at 
> 5.9
> million seals - an increase of 0.7 million. This contradicts the DFO's own
> predictions and highlights the unreliability of the model used to predict 
> the
> size of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population. This harp seal
> population may already be approaching the 70% level [3.6m] advocated by
> the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The DFO says that it is committed
> to maintaining the population above this reference point.
> ..
> Total allowable catches (TACs)
> The TACs are calculated from the population estimates.  However, as noted
> by several authors, the reported total catch is not the total number of
> individuals killed (Johnston & Santillo, 2005). For example, in 1999 the
> TAC set by the Canadian government was 275,000 harp seals.  However,
> incorporating all mortality sources (hunted, struck and lost, fisheries 
> related
> mortality), total anthropogenic removal was 483,000 harp seals, of which
> 281,000 were pups.  Given the dramatic unreliability of harp seal 
> population
> estimates, the uncertainty surrounding environmental related mortality and
> two non-cooperating fisheries (Canada and Greenland), such high levels of
> removals are unsustainable.  This has been noted in previous scientific
> meetings, where total catches were higher than replacement yields.
> Previously, when total removals were so high - around 350,000 seals per
> annum - the harp seal population crashed dramatically to below 1,800,000
> and only recovered when total removals were reduced significantly.
>
> · Several other Canadian fisheries have collapsed as a consequence of many
> variables, including environmental change and mismanagement.  Despite the
> uncertainties surrounding the estimates of harp seal numbers and the
> uncertainty surrounding many other variables, the Canadian model does not
> apply a precautionary principle and so threatens the survival of seal 
> populations.
> ..'
> http://www.boycott-canada.com/assets/docs/Harp%20seal%20modelling%20report%20final%20final.doc
>
>> The
>> ARAs then claim the pre-commercial population was 30 million for a phoney
>> "contrast" and this is propagated by ARAs as "common knowledge" without a
>> shred of proof.  When I look at all of your ARA propaganda, I cannot find
>> content that is actual FACT. Opinion are like assholes - everyone has 
>> one.
>
> That was and is an outstanding example of your blatant deceit and
> I'm only too happy to repost what you were forced to snip away, ...
>
> 'While some have declared that seal populations today are at "historic
> highs," this does not ring true since there are indications that a
> population of around 40 million seals lived in this part of the world
> prior to the arrival of the Europeans (15) ..
> 15. Farley Mowat, 1984. Sea of Slaughter. Toronto: Bantam Books.
> http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm

Where are the FACTS, pearlie?  Either you're a complete idiot, or you're 
taking me for one, because "indication" is just a word in a dictionary.  I 
need to see the study, the data, the scientific analysis... everything used 
to support the claim... before I can judge whether Mowat knew what he was 
talking about.  This is what I'm getting at, you're ready to accept a number 
claimed by Mowat without question, while

> Not all pages in "Sea of Slaughter" are accessible, but we have this:
>
> 'When, in the late 1970s, Mowat bought an old farmhouse near the sea,
> on Nova Scotia's beautiful Cape Breton Island, he became increasingly
> aware in that setting that all forms of wildlife were imperiled. 
> Determined
> to do a thorough investigation of the wildlife of the Eastern Seaboard of
> North America from 1500 on, after five years he published his carefully
> documented Sea of Slaughter (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985). Detailing
> the devastating destruction of wildlife on the Eastern Seaboard since the
> coming of the Europeans, Mowat cited such examples as the Eastern
> wood buffalo that once roamed freely in the woodlands of New England
> and northeastern Canada and the Eskimo curlew, a bird that once
> numbered in the tens of millions but is today virtually extinct. After
> Mowat had a computer specialist analyze the raw data he had compiled,
> they came to the astounding conclusion that Western man has destroyed
> 80 to 90 percent of wildlife on the Atlantic seaboard and its immediate
> adjacent interior.
> ..'
> http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461575494/profile_of_farley_mowat.html
>
> Key terms: carefully documented; raw data; computer specialist; analysis.

My god... do you think I'm really that simple?  Where are the FACTS... I 
want FACTS about animal populations.  Where can I see the data, the source, 
the methods and the computer models used to make the calculations?  If this 
evidence is so important to the ARAs case, then why hasn't Mowat provided 
his data and research to them?

Mowat has admitted that a lot of his work is fiction (stuff that wasn't 
meant to be) and that he doesn't let facts get in the way of "the truth." 
To put it bluntly, Mowat is not a scientist and his credibility has been 
tarnished after having some of his fibs exposed.

>> Give me peer-reviewed studies and research done by real scientists and
>> experts... not emotionally-driven pseudo science engineered for maximum
>> fundraising potential.
>
> I'd quit throwing stones if I were you.  Too late though really, innit.

You threw the first stone by starting this thread, and now you seem 
genuinely surprised why Canadians are defending the hunt.  I guess when it 
comes down to is we need more than ARA emotionalism to be convinced of 
something.

"Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:526Pj.1143$XI1.220@edtnps91...
>
> "pearl"  wrote in message
> news:fuik8l$3f3$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> > news:is3Pj.1112$XI1.136@edtnps91...
> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
> >> news:fuidt6$la$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> >> > news:4Q1Pj.1088$XI1.127@edtnps91...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
> >> >> news:fuht9q$p6c$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> >> >> > news:J_KOj.790$XI1.107@edtnps91...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Commercial seal hunting is scientific and conducted with no less
> >> >> >> care,
> >> >> >> awareness and concern for animal welfare than German sport hunters
> >> >> >> have
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> their own wildlife.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 'Shock pictures: Is this what the Canadian government means by
> >> >> > 'humane' slaughter?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > By DANNY PENMAN -
> >> >> > 3rd April 2008
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The baby seal looks into the eyes of her executioner. Barely a flicker of
> >> >> > emotion shows on the fisherman's face as he smashes a steel-tipped club
> >> >> > into her mouth. She lies whimpering on the ice, blood pouring from her
> >> >> > jaw and nose.
> >> >>
> >> >> HALIFAX - An environmental crusader at the centre of the anti-sealing
> >> >> movement is standing by comments he made 30 years ago in which he
> >> >> rebuked
> >> >> other conservation groups for exploiting harp seals for profit.
> >> >
> >> > Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> Not at all.  It's meant to illustrate the demonization tactics of"Danny
> >> Penman" which contrast with Paul Watson admission it's all about money
> >> for ARAs.
> >
> > Danny Penman is a reporter with the Daily Mail, you dumb pillock.
>
>
> Poor pearlie... unable to think critically. In Danny's own words:
>
> First:

Second actually.

'Sad to say, this pitiful scene was far from unique when I visited the Canadian
ice floes last weekend to see whether the introduction of new rules designed to
make the country's annual seal cull "humane" have been properly implemented.

Under these regulations, a pup must first be shot or battered into
unconsciousness.

The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" before
slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to "bleed out"
before it can be skinned.
..
>     "Having travelled to Nova Scotia to investigate the slaughter at close
> range, I can say categorically that the new rules are being completely
> ignored by the fishermen."

They are not even paying lip service to them.

