"pearl"  wrote in message 
news:fuin4n$4nq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message 
> news:ZZ3Pj.1119$XI1.304@edtnps91...
>>
>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> news:fuig96$1n7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> > news:yN2Pj.1103$XI1.802@edtnps91...
>> >
>> >> What constitutes proof for scientists and what constitutes proof for 
>> >> ARAs
>> >> are two different things.  If I've lied here's your big chance to 
>> >> expose
>> >> me!
>> >
>> > "Throughout my career as a veterinarian, I have seen animals die in
>> > slaughterhouses, research labs, and animal shelters, and I can assure
>> > you that the cruelty existing in the seal hunt would not be tolerated 
>> > in
>> > these institutions." Dr. Mary Richardson Animal Care Review Board
>> > Solicitor-General of Ontario After observing Canada's 1995 seal hunt"
>> >
>> > Science?  Opinion?  Expert opinion?  Qualified veterinary observer?
>>
>> Some veterinarians say one thing, some another.  Science isn't about
>> consensus and opinion, it's about empirical evidence.
>
> 'em·pir·i·cal
> adj.
> 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
> b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
> 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
> medicine.
> ..
> A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all 
> evidence
> must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or
> consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data
> that is produced by experiment or observation.[1] .. "Empirical" as an
> adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and 
> social
> sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable
> using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific
> statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or 
> observations.
> ..'
> http://www.answers.com/empirical&r=67

I hope you were posting this for your own beneft because I don't have 
trouble with the definitions of words I use.  So are you clear on what 
"empirical" means now?  I'll use it in a sentence to demonstrate my 
understanding of the word: "The peer-reviewed, empirical evidence gathered 
by the CVMA found that the seal hunt is acceptably humane."

>> >> Here's a challenge for Pearl: show me one single piece of scientific
>> >> research done by ARA groups that has been peer-reviewed.
>> >
>> > Sorry to break this to you, but the "scientific research" you rely 
>> > on...
>> >
>> > 'Daoust, P.-Y., A. Crook, T.K. Bollinger, K.G. Campbell, and J. Wong.
>> > 2002. Animal welfare and the harp seal hunt in Atlantic Canada. Special
>> > Report. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 43: 687-694. (Note: according to
>> > the Instructions to Authors, Special Reports in the Canadian Veterinary
>> > Journal are not peer reviewed, see [404]
>> > http://www.canadianveterinarians.net/vetjournals/cvj/instructions.html#1.)
>> >
>> > 'Non-peer-reviewed articles
>> >
>> > These include feature articles, special reports, student papers, etc.
>>
>> LOL!  The study you referenced is marked "peer-reviewed" on the very 
>> first
>> line!  Are you in complete denial or what?
>
> I've been waiting for a link, thanks.  So it's been peer-reviewed since.

You were grasping at straws to discredit the report.  You got gobsmacked.

>> "This article has been peer-reviewed / Cet article a été examiné par les
>> pairs"
>>
>> http://canadianveterinarians.net/Documents/Resources/Files/130_Seal%20Hunt%20Report.pdf
>>
>> > http://tinyurl.com/3t8zlh (archive of the page referenced above).
>> >
>> > Oops.  So since we're on an even playing field, study that review
>> > http://tinyurl.com/3ruvw5 as the unbiased objective and scientific
>> > type you claim to be, and then get back to us with your findings.
>>
>> Got you again.  While the report I referenced IS peer reviewed, the one 
>> you
>> cited has a sole author (Dr. Mary Richardson) and has not been peer
>> reveiwed.
>
> 'David M. Lavigne, Science Advisor, International Fund for Animal Welfare.
>
> Dr David Lavigne has conducted research on harp seals since 1969. He has
> observed the hunt on a number of occasions and, in 1973, acted as an 
> official
> observer for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. From 1973-1996
> he was a zoology professor at the University of Guelph, Canada. He is co-
> author of Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic
> (University of Waterloo Press: 1988) and a long-standing member of IUCN's
> Seal Specialist Group. He recently appeared as an invited expert before 
> the
> Council of Europe's Hearing on Seal Hunting (see Lavigne,  D.M. 2004.
> Notes for a presentation to The Hearing on Seal Hunting, Committee on the
> Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Parliamentary
> Assembly of the Councilof Europe. 5 October 2004. Strasbourg, France. 6 
> pp).
>
> Is that "peer" (reviewed) enough for you?