To make matters worse, not only are the Canadian authorities making no
attempts to enforce the legislation, they are also desperately trying to
prevent the media and other observers witnessing what really goes on.
..
I witnessed dozens of seals being battered to death.

At "best" only one was killed in full accordance with the new regulations.
About a quarter were tested for death before being skinned but we saw
only one pup having its arteries sliced open and left to "bleed out".'

> Then:

The article begins.

'The baby seal looks into the eyes of her executioner. Barely a flicker of
emotion shows on the fisherman's face as he smashes a steel-tipped club
into her mouth. She lies whimpering on the ice, blood pouring from her
jaw and nose.

But she is not yet dead, so the sealer hits her in the face another four times
before slamming a hooked "hakapik" club into her stomach and dragging
her across the ice towards the ship.

Yet even this savagery is not enough to kill the poor creature.

>     "A few seconds later, the pup starts wriggling furiously. She is clearly
> still alive, though in terrible agony. The fisherman smashes her head
> another three times.
>
>     I pray to myself that she is dead before she is skinned - but from where
> I am standing, it is impossible to tell."
>
> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically"
> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with his
> own words.

You took a couple of short cites, and put them in the wrong order.

But with regards to this poor seal, you must be saying that rules
permit smashing pups in the face, and not checking that a seal is
dead or has even been given a degree of cerebral injury sufficient
to ensure irreversible loss of consciousness before being hooked
and dragged.  Is that what you're saying?  Looks like it from here.
Talk about critical thinking and shooting one's own credibility..

> The veterinary experts have stated the "wriggling" is swim reflex, just like
> a chicken manages to fly away into the air with its head missing.  This is a
> case where an observer sees an animal reflexively moving and perceives that
> the animal is making those motions consciously.  Perception and reality for
> ARAs are two different things.  Danny sees one thing, the CVMA veterinary
> experts see another.

So here you're claiming that bashing in a seal's face can kill them?
Can you cite any CVMA veterinarians who concur with that view?

..
> > You're tarring the entire movement comprised of numerous groups
> > and individuals with the same brush.  IFAW and HSUS aren't ARA.
> >
> > Rebecca Aldworth who leads the HSUS effort is right there and
> > even hails from there.  She's working for it  T-O  E-N-D.  Get it?
>
> Aldworth milked the hakapik as "cruel and inhuman device" for all it was
> worth, then when the premiers propsed its ban she changed her mind about the
> hakapik.  Now she claims the proposed ban is for "the sake of optics."  She
> wanted to end the use of the hakapik... then she didn't... credibility is
> definitely not one of her strong points.

Get it straight.. she's saying it's preferable to shooting, not kind!

> >> >> Watson also insisted that the sustainability of the harp seal
> >> >> population -
> >> >> estimated at 5.5 million by federal officials - is imperilled, even
> >> >> though
> >> >> the species is still not on any endangered species list.
> >> >
> >> > You now regard Paul Watson as credible, remember.  Farley Mowat:
> >>
> >> I now regard Paul Watson as someone who discredited himself in a rather
> >> big
> >> way.
> >
> > Boot's very firmly on the other foot, as you should well know.
>
> Watson discredited himself and so did Aldworth over the hakapik.

Wrong.

> These guys
> are exploiting YOU and laughing all the way to the bank.

Rubbish.

..
> >> (as you acknowledge above) the seal populations are on the increase.
> >
> > Where do I acknowledge it?  It's you who's completely out to lunch, mate.
> >
> > We don't lie.
> >
> > From a 2005 paper.
> >
> > 'Harp seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modelling populations
> > with uncertainty
> > by Prof. Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury & Graziella Iossa
> > School of Biological Science, University of Bristol, UK
> >
> > Summary
> >
> > For the past six years, nearly 400,000 harp seals from the Northwest Atlantic
> > population have been hunted annually by Canada and Greenland, the highest
> > number since the 1950s.  When such hunting pressure last occurred, the harp
> > seal population declined rapidly by over 50%.  With current levels of hunting
> > pressure being so high, it is important to have accurate information about the
> > total harp seal population size and the subsequent effects of differing hunting
> > strategies.  Therefore, in this report we evaluate the scientific model used by
> > the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to estimate harp seal
> > population size, set harp seal total allowable catches (TACs) and model the
> > effect of different culling pressure.
> > .....
> > In their 2000 stock assessment for harp seals, the DFO predicted a decline
> > in the population (from the estimated 5.2 million) over the following years as
> > a result of high kill levels in the commercial seal hunt. This is not surprising
> > considering that between one third and one half of all pups born in the
> > population over the past ten years have been slaughtered. Yet four years
> > later, the DFO estimated the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population at 5.9
> > million seals - an increase of 0.7 million. This contradicts the DFO's own
> > predictions and highlights the unreliability of the model used to predict the
> > size of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population. This harp seal
> > population may already be approaching the 70% level [3.6m] advocated by
> > the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The DFO says that it is committed
> > to maintaining the population above this reference point.
> > ..
> > Total allowable catches (TACs)
> > The TACs are calculated from the population estimates.  However, as noted
> > by several authors, the reported total catch is not the total number of
> > individuals killed (Johnston & Santillo, 2005). For example, in 1999 the
> > TAC set by the Canadian government was 275,000 harp seals.  However,
> > incorporating all mortality sources (hunted, struck and lost, fisheries related
> > mortality), total anthropogenic removal was 483,000 harp seals, of which
> > 281,000 were pups.  Given the dramatic unreliability of harp seal population
> > estimates, the uncertainty surrounding environmental related mortality and
> > two non-cooperating fisheries (Canada and Greenland), such high levels of
> > removals are unsustainable.  This has been noted in previous scientific
> > meetings, where total catches were higher than replacement yields.
> > Previously, when total removals were so high - around 350,000 seals per
> > annum - the harp seal population crashed dramatically to below 1,800,000
> > and only recovered when total removals were reduced significantly.
> >
> > · Several other Canadian fisheries have collapsed as a consequence of many
> > variables, including environmental change and mismanagement.  Despite the
> > uncertainties surrounding the estimates of harp seal numbers and the
> > uncertainty surrounding many other variables, the Canadian model does not
> > apply a precautionary principle and so threatens the survival of seal
> > populations.
> > ..'
> > http://www.boycott-canada.com/assets/docs/Harp%20seal%20modelling%20report%20final%20final.doc

You need to address this, nomsky.

> >> The
> >> ARAs then claim the pre-commercial population was 30 million for a phoney
> >> "contrast" and this is propagated by ARAs as "common knowledge" without a
> >> shred of proof.  When I look at all of your ARA propaganda, I cannot find
> >> content that is actual FACT. Opinion are like assholes - everyone has
> >> one.
> >
> > That was and is an outstanding example of your blatant deceit and
> > I'm only too happy to repost what you were forced to snip away, ...
> >
> > 'While some have declared that seal populations today are at "historic
> > highs," this does not ring true since there are indications that a
> > population of around 40 million seals lived in this part of the world
> > prior to the arrival of the Europeans (15) ..
> > 15. Farley Mowat, 1984. Sea of Slaughter. Toronto: Bantam Books.
> > http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm
>
> Where are the FACTS, pearlie?  Either you're a complete idiot, or you're
> taking me for one, because "indication" is just a word in a dictionary.

Apparently, I am indeed talking to a complete idiot.

'indication
Thesaurus
Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the
existence or presence of something else: badge, evidence, index,
indicator, manifestation, mark, note, sign, signification, stamp,
symptom, token, witness. See show/hide.
..'
http://www.answers.com/indication&r=67

> I
> need to see the study, the data, the scientific analysis... everything used
> to support the claim... before I can judge whether Mowat knew what he was
> talking about.  This is what I'm getting at, you're ready to accept a number
> claimed by Mowat without question, while

Read what you can of "Sea of Slaughter" ( http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 ).

> > Not all pages in "Sea of Slaughter" are accessible, but we have this:
> >
> > 'When, in the late 1970s, Mowat bought an old farmhouse near the sea,
> > on Nova Scotia's beautiful Cape Breton Island, he became increasingly
> > aware in that setting that all forms of wildlife were imperiled.
> > Determined
> > to do a thorough investigation of the wildlife of the Eastern Seaboard of
> > North America from 1500 on, after five years he published his carefully
> > documented Sea of Slaughter (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985). Detailing
> > the devastating destruction of wildlife on the Eastern Seaboard since the
> > coming of the Europeans, Mowat cited such examples as the Eastern
> > wood buffalo that once roamed freely in the woodlands of New England
> > and northeastern Canada and the Eskimo curlew, a bird that once
> > numbered in the tens of millions but is today virtually extinct. After
> > Mowat had a computer specialist analyze the raw data he had compiled,
> > they came to the astounding conclusion that Western man has destroyed
> > 80 to 90 percent of wildlife on the Atlantic seaboard and its immediate
> > adjacent interior.
> > ..'
> > http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461575494/profile_of_farley_mowat.html
> >
> > Key terms: carefully documented; raw data; computer specialist; analysis.
>
> My god... do you think I'm really that simple?  Where are the FACTS... I
> want FACTS about animal populations.  Where can I see the data, the source,
> the methods and the computer models used to make the calculations?  If this
> evidence is so important to the ARAs case, then why hasn't Mowat provided
> his data and research to them?

"Sea of Slaughter" http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 .  Work it out for yourself.

> Mowat has admitted that a lot of his work is fiction (stuff that wasn't
> meant to be) and that he doesn't let facts get in the way of "the truth."
> To put it bluntly, Mowat is not a scientist and his credibility has been
> tarnished after having some of his fibs exposed.

Provide proof to back those allegations, or apologise and retract them.

> >> Give me peer-reviewed studies and research done by real scientists and
> >> experts... not emotionally-driven pseudo science engineered for maximum
> >> fundraising potential.
> >
> > I'd quit throwing stones if I were you.  Too late though really, innit.
>
> You threw the first stone by starting this thread, and now you seem
> genuinely surprised why Canadians are defending the hunt.  I guess when it
> comes down to is we need more than ARA emotionalism to be convinced of
> something.

Most Canadians want it stopped.  And you've been given the facts.

"pearl"  wrote in message 
news:fukk23$v7b$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message 
> news:526Pj.1143$XI1.220@edtnps91...
>>
>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> news:fuik8l$3f3$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> > news:is3Pj.1112$XI1.136@edtnps91...
>> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> >> news:fuidt6$la$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> >> > news:4Q1Pj.1088$XI1.127@edtnps91...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> >> >> news:fuht9q$p6c$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:J_KOj.790$XI1.107@edtnps91...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Commercial seal hunting is scientific and conducted with no less
>> >> >> >> care,
>> >> >> >> awareness and concern for animal welfare than German sport 
>> >> >> >> hunters
>> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> for
>> >> >> >> their own wildlife.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 'Shock pictures: Is this what the Canadian government means by
>> >> >> > 'humane' slaughter?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > By DANNY PENMAN -
>> >> >> > 3rd April 2008
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The baby seal looks into the eyes of her executioner. Barely a 
>> >> >> > flicker of
>> >> >> > emotion shows on the fisherman's face as he smashes a 
>> >> >> > steel-tipped club
>> >> >> > into her mouth. She lies whimpering on the ice, blood pouring 
>> >> >> > from her
>> >> >> > jaw and nose.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> HALIFAX - An environmental crusader at the centre of the 
>> >> >> anti-sealing
>> >> >> movement is standing by comments he made 30 years ago in which he
>> >> >> rebuked
>> >> >> other conservation groups for exploiting harp seals for profit.
>> >> >
>> >> > Non sequitur.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all.  It's meant to illustrate the demonization tactics 
>> >> of"Danny
>> >> Penman" which contrast with Paul Watson admission it's all about money
>> >> for ARAs.
>> >
>> > Danny Penman is a reporter with the Daily Mail, you dumb pillock.
>>
>>
>> Poor pearlie... unable to think critically. In Danny's own words:
>>
>> First:
>
> Second actually.
>
> 'Sad to say, this pitiful scene was far from unique when I visited the 
> Canadian
> ice floes last weekend to see whether the introduction of new rules 
> designed to
> make the country's annual seal cull "humane" have been properly 
> implemented.
>
> Under these regulations, a pup must first be shot or battered into
> unconsciousness.
>
> The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" 
> before
> slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to 
> "bleed out"
> before it can be skinned.
> ..
>>     "Having travelled to Nova Scotia to investigate the slaughter at 
>> close
>> range, I can say categorically that the new rules are being completely
>> ignored by the fishermen."
>
> They are not even paying lip service to them.
>
> To make matters worse, not only are the Canadian authorities making no
> attempts to enforce the legislation, they are also desperately trying to
> prevent the media and other observers witnessing what really goes on.
> ..
> I witnessed dozens of seals being battered to death.
>
> At "best" only one was killed in full accordance with the new regulations.
> About a quarter were tested for death before being skinned but we saw
> only one pup having its arteries sliced open and left to "bleed out".'
>
>> Then:
>
> The article begins.
>
> 'The baby seal looks into the eyes of her executioner. Barely a flicker of
> emotion shows on the fisherman's face as he smashes a steel-tipped club
> into her mouth. She lies whimpering on the ice, blood pouring from her
> jaw and nose.
>
> But she is not yet dead, so the sealer hits her in the face another four 
> times
> before slamming a hooked "hakapik" club into her stomach and dragging
> her across the ice towards the ship.
>
> Yet even this savagery is not enough to kill the poor creature.
>
>>     "A few seconds later, the pup starts wriggling furiously. She is 
>> clearly
>> still alive, though in terrible agony. The fisherman smashes her head
>> another three times.
>>
>>     I pray to myself that she is dead before she is skinned - but from 
>> where
>> I am standing, it is impossible to tell."
>>
>> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically"
>> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with 
>> his
>> own words.
>
> You took a couple of short cites, and put them in the wrong order.
>
> But with regards to this poor seal, you must be saying that rules
> permit smashing pups in the face, and not checking that a seal is
> dead or has even been given a degree of cerebral injury sufficient
> to ensure irreversible loss of consciousness before being hooked
> and dragged.  Is that what you're saying?  Looks like it from here.
> Talk about critical thinking and shooting one's own credibility..
>
>> The veterinary experts have stated the "wriggling" is swim reflex, just 
>> like
>> a chicken manages to fly away into the air with its head missing.  This 
>> is a
>> case where an observer sees an animal reflexively moving and perceives 
>> that
>> the animal is making those motions consciously.  Perception and reality 
>> for
>> ARAs are two different things.  Danny sees one thing, the CVMA veterinary
>> experts see another.
>
> So here you're claiming that bashing in a seal's face can kill them?
> Can you cite any CVMA veterinarians who concur with that view?