What does David Lavigne have to do with Mary Richardson?  Is he a peer? 
Does he referee her work?  Please clarify.  I see he does work for IFAW, so 
he cannot be considered impartial and unbiased.

>> Pearlie strikes out again....
>
> 'fraid not.  You're clearly avoiding commenting on the content.  Why's 
> that?

Anything posted without accompanying commentary/explanatory note SHOULD be 
ignored.  Any person can Google shit up ad nauseum, but then you might as 
well be debating Google.  Are you a "Google Intellectual", pearlie, or do 
you actually have an argument of your own?  Instead of PARROTING everything 
you read, why don't you try analysing and commenting on it?

"Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:%Q6Pj.1167$XI1.520@edtnps91...
>
> "pearl"  wrote in message
> news:fuin4n$4nq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> > news:ZZ3Pj.1119$XI1.304@edtnps91...
> >>
> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
> >> news:fuig96$1n7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> >> > news:yN2Pj.1103$XI1.802@edtnps91...
> >> >
> >> >> What constitutes proof for scientists and what constitutes proof for
> >> >> ARAs
> >> >> are two different things.  If I've lied here's your big chance to
> >> >> expose
> >> >> me!
> >> >
> >> > "Throughout my career as a veterinarian, I have seen animals die in
> >> > slaughterhouses, research labs, and animal shelters, and I can assure
> >> > you that the cruelty existing in the seal hunt would not be tolerated in
> >> > these institutions." Dr. Mary Richardson Animal Care Review Board
> >> > Solicitor-General of Ontario After observing Canada's 1995 seal hunt"
> >> >
> >> > Science?  Opinion?  Expert opinion?  Qualified veterinary observer?
> >>
> >> Some veterinarians say one thing, some another.  Science isn't about
> >> consensus and opinion, it's about empirical evidence.
> >
> > 'em·pir·i·cal
> > adj.
> > 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
> > b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
> > 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
> > medicine.
> > ..
> > A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence
> > must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or
> > consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data
> > that is produced by experiment or observation.[1] .. "Empirical" as an
> > adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social
> > sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable
> > using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific
> > statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or
> > observations.
> > ..'
> > http://www.answers.com/empirical&r=67
>
> I hope you were posting this for your own beneft because I don't have
> trouble with the definitions of words I use.  So are you clear on what
> "empirical" means now?  I'll use it in a sentence to demonstrate my
> understanding of the word: "The peer-reviewed, empirical evidence gathered
> by the CVMA found that the seal hunt is acceptably humane."

So you now accept that expert observation is science and not opinion.

'After viewing footage of the 2004 seal hunt at the recent Council of Europe
Hearing on Seal Hunting, a Norwegian expert - and a proponent of sealing
and whaling - noted that the sealing practices recorded on the film would
not be permitted in Norway.'

..
> > I've been waiting for a link, thanks.  So it's been peer-reviewed since.
>
> You were grasping at straws to discredit the report.  You got gobsmacked.

I don't need to grasp at straws to discredit that report.  Just checking.

> >> "This article has been peer-reviewed / Cet article a été examiné par les
> >> pairs"
> >>
> >> http://canadianveterinarians.net/Documents/Resources/Files/130_Seal%20Hunt%20Report.pdf
..
> >> > Oops.  So since we're on an even playing field, study that review
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/3ruvw5 as the unbiased objective and scientific
> >> > type you claim to be, and then get back to us with your findings.
> >>
> >> Got you again.  While the report I referenced IS peer reviewed, the one you
> >> cited has a sole author (Dr. Mary Richardson) and has not been peer reveiwed.
> >
> > 'David M. Lavigne, Science Advisor, International Fund for Animal Welfare.
> >
> > Dr David Lavigne has conducted research on harp seals since 1969. He has
> > observed the hunt on a number of occasions and, in 1973, acted as an official
> > observer for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. From 1973-1996
> > he was a zoology professor at the University of Guelph, Canada. He is co-
> > author of Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic
> > (University of Waterloo Press: 1988) and a long-standing member of IUCN's
> > Seal Specialist Group. He recently appeared as an invited expert before the
> > Council of Europe's Hearing on Seal Hunting (see Lavigne,  D.M. 2004.
> > Notes for a presentation to The Hearing on Seal Hunting, Committee on the
> > Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Parliamentary
> > Assembly of the Councilof Europe. 5 October 2004. Strasbourg, France. 6 pp).
> >
> > Is that "peer" (reviewed) enough for you?
>
> What does David Lavigne have to do with Mary Richardson?  Is he a peer?
> Does he referee her work?  Please clarify.  I see he does work for IFAW, so
> he cannot be considered impartial and unbiased.

He is the author of this review of the two studies, not Mary Richardson.
He's a leading authority and expert.  Being a scientific advisor to IFAW
doesn't imply bias or partiality.  Could we claim that of the DFO crew?

> >> Pearlie strikes out again....
> >
> > 'fraid not.  You're clearly avoiding commenting on the content.  Why's
> > that?
>
> Anything posted without accompanying commentary/explanatory note SHOULD be
> ignored.  Any person can Google shit up ad nauseum, but then you might as
> well be debating Google.  Are you a "Google Intellectual", pearlie, or do
> you actually have an argument of your own?  Instead of PARROTING everything
> you read, why don't you try analysing and commenting on it?

Thought you wanted FACTS not OPINION?  READ the FACTS and
get back to us, before I drag the entire review right here into the thread.

"pearl"  wrote in message 
news:fukk29$v7b$2@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message 
> news:%Q6Pj.1167$XI1.520@edtnps91...
>>
>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> news:fuin4n$4nq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> > news:ZZ3Pj.1119$XI1.304@edtnps91...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> >> news:fuig96$1n7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> >> > news:yN2Pj.1103$XI1.802@edtnps91...
>> >> >
>> >> >> What constitutes proof for scientists and what constitutes proof 
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> ARAs
>> >> >> are two different things.  If I've lied here's your big chance to
>> >> >> expose
>> >> >> me!
>> >> >
>> >> > "Throughout my career as a veterinarian, I have seen animals die in
>> >> > slaughterhouses, research labs, and animal shelters, and I can 
>> >> > assure
>> >> > you that the cruelty existing in the seal hunt would not be 
>> >> > tolerated in
>> >> > these institutions." Dr. Mary Richardson Animal Care Review Board
>> >> > Solicitor-General of Ontario After observing Canada's 1995 seal 
>> >> > hunt"
>> >> >
>> >> > Science?  Opinion?  Expert opinion?  Qualified veterinary observer?
>> >>
>> >> Some veterinarians say one thing, some another.  Science isn't about
>> >> consensus and opinion, it's about empirical evidence.
>> >
>> > 'em·pir·i·cal
>> > adj.
>> > 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
>> > b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
>> > 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
>> > medicine.
>> > ..
>> > A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all 
>> > evidence
>> > must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence 
>> > or
>> > consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data
>> > that is produced by experiment or observation.[1] .. "Empirical" as an
>> > adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and 
>> > social
>> > sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable
>> > using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific
>> > statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or
>> > observations.
>> > ..'
>> > http://www.answers.com/empirical&r=67
>>
>> I hope you were posting this for your own beneft because I don't have
>> trouble with the definitions of words I use.  So are you clear on what
>> "empirical" means now?  I'll use it in a sentence to demonstrate my
>> understanding of the word: "The peer-reviewed, empirical evidence 
>> gathered