If the intent was deliberate then I would be critical.  Swinging a club has 
natural accuracy issues.  Ever chop wood and miss the block?  You don't 
intend to miss but sometimes it happens.  For Danny to state that the rules 
are being "categorically" ignored is a ridiculous logical fallacy.  It 
implies that he's witnessed every seal death.  He is recounting a single 
instance.  He also admits that he cannot "see" if the seal is dead so his 
judgment is anything but definitive.  The only mistake the hunter made is 
not checking if the seal was dead but after three additional swings of the 
club it was a rather safe assumption.  Still, he should have followed 
procedure and checked.  That is fair criticism.   Danny's "categorical" 
assertion still remains categorically absurd.  I think even you can figure 
out the fallacy of his claim (or can you?)

>> > You're tarring the entire movement comprised of numerous groups
>> > and individuals with the same brush.  IFAW and HSUS aren't ARA.
>> >
>> > Rebecca Aldworth who leads the HSUS effort is right there and
>> > even hails from there.  She's working for it  T-O  E-N-D.  Get it?
>>
>> Aldworth milked the hakapik as "cruel and inhuman device" for all it was
>> worth, then when the premiers propsed its ban she changed her mind about 
>> the
>> hakapik.  Now she claims the proposed ban is for "the sake of optics." 
>> She
>> wanted to end the use of the hakapik... then she didn't... credibility is
>> definitely not one of her strong points.
>
> Get it straight.. she's saying it's preferable to shooting, not kind!

Surveillance and obervation works both ways:

"Animal rights activists are outraged they were caught on tape ignoring a 
dying seal for more than an hour and featured in a documentary on Canada's 
commercial seal hunt, Quebec filmmaker Raoul Jomphe said.

He said the activists were filming a promotional segment for a fundraising 
campaign when the incident occurred.

Mr. Jomphe said Rebecca Aldworth, the Canadian director of wildlife issues 
for the Humane Society of the United States, called him to complain after 
she discovered he had captured the incident on film."

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5a5f1196-f308-4059-8943-d1dcff0ae321


>> >> >> Watson also insisted that the sustainability of the harp seal
>> >> >> population -
>> >> >> estimated at 5.5 million by federal officials - is imperilled, even
>> >> >> though
>> >> >> the species is still not on any endangered species list.
>> >> >
>> >> > You now regard Paul Watson as credible, remember.  Farley Mowat:
>> >>
>> >> I now regard Paul Watson as someone who discredited himself in a 
>> >> rather
>> >> big
>> >> way.
>> >
>> > Boot's very firmly on the other foot, as you should well know.
>>
>> Watson discredited himself and so did Aldworth over the hakapik.
>
> Wrong.

LOL!  Watson admitted in his own words that seals are exploited for ARA 
fundraising.  You are in a complete state of denial.

>> These guys
>> are exploiting YOU and laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> Rubbish.

Millions are made by ARAs exploiting the seal hunt.

 ..
>> >> (as you acknowledge above) the seal populations are on the increase.
>> >
>> > Where do I acknowledge it?  It's you who's completely out to lunch, 
>> > mate.
>> >
>> > We don't lie.
>> >
>> > From a 2005 paper.
>> >
>> > 'Harp seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modelling 
>> > populations
>> > with uncertainty
>> > by Prof. Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury & Graziella Iossa
>> > School of Biological Science, University of Bristol, UK
>> >
>> > Summary
>> >
>> > For the past six years, nearly 400,000 harp seals from the Northwest 
>> > Atlantic
>> > population have been hunted annually by Canada and Greenland, the 
>> > highest
>> > number since the 1950s.  When such hunting pressure last occurred, the 
>> > harp
>> > seal population declined rapidly by over 50%.  With current levels of 
>> > hunting
>> > pressure being so high, it is important to have accurate information 
>> > about the
>> > total harp seal population size and the subsequent effects of differing 
>> > hunting
>> > strategies.  Therefore, in this report we evaluate the scientific model 
>> > used by
>> > the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to estimate harp seal
>> > population size, set harp seal total allowable catches (TACs) and model 
>> > the
>> > effect of different culling pressure.
>> > .....
>> > In their 2000 stock assessment for harp seals, the DFO predicted a 
>> > decline
>> > in the population (from the estimated 5.2 million) over the following 
>> > years as
>> > a result of high kill levels in the commercial seal hunt. This is not 
>> > surprising
>> > considering that between one third and one half of all pups born in the
>> > population over the past ten years have been slaughtered. Yet four 
>> > years
>> > later, the DFO estimated the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population at 
>> > 5.9
>> > million seals - an increase of 0.7 million. This contradicts the DFO's 
>> > own
>> > predictions and highlights the unreliability of the model used to 
>> > predict the
>> > size of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population. This harp seal
>> > population may already be approaching the 70% level [3.6m] advocated by
>> > the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The DFO says that it is 
>> > committed
>> > to maintaining the population above this reference point.
>> > ..
>> > Total allowable catches (TACs)
>> > The TACs are calculated from the population estimates.  However, as 
>> > noted
>> > by several authors, the reported total catch is not the total number of
>> > individuals killed (Johnston & Santillo, 2005). For example, in 1999 
>> > the
>> > TAC set by the Canadian government was 275,000 harp seals.  However,
>> > incorporating all mortality sources (hunted, struck and lost, fisheries 
>> > related
>> > mortality), total anthropogenic removal was 483,000 harp seals, of 
>> > which
>> > 281,000 were pups.  Given the dramatic unreliability of harp seal 
>> > population
>> > estimates, the uncertainty surrounding environmental related mortality 
>> > and
>> > two non-cooperating fisheries (Canada and Greenland), such high levels 
>> > of
>> > removals are unsustainable.  This has been noted in previous scientific
>> > meetings, where total catches were higher than replacement yields.
>> > Previously, when total removals were so high - around 350,000 seals per
>> > annum - the harp seal population crashed dramatically to below 
>> > 1,800,000
>> > and only recovered when total removals were reduced significantly.
>> >
>> > · Several other Canadian fisheries have collapsed as a consequence of 
>> > many
>> > variables, including environmental change and mismanagement.  Despite 
>> > the
>> > uncertainties surrounding the estimates of harp seal numbers and the
>> > uncertainty surrounding many other variables, the Canadian model does 
>> > not
>> > apply a precautionary principle and so threatens the survival of seal
>> > populations.
>> > ..'
>> > http://www.boycott-canada.com/assets/docs/Harp%20seal%20modelling%20report%20final%20final.doc
>
> You need to address this, nomsky.