>> by the CVMA found that the seal hunt is acceptably humane."
>
> So you now accept that expert observation is science and not opinion.
>
> 'After viewing footage of the 2004 seal hunt at the recent Council of 
> Europe
> Hearing on Seal Hunting, a Norwegian expert - and a proponent of sealing
> and whaling - noted that the sealing practices recorded on the film would
> not be permitted in Norway.'
>
> ..
>> > I've been waiting for a link, thanks.  So it's been peer-reviewed 
>> > since.
>>
>> You were grasping at straws to discredit the report.  You got gobsmacked.
>
> I don't need to grasp at straws to discredit that report.  Just checking.
>
>> >> "This article has been peer-reviewed / Cet article a été examiné par 
>> >> les
>> >> pairs"
>> >>
>> >> http://canadianveterinarians.net/Documents/Resources/Files/130_Seal%20Hunt%20Report.pdf
> ..
>> >> > Oops.  So since we're on an even playing field, study that review
>> >> > http://tinyurl.com/3ruvw5 as the unbiased objective and scientific
>> >> > type you claim to be, and then get back to us with your findings.
>> >>
>> >> Got you again.  While the report I referenced IS peer reviewed, the 
>> >> one you
>> >> cited has a sole author (Dr. Mary Richardson) and has not been peer 
>> >> reveiwed.
>> >
>> > 'David M. Lavigne, Science Advisor, International Fund for Animal 
>> > Welfare.
>> >
>> > Dr David Lavigne has conducted research on harp seals since 1969. He 
>> > has
>> > observed the hunt on a number of occasions and, in 1973, acted as an 
>> > official
>> > observer for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. From 
>> > 1973-1996
>> > he was a zoology professor at the University of Guelph, Canada. He is 
>> > co-
>> > author of Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic
>> > (University of Waterloo Press: 1988) and a long-standing member of 
>> > IUCN's
>> > Seal Specialist Group. He recently appeared as an invited expert before 
>> > the
>> > Council of Europe's Hearing on Seal Hunting (see Lavigne,  D.M. 2004.
>> > Notes for a presentation to The Hearing on Seal Hunting, Committee on 
>> > the
>> > Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Parliamentary
>> > Assembly of the Councilof Europe. 5 October 2004. Strasbourg, France. 6 
>> > pp).
>> >
>> > Is that "peer" (reviewed) enough for you?
>>
>> What does David Lavigne have to do with Mary Richardson?  Is he a peer?
>> Does he referee her work?  Please clarify.  I see he does work for IFAW, 
>> so
>> he cannot be considered impartial and unbiased.
>
> He is the author of this review of the two studies, not Mary Richardson.
> He's a leading authority and expert.  Being a scientific advisor to IFAW
> doesn't imply bias or partiality.  Could we claim that of the DFO crew?
>
>> >> Pearlie strikes out again....
>> >
>> > 'fraid not.  You're clearly avoiding commenting on the content.  Why's
>> > that?
>>
>> Anything posted without accompanying commentary/explanatory note SHOULD 
>> be
>> ignored.  Any person can Google shit up ad nauseum, but then you might as
>> well be debating Google.  Are you a "Google Intellectual", pearlie, or do
>> you actually have an argument of your own?  Instead of PARROTING 
>> everything
>> you read, why don't you try analysing and commenting on it?
>
> Thought you wanted FACTS not OPINION?  READ the FACTS and
> get back to us, before I drag the entire review right here into the 
> thread.

You've lost the argument, pearlie.  You've offered some genuine criticism of 
the hunt and I accept that.  I will write to my representative and ask that 
the humane methods be enforced to the satisfaction of the public.  But your 
position will be ignored for what it is  - unrealistic and ideologically 
driven tripe.

"Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:C8nPj.1166$PM5.326@edtnps92...
>
> "pearl"  wrote in message
> news:fukk29$v7b$2@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> > news:%Q6Pj.1167$XI1.520@edtnps91...
> >>
> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
> >> news:fuin4n$4nq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> >> > news:ZZ3Pj.1119$XI1.304@edtnps91...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl"  wrote in message
> >> >> news:fuig96$1n7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> >> > "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> >> >> > news:yN2Pj.1103$XI1.802@edtnps91...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What constitutes proof for scientists and what constitutes proof
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> ARAs
> >> >> >> are two different things.  If I've lied here's your big chance to
> >> >> >> expose
> >> >> >> me!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Throughout my career as a veterinarian, I have seen animals die in
> >> >> > slaughterhouses, research labs, and animal shelters, and I can
> >> >> > assure
> >> >> > you that the cruelty existing in the seal hunt would not be
> >> >> > tolerated in
> >> >> > these institutions." Dr. Mary Richardson Animal Care Review Board
> >> >> > Solicitor-General of Ontario After observing Canada's 1995 seal
> >> >> > hunt"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Science?  Opinion?  Expert opinion?  Qualified veterinary observer?
> >> >>
> >> >> Some veterinarians say one thing, some another.  Science isn't about
> >> >> consensus and opinion, it's about empirical evidence.
> >> >
> >> > 'em·pir·i·cal
> >> > adj.
> >> > 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
> >> > b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
> >> > 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
> >> > medicine.
> >> > ..
> >> > A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence
> >> > must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or
> >> > consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data
> >> > that is produced by experiment or observation.[1] .. "Empirical" as an
> >> > adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social
> >> > sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable
> >> > using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific
> >> > statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or
> >> > observations.
> >> > ..'
> >> > http://www.answers.com/empirical&r=67
> >>
> >> I hope you were posting this for your own beneft because I don't have
> >> trouble with the definitions of words I use.  So are you clear on what
> >> "empirical" means now?  I'll use it in a sentence to demonstrate my
> >> understanding of the word: "The peer-reviewed, empirical evidence
> >> gathered
> >> by the CVMA found that the seal hunt is acceptably humane."
> >
> > So you now accept that expert observation is science and not opinion.
> >
> > 'After viewing footage of the 2004 seal hunt at the recent Council of Europe
> > Hearing on Seal Hunting, a Norwegian expert - and a proponent of sealing
> > and whaling - noted that the sealing practices recorded on the film would
> > not be permitted in Norway.'
> >
> > ..
> >> > I've been waiting for a link, thanks.  So it's been peer-reviewed
> >> > since.
> >>
> >> You were grasping at straws to discredit the report.  You got gobsmacked.
> >
> > I don't need to grasp at straws to discredit that report.  Just checking.
> >
> >> >> "This article has been peer-reviewed / Cet article a été examiné par
> >> >> les
> >> >> pairs"
> >> >>
> >> >> http://canadianveterinarians.net/Documents/Resources/Files/130_Seal%20Hunt%20Report.pdf
> > ..
> >> >> > Oops.  So since we're on an even playing field, study that review
> >> >> > http://tinyurl.com/3ruvw5 as the unbiased objective and scientific
> >> >> > type you claim to be, and then get back to us with your findings.
> >> >>
> >> >> Got you again.  While the report I referenced IS peer reviewed, the
> >> >> one you
> >> >> cited has a sole author (Dr. Mary Richardson) and has not been peer
> >> >> reveiwed.
> >> >
> >> > 'David M. Lavigne, Science Advisor, International Fund for Animal
> >> > Welfare.
> >> >
> >> > Dr David Lavigne has conducted research on harp seals since 1969. He has
> >> > observed the hunt on a number of occasions and, in 1973, acted as an official
> >> > observer for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. From 1973-1996
> >> > he was a zoology professor at the University of Guelph, Canada. He is
> >> > co-author of Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic
> >> > (University of Waterloo Press: 1988) and a long-standing member of IUCN's
> >> > Seal Specialist Group. He recently appeared as an invited expert before the
> >> > Council of Europe's Hearing on Seal Hunting (see Lavigne,  D.M. 2004.
> >> > Notes for a presentation to The Hearing on Seal Hunting, Committee on the
> >> > Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Parliamentary
> >> > Assembly of the Councilof Europe. 5 October 2004. Strasbourg, France. 6 pp).
> >> >
> >> > Is that "peer" (reviewed) enough for you?
> >>
> >> What does David Lavigne have to do with Mary Richardson?  Is he a peer?
> >> Does he referee her work?  Please clarify.  I see he does work for IFAW,
> >> so
> >> he cannot be considered impartial and unbiased.
> >
> > He is the author of this review of the two studies, not Mary Richardson.
> > He's a leading authority and expert.  Being a scientific advisor to IFAW
> > doesn't imply bias or partiality.  Could we claim that of the DFO crew?
> >
> >> >> Pearlie strikes out again....
> >> >
> >> > 'fraid not.  You're clearly avoiding commenting on the content.  Why's
> >> > that?
> >>
> >> Anything posted without accompanying commentary/explanatory note SHOULD
> >> be
> >> ignored.  Any person can Google shit up ad nauseum, but then you might as
> >> well be debating Google.  Are you a "Google Intellectual", pearlie, or do
> >> you actually have an argument of your own?  Instead of PARROTING
> >> everything
> >> you read, why don't you try analysing and commenting on it?
> >
> > Thought you wanted FACTS not OPINION?  READ the FACTS and
> > get back to us, before I drag the entire review right here into the thread.
>
> You've lost the argument, pearlie.