In-fucking-credible.... you support Farley Mowat's assertion of 40 million 
seals without a shred of evidence, then assert that population modeling is 
an uncertain science at best.  WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?

>> >> The
>> >> ARAs then claim the pre-commercial population was 30 million for a 
>> >> phoney
>> >> "contrast" and this is propagated by ARAs as "common knowledge" 
>> >> without a
>> >> shred of proof.  When I look at all of your ARA propaganda, I cannot 
>> >> find
>> >> content that is actual FACT. Opinion are like assholes - everyone has
>> >> one.
>> >
>> > That was and is an outstanding example of your blatant deceit and
>> > I'm only too happy to repost what you were forced to snip away, ...
>> >
>> > 'While some have declared that seal populations today are at "historic
>> > highs," this does not ring true since there are indications that a
>> > population of around 40 million seals lived in this part of the world
>> > prior to the arrival of the Europeans (15) ..
>> > 15. Farley Mowat, 1984. Sea of Slaughter. Toronto: Bantam Books.
>> > http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm
>>
>> Where are the FACTS, pearlie?  Either you're a complete idiot, or you're
>> taking me for one, because "indication" is just a word in a dictionary.
>
> Apparently, I am indeed talking to a complete idiot.
>
> 'indication
> Thesaurus
> Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the
> existence or presence of something else: badge, evidence, index,
> indicator, manifestation, mark, note, sign, signification, stamp,
> symptom, token, witness. See show/hide.
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/indication&r=67


Now that you've educated youself on the defintion, what are the 
"indications" that Farley Mowat was speaking of?

Now do you understand what I meant?


>> I
>> need to see the study, the data, the scientific analysis... everything 
>> used
>> to support the claim... before I can judge whether Mowat knew what he was
>> talking about.  This is what I'm getting at, you're ready to accept a 
>> number
>> claimed by Mowat without question, while
>
> Read what you can of "Sea of Slaughter" ( http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 ).

No.  The onus is on you to prove your assertion.  I'd be happy to read your 
personal analysis, though, supported by appropriate references.

>> > Not all pages in "Sea of Slaughter" are accessible, but we have this:
>> >
>> > 'When, in the late 1970s, Mowat bought an old farmhouse near the sea,
>> > on Nova Scotia's beautiful Cape Breton Island, he became increasingly
>> > aware in that setting that all forms of wildlife were imperiled.
>> > Determined
>> > to do a thorough investigation of the wildlife of the Eastern Seaboard 
>> > of
>> > North America from 1500 on, after five years he published his carefully
>> > documented Sea of Slaughter (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985). Detailing
>> > the devastating destruction of wildlife on the Eastern Seaboard since 
>> > the
>> > coming of the Europeans, Mowat cited such examples as the Eastern
>> > wood buffalo that once roamed freely in the woodlands of New England
>> > and northeastern Canada and the Eskimo curlew, a bird that once
>> > numbered in the tens of millions but is today virtually extinct. After
>> > Mowat had a computer specialist analyze the raw data he had compiled,
>> > they came to the astounding conclusion that Western man has destroyed
>> > 80 to 90 percent of wildlife on the Atlantic seaboard and its immediate
>> > adjacent interior.
>> > ..'
>> > http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461575494/profile_of_farley_mowat.html
>> >
>> > Key terms: carefully documented; raw data; computer specialist; 
>> > analysis.
>>
>> My god... do you think I'm really that simple?  Where are the FACTS... I
>> want FACTS about animal populations.  Where can I see the data, the 
>> source,
>> the methods and the computer models used to make the calculations?  If 
>> this
>> evidence is so important to the ARAs case, then why hasn't Mowat provided
>> his data and research to them?
>
> "Sea of Slaughter" http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 .  Work it out for yourself.
>
>> Mowat has admitted that a lot of his work is fiction (stuff that wasn't
>> meant to be) and that he doesn't let facts get in the way of "the truth."
>> To put it bluntly, Mowat is not a scientist and his credibility has been
>> tarnished after having some of his fibs exposed.
>
> Provide proof to back those allegations, or apologise and retract them.

"Mowat has encountered controversy in the media, especially after he was in 
the forefront of protest against American cruise missile testing in Canada. 
His activism famously led Ronald Reagan's administration to deny him entry 
from Canada to the U.S. for a routine speaking engagement; but the resultant 
public outcry in the U.S. eventually forced the Reagan administration to 
back down.

The Toronto Star has written that Mowat's memoirs are at least partially 
fictional. In a 1968 interview with CBC Radio, Farley admitted that he 
doesn't let the facts get in the way of the truth (Canada Reads). Once, when 
Mowat said that he had spent two summers and a winter studying wolves, the 
Toronto Star wrote that Mowat had only spent 90 hours studying the wolves. 
This hurt Mowat's reputation.

An article in the May, 1996 issue of Saturday Night written by John Goddard 
lays out a somewhat more in-depth criticism of Farley's celebrated works, 
especially Never Cry Wolf. In an interview during the flap over the article, 
Mowat admitted that his books are "thinly-veiled fiction".  As a result of 
these persistent and recurring claims, it is difficult to say with authority 
whether some of Farley's books, billed by many as non-fiction, are just 
that.

L. David Mech, an internationally recognized wolf expert who has researched 
wolves since 1958 in places such as Minnesota, Canada, Italy, Alaska, 
Yellowstone National Park, and on Isle Royale, stated that Mowat is not a 
scientist and that in all his studies, he had never encountered a wolf pack 
which regularly subsisted on small prey as shown in Mowat's book.

However, in Never Cry Wolf, Mowat does not suggest that the wolves he writes 
about subsist regularily on mice; only that they kill caribou in much 
smaller numbers than had been previously reported and that their diet was 
supplemented with small prey."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farley_Mowat#Criticism


>> >> Give me peer-reviewed studies and research done by real scientists and
>> >> experts... not emotionally-driven pseudo science engineered for 
>> >> maximum
>> >> fundraising potential.
>> >
>> > I'd quit throwing stones if I were you.  Too late though really, innit.
>>
>> You threw the first stone by starting this thread, and now you seem
>> genuinely surprised why Canadians are defending the hunt.  I guess when 
>> it
>> comes down to is we need more than ARA emotionalism to be convinced of
>> something.
>
> Most Canadians want it stopped.  And you've been given the facts.

You've made a lot of the standard ARA assertions but you haven't established 
any of them as factual.  I need FACTS to be convinced and you haven't 
provided any.  To coin Wiley Coyote, "back to the old drawing board" for 
you.

And... why do you care how many Canadians support the seal hunt?  You don't 
believe in democracy.

"Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:mAoPj.1196$PM5.315@edtnps92...
> "pearl"  wrote in message
..
> > The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" before
> > slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to "bleed out"
> > before it can be skinned.
> > ..
> >>     "Having travelled to Nova Scotia to investigate the slaughter at close
> >> range, I can say categorically that the new rules are being completely
> >> ignored by the fishermen."
> >
> > They are not even paying lip service to them.
> >
> > To make matters worse, not only are the Canadian authorities making no
> > attempts to enforce the legislation, they are also desperately trying to
> > prevent the media and other observers witnessing what really goes on.
> > ..
> > I witnessed dozens of seals being battered to death.
> >
> > At "best" only one was killed in full accordance with the new regulations.
> > About a quarter were tested for death before being skinned but we saw
> > only one pup having its arteries sliced open and left to "bleed out".'
> >
> >> Then:
> >
> > The article begins.
> >
> > 'The baby seal looks into the eyes of her executioner. Barely a flicker of
> > emotion shows on the fisherman's face as he smashes a steel-tipped club
> > into her mouth. She lies whimpering on the ice, blood pouring from her
> > jaw and nose.
> >
> > But she is not yet dead, so the sealer hits her in the face another four times
> > before slamming a hooked "hakapik" club into her stomach and dragging
> > her across the ice towards the ship.
> >
> > Yet even this savagery is not enough to kill the poor creature.
> >
> >>     "A few seconds later, the pup starts wriggling furiously. She is clearly
> >> still alive, though in terrible agony. The fisherman smashes her head
> >> another three times.
> >>
> >>     I pray to myself that she is dead before she is skinned - but from
> >> where I am standing, it is impossible to tell."
> >>
> >> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically"
> >> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with
> >> his own words.

'Phil Jenkins, a spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in
Ottawa, says the new rules require hunters to sever the arteries under a
seal's flippers, thereby ensuring seals are dead before they are skinned. '
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=cp_fsca35rr661&show_article=1

> > But with regards to this poor seal, you must be saying that rules
> > permit smashing pups in the face, and not checking that a seal is
> > dead or has even been given a degree of cerebral injury sufficient
> > to ensure irreversible loss of consciousness before being hooked
> > and dragged.  Is that what you're saying?  Looks like it from here.
> > Talk about critical thinking and shooting one's own credibility..

Indeed:

'EFSA (European Food and Safety Authority) Recommendation: Seals
should not be moved, i.e. gaffed [hooked], hauled, or moved. until it
has been confirmed that they are dead or irreversibly unconscious.

Truth: Under the current Canadian legislation, it is legal to hook seals
before they have been checked for unconscousness or death. The
hooking of live and conscious seals in Canada's commercial seal hunt
has been recorded on numerous occasions.
...'
http://blog.stopthesealhunt.com/2008/01/ifaw-wonders-wh.html

Any claims made about "humaneness" are just dust in the wind.

You do understand this, right?

> >> The veterinary experts have stated the "wriggling" is swim reflex, just
> >> like
> >> a chicken manages to fly away into the air with its head missing.  This
> >> is a
> >> case where an observer sees an animal reflexively moving and perceives
> >> that
> >> the animal is making those motions consciously.  Perception and reality
> >> for
> >> ARAs are two different things.  Danny sees one thing, the CVMA veterinary
> >> experts see another.
> >
> > So here you're claiming that bashing in a seal's face can kill them?
> > Can you cite any CVMA veterinarians who concur with that view?
>
> If the intent was deliberate then I would be critical.  Swinging a club has
> natural accuracy issues.  Ever chop wood and miss the block?  You don't
> intend to miss but sometimes it happens.

Ditto.  Dust in the wind.  Stop being an apologist for this cruelty.

> For Danny to state that the rules
> are being "categorically" ignored is a ridiculous logical fallacy.  It
> implies that he's witnessed every seal death.  He is recounting a single
> instance.  He also admits that he cannot "see" if the seal is dead so his
> judgment is anything but definitive.  The only mistake the hunter made is
> not checking if the seal was dead but after three additional swings of the
> club it was a rather safe assumption.  Still, he should have followed
> procedure and checked.  That is fair criticism.   Danny's "categorical"
> assertion still remains categorically absurd.  I think even you can figure
> out the fallacy of his claim (or can you?)

Just stop it will you.  You're wrong, and the world is rightly appalled.

> >> > You're tarring the entire movement comprised of numerous groups
> >> > and individuals with the same brush.  IFAW and HSUS aren't ARA.
> >> >
> >> > Rebecca Aldworth who leads the HSUS effort is right there and
> >> > even hails from there.  She's working for it  T-O  E-N-D.  Get it?
> >>
> >> Aldworth milked the hakapik as "cruel and inhuman device" for all it was
> >> worth, then when the premiers propsed its ban she changed her mind about
> >> the
> >> hakapik.  Now she claims the proposed ban is for "the sake of optics."
> >> She
> >> wanted to end the use of the hakapik... then she didn't... credibility is
> >> definitely not one of her strong points.
> >
> > Get it straight.. she's saying it's preferable to shooting, not kind!
>
> Surveillance and obervation works both ways:
>
> "Animal rights activists are outraged they were caught on tape ignoring a
> dying seal for more than an hour and featured in a documentary on Canada's
> commercial seal hunt, Quebec filmmaker Raoul Jomphe said.
>
> He said the activists were filming a promotional segment for a fundraising
> campaign when the incident occurred.
>
> Mr. Jomphe said Rebecca Aldworth, the Canadian director of wildlife issues
> for the Humane Society of the United States, called him to complain after
> she discovered he had captured the incident on film."
>
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5a5f1196-f308-4059-8943-d1dcff0ae321

'Activists mull suit to block seal-hunt documentary
Mike De Souza ,  CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2007

OTTAWA - Animal-rights activists are considering legal action to block
a controversial documentary on Canada's commercial seal hunt on RDI,
the CBC's French-language news network.

Phoques, le film, (Seals, the movie), produced by Quebec filmmaker
Raoul Jomphe, has ruffled feathers at the Humane Society of the United
States, because of a scene showing members of the group watching a
dying seal for more than an hour as they filmed a promotional video of
the hunt on ice floes in Atlantic Canada.

But Rebecca Aldworth, the director of Canadian wildlife issues for the
Humane Society, said the scene was edited in a way that distorts what
happened, and their lawyer has sent a letter to CBC asking it to take a
look at the complete footage to ensure the documentary is balanced
before it is scheduled to be broadcast on March 29.

Although Jomphe criticized the animal-rights group for not euthanizing
the seal, Aldworth said that would have meant breaking the law.

"What he (Jomphe) doesn't tell you is that it would have been illegal for
us to do so," she said Monday.

"Under the marine mammal regulations, only people with sealing licences
can kill seals. But more importantly, we didn't have the means or the
equipment or the expertise to do that in a way that would not simply
increase that animal's suffering."

Aldworth said she initially decided not to rescue the seal, because she
believed it wouldn't survive a helicopter ride to a veterinary hospital.
More than an hour later, she said she realized it could be treated.

"Just as we were making arrangements to fly this seal back, the sealers
came back and clubbed a lot of live seals in the area, including this one,
and stabbed it through the skull with a metal spike," she said. "We go
up there to protect these animals and to try and stop this hunt, because
this is something that happens so frequently in the course of this
slaughter ... and to have somebody edit a sequence of events to suggest
that we would ever prolong the suffering of an animal to get video footage
is obscene."

She added that there were numerous inaccuracies in the documentary,
including suggestions that the president of the Humane Society earns a
salary of about $500,000, which she said is nearly twice the actual amount.

Guylaine O'Farrell, a spokeswoman for CBC, said the public broadcaster
could delay the documentary's air date if necessary, but explained this is
part of a normal, in-house review process.

"It's for sure that we always reserve the right to make changes," she said.
"The broadcast date is not finalized for now."

Meantime, Jomphe said he doesn't think anything needs to be changed in
the movie, which was presented at a special screening for employees of
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last week in Ottawa.

"The images speak for themselves," he said, pointing out that he included
Aldworth's explanation about wanting to transport the seal to a hospital.
"When they take images of hunters, they do editing, and that's what we see
... and suddenly she's all offended that she's being filmed in that way."

Aldworth compared the incident to being in a war zone with people dying,
and no equipment or means to help them. "There are no right answers for
the seals in those situations and that's why we're trying to shut this down,"
she said.

© CanWest News Service 2007
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c657d40b-58b3-4ded-9cea-d28a6fa50b4f&k=37631

> >> >> >> Watson also insisted that the sustainability of the harp seal
> >> >> >> population -
> >> >> >> estimated at 5.5 million by federal officials - is imperilled, even
> >> >> >> though
> >> >> >> the species is still not on any endangered species list.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You now regard Paul Watson as credible, remember.  Farley Mowat:
> >> >>
> >> >> I now regard Paul Watson as someone who discredited himself in a
> >> >> rather
> >> >> big
> >> >> way.
> >> >
> >> > Boot's very firmly on the other foot, as you should well know.
> >>
> >> Watson discredited himself and so did Aldworth over the hakapik.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> LOL!  Watson admitted in his own words that seals are exploited for ARA
> fundraising.  You are in a complete state of denial.

I don't see what this has to do with the 'hunt', or their credibility.

> >> These guys
> >> are exploiting YOU and laughing all the way to the bank.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> Millions are made by ARAs exploiting the seal hunt.

I'd actually like to thank the HSUS and IFAW for everything
they've done and continue to do to get this slaughter banned.

>  ..
> >> >> (as you acknowledge above) the seal populations are on the increase.
> >> >
> >> > Where do I acknowledge it?  It's you who's completely out to lunch,
> >> > mate.
> >> >
> >> > We don't lie.
> >> >
> >> > From a 2005 paper.
> >> >
> >> > 'Harp seal populations in the northwestern Atlantic: modelling
> >> > populations with uncertainty
> >> > by Prof. Stephen Harris, Carl D. Soulsbury & Graziella Iossa
> >> > School of Biological Science, University of Bristol, UK
> >> >
> >> > Summary
> >> >
> >> > For the past six years, nearly 400,000 harp seals from the Northwest Atlantic
> >> > population have been hunted annually by Canada and Greenland, the highest
> >> > number since the 1950s.  When such hunting pressure last occurred, the harp
> >> > seal population declined rapidly by over 50%.  With current levels of hunting
> >> > pressure being so high, it is important to have accurate information about the
> >> > total harp seal population size and the subsequent effects of differing hunting
> >> > strategies.  Therefore, in this report we evaluate the scientific model used by
> >> > the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to estimate harp seal
> >> > population size, set harp seal total allowable catches (TACs) and model the
> >> > effect of different culling pressure.
> >> > .....
> >> > In their 2000 stock assessment for harp seals, the DFO predicted a decline
> >> > in the population (from the estimated 5.2 million) over the following years as
> >> > a result of high kill levels in the commercial seal hunt. This is not surprising
> >> > considering that between one third and one half of all pups born in the
> >> > population over the past ten years have been slaughtered. Yet four years
> >> > later, the DFO estimated the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population at 5.9
> >> > million seals - an increase of 0.7 million. This contradicts the DFO's own
> >> > predictions and highlights the unreliability of the model used to predict the
> >> > size of the Northwest Atlantic harp seal population. This harp seal
> >> > population may already be approaching the 70% level [3.6m] advocated by
> >> > the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The DFO says that it is committed
> >> > to maintaining the population above this reference point.
> >> > ..
> >> > Total allowable catches (TACs)
> >> >
> >> > The TACs are calculated from the population estimates.  However, as noted
> >> > by several authors, the reported total catch is not the total number of
> >> > individuals killed (Johnston & Santillo, 2005). For example, in 1999 the
> >> > TAC set by the Canadian government was 275,000 harp seals.  However,
> >> > incorporating all mortality sources (hunted, struck and lost, fisheries related
> >> > mortality), total anthropogenic removal was 483,000 harp seals, of which
> >> > 281,000 were pups.  Given the dramatic unreliability of harp seal population
> >> > estimates, the uncertainty surrounding environmental related mortality and
> >> > two non-cooperating fisheries (Canada and Greenland), such high levels of
> >> > removals are unsustainable.  This has been noted in previous scientific
> >> > meetings, where total catches were higher than replacement yields.
> >> > Previously, when total removals were so high - around 350,000 seals per
> >> > annum - the harp seal population crashed dramatically to below 1,800,000
> >> > and only recovered when total removals were reduced significantly.
> >> >
> >> > · Several other Canadian fisheries have collapsed as a consequence of many
> >> > variables, including environmental change and mismanagement.  Despite the
> >> > uncertainties surrounding the estimates of harp seal numbers and the
> >> > uncertainty surrounding many other variables, the Canadian model does not
> >> > apply a precautionary principle and so threatens the survival of seal populations.
> >> > ..'
> >> > http://www.boycott-canada.com/assets/docs/Harp%20seal%20modelling%20report%20final%20final.doc
> >
> > You need to address this, nomsky.
>
> In-fucking-credible.... you support Farley Mowat's assertion of 40 million
> seals without a shred of evidence, then assert that population modeling is
> an uncertain science at best.  WTF ARE YOU SMOKING?

Gotcha! again.  Who do you think is going to be fooled by this evasion?
In truth, there's NOTHING you /can/ say.  Cat's out of the bag.. the horse
has bolted, kettle's boiling, and pro-hunt 'science' is proven to be bogus!!

> >> >> The
> >> >> ARAs then claim the pre-commercial population was 30 million for a
> >> >> phoney
> >> >> "contrast" and this is propagated by ARAs as "common knowledge"
> >> >> without a
> >> >> shred of proof.  When I look at all of your ARA propaganda, I cannot
> >> >> find
> >> >> content that is actual FACT. Opinion are like assholes - everyone has
> >> >> one.
> >> >
> >> > That was and is an outstanding example of your blatant deceit and
> >> > I'm only too happy to repost what you were forced to snip away, ...
> >> >
> >> > 'While some have declared that seal populations today are at "historic
> >> > highs," this does not ring true since there are indications that a
> >> > population of around 40 million seals lived in this part of the world
> >> > prior to the arrival of the Europeans (15) ..
> >> > 15. Farley Mowat, 1984. Sea of Slaughter. Toronto: Bantam Books.
> >> > http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm
> >>
> >> Where are the FACTS, pearlie?  Either you're a complete idiot, or you're
> >> taking me for one, because "indication" is just a word in a dictionary.
> >
> > Apparently, I am indeed talking to a complete idiot.
> >
> > 'indication
> > Thesaurus
> > Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the
> > existence or presence of something else: badge, evidence, index,
> > indicator, manifestation, mark, note, sign, signification, stamp,
> > symptom, token, witness. See show/hide.
> > ..'
> > http://www.answers.com/indication&r=67
>
>
> Now that you've educated youself on the defintion, what are the
> "indications" that Farley Mowat was speaking of?
>
> Now do you understand what I meant?