My goodness... talk about being in *complete denial*.  Unbelievable.

> You've offered some genuine criticism of
> the hunt and I accept that.  I will write to my representative and ask that
> the humane methods be enforced to the satisfaction of the public.  But your
> position will be ignored for what it is  - unrealistic and ideologically
> driven tripe.

'Sea Shepherd News
News Releases

02/19/2006

Canadian National Newspaper Editorial Condemns the Canadian Seal Slaughter

Canada's conservative national newspaper the National Post ran an editorial by
former Presidential speech writer Matthew Scully that eloquently eviscerated the
idea that there is anything traditional or honourable about the annual Canadian
seal slaughter.  Sea Shepherd Conservation Society heartedly applauds both
Mr. Scully for the literary lethality of his words in describing the slaughter for
what it is - an embarrassment and a disgrace to Canada's international image.
We also applaud the National Post for having the courage to run the article
and for rejecting the Canadian government's pressure to stifle the media on
covering the annual massacre of young seals.

This editorial is yet another nail to be hammered into the coffin of this
despicable, obscene, and barbaric industry. The sealing industry is on the
ropes now and is being pummeled with boycotts, national bans on pelts,
protests, confrontations, and condemnations from celebrities and on the
floor of the British House of Parliament.

This bloody cruel slaughter has already decimated harp seal populations,
destroyed the cod fishery, and has caused irreparable ecological damage to
the entire Northwest region of the North Atlantic Ocean.

Sea Shepherd has been fighting this horrific killing of young harp and hood
seals since we were first founded in 1977. We have never retreated from our
opposition to the killing and we never will. Saving these seals has been
worth the beatings inflicted upon us, it has been worth the arrests and the
imprisonment for the "crime" of documenting the killing, and it has been
worth the expensive efforts to continually go to the ice floes to intervene
against the killing of the seals.

Together, all of the organizations and individuals opposing the slaughter of the
seals will prevail. This annual massacre of hundreds of thousands of newly
born seals will be shut down. We will never rest until it is ended forever.

Link to the National Post Editorial:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=a37b5349-b145-43aa-ada6-a892dfeb1d08

Text of the Story

An ivory trade to call our own

by Matthew Scully, National Post

Published: Monday, February 13, 2006

Forming right now inside their mothers, seal pups will soon fill the ice floes
off Newfoundland and Labrador. Then comes one of their very first sights
on this Earth -- the swarms of men bearing clubs, hooks, guns, and knives.
Welcome to the world.

Nature has its own ruthless ways, as those men like to remind us, and makes
no special allowance for the young and helpless. But this annual killing binge
is not of nature's design, and there has always been something uniquely
abhorrent in the spectacle.

If we could understand what possesses people to do such things, and do it all
with such smug self-assurance, the insight would have relevance far beyond
Atlantic Canada. Their professed reasons - the marginal economic benefits
of the hunt, the protection of an ancient "way of life," etc. - have never really
explained it. When you've dispensed with all their excuse-making, it becomes
clear we are dealing here with some deep and implacable force.

Cruelty is the endpoint of greed and other vices, and rarely done for its own
sake. Yet in every age and every place, there is a certain type of man who
glories in violence -- only more when the victims are helpless and innocent.
There is "a cruelty that is fed, not weakened, by tears," as a long-ago
philosopher observed. Whether this malevolence directs itself at humans or
at animals, it all comes from the same rot, the same dark and unreachable
place in the human heart.

I was struck last year by a letter to this paper from one seal-pup slaughterer
who took offense at my use of "innocence." The word springs naturally
enough to mind when one is attempting to describe newborn mammals left
defenseless on the ice floes that are their nursery, creatures so new to the
world they cannot swim and can barely crawl. But you can understand why
someone who clubs, shoots, or skins alive hundreds of such creatures in
an afternoon would find the term uncomfortable.

Twenty or so centuries' worth of Western literature and religious allusion has
looked to young animals as the very embodiments of vulnerability and
innocence, as in the Lamb who suffered for the sins of the world. And there is
no reason to shy from plain moral language here as well. That same tradition
left us with an abundance of other ideas such as humility before Creation, the
moral restraint of the strong toward the weak