Read what you can of "Sea of Slaughter" ( http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 ).

There are figures therein.  I'm trying to get hold of the missing pages.

> >> I
> >> need to see the study, the data, the scientific analysis... everything
> >> used
> >> to support the claim... before I can judge whether Mowat knew what he was
> >> talking about.  This is what I'm getting at, you're ready to accept a
> >> number
> >> claimed by Mowat without question, while
> >
> > Read what you can of "Sea of Slaughter" ( http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 ).
>
> No.  The onus is on you to prove your assertion.  I'd be happy to read your
> personal analysis, though, supported by appropriate references.

You NEED to read that book.  It should be *compulsary* reading.

> >> > Not all pages in "Sea of Slaughter" are accessible, but we have this:
> >> >
> >> > 'When, in the late 1970s, Mowat bought an old farmhouse near the sea,
> >> > on Nova Scotia's beautiful Cape Breton Island, he became increasingly
> >> > aware in that setting that all forms of wildlife were imperiled. Determined
> >> > to do a thorough investigation of the wildlife of the Eastern Seaboard of
> >> > North America from 1500 on, after five years he published his carefully
> >> > documented Sea of Slaughter (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1985). Detailing
> >> > the devastating destruction of wildlife on the Eastern Seaboard since the
> >> > coming of the Europeans, Mowat cited such examples as the Eastern
> >> > wood buffalo that once roamed freely in the woodlands of New England
> >> > and northeastern Canada and the Eskimo curlew, a bird that once
> >> > numbered in the tens of millions but is today virtually extinct. After
> >> > Mowat had a computer specialist analyze the raw data he had compiled,
> >> > they came to the astounding conclusion that Western man has destroyed
> >> > 80 to 90 percent of wildlife on the Atlantic seaboard and its immediate
> >> > adjacent interior.
> >> > ..'
> >> > http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461575494/profile_of_farley_mowat.html
> >> >
> >> > Key terms: carefully documented; raw data; computer specialist;
> >> > analysis.
> >>
> >> My god... do you think I'm really that simple?  Where are the FACTS... I
> >> want FACTS about animal populations.  Where can I see the data, the
> >> source,
> >> the methods and the computer models used to make the calculations?  If
> >> this
> >> evidence is so important to the ARAs case, then why hasn't Mowat provided
> >> his data and research to them?
> >
> > "Sea of Slaughter" http://tinyurl.com/6gskm4 .  Work it out for yourself.
> >
> >> Mowat has admitted that a lot of his work is fiction (stuff that wasn't
> >> meant to be) and that he doesn't let facts get in the way of "the truth."
> >> To put it bluntly, Mowat is not a scientist and his credibility has been
> >> tarnished after having some of his fibs exposed.
> >
> > Provide proof to back those allegations, or apologise and retract them.
>
> "Mowat has encountered controversy in the media, especially after he was in
> the forefront of protest against American cruise missile testing in Canada.
> His activism famously led Ronald Reagan's administration to deny him entry
> from Canada to the U.S. for a routine speaking engagement; but the resultant
> public outcry in the U.S. eventually forced the Reagan administration to
> back down.

Well done, that man.

> The Toronto Star has written that Mowat's memoirs are at least partially
> fictional.

Who?  Evidence?

> In a 1968 interview with CBC Radio, Farley admitted that he
> doesn't let the facts get in the way of the truth (Canada Reads).

And we know what sort of "facts" he's talking about, don't we.

> Once, when
> Mowat said that he had spent two summers and a winter studying wolves, the
> Toronto Star wrote that Mowat had only spent 90 hours studying the wolves.

And we're supposed to believe it, just like that?

> This hurt Mowat's reputation.

Support those claims with evidence, like you always demand?

> An article in the May, 1996 issue of Saturday Night written by John Goddard
> lays out a somewhat more in-depth criticism of Farley's celebrated works,
> especially Never Cry Wolf. In an interview during the flap over the article,
> Mowat admitted that his books are "thinly-veiled fiction".

You do know that "thinly-veiled fiction" implies underlying truth?

Examples:

'Poe writes a chilling narrative of Mary Roger's murder as a thinly-veiled
fiction in a local magazine. ...'

'It is thinly-veiled fiction, clearly based upon real experiences behind..'

"If I am wrong, and the books aren't thinly veiled fiction, then Mel's
work represents an ultra-realistic form of fiction...'

'overall this record is thinly veiled fiction layered over a lot of truth.'

> As a result of
> these persistent and recurring claims, it is difficult to say with authority
> whether some of Farley's books, billed by many as non-fiction, are just
> that.

I've seen no reason to doubt Mowat's word, if that was your intent.

> L. David Mech, an internationally recognized wolf expert who has researched
> wolves since 1958 in places such as Minnesota, Canada, Italy, Alaska,
> Yellowstone National Park, and on Isle Royale, stated that Mowat is not a
> scientist and that in all his studies, he had never encountered a wolf pack
> which regularly subsisted on small prey as shown in Mowat's book.
>
> However, in Never Cry Wolf, Mowat does not suggest that the wolves he writes
> about subsist regularily on mice; only that they kill caribou in much
> smaller numbers than had been previously reported and that their diet was
> supplemented with small prey."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farley_Mowat#Criticism

So that criticism bite the dust too.  Suggest you give up your day job.

BTW, Farley Mowat writes in Sea of Slaughter's Aknowledgments:

'Page vii

My gratitude goes to: Dr. DM Lavigne, Associate Professor, College
of Biological Science, University of Guelph, for his painstaking and
illuminating comments on the chapters dealing with seals and walrus. "

> >> >> Give me peer-reviewed studies and research done by real scientists and
> >> >> experts... not emotionally-driven pseudo science engineered for
> >> >> maximum
> >> >> fundraising potential.
> >> >
> >> > I'd quit throwing stones if I were you.  Too late though really, innit.
> >>
> >> You threw the first stone by starting this thread, and now you seem
> >> genuinely surprised why Canadians are defending the hunt.  I guess when
> >> it
> >> comes down to is we need more than ARA emotionalism to be convinced of
> >> something.
> >
> > Most Canadians want it stopped.  And you've been given the facts.
>
> You've made a lot of the standard ARA assertions but you haven't established
> any of them as factual.  I need FACTS to be convinced and you haven't
> provided any.  To coin Wiley Coyote, "back to the old drawing board" for
> you.
>
> And... why do you care how many Canadians support the seal hunt?  You don't
> believe in democracy.

You're sounding highly EMOTIONAL, nomsky.  Go take your med's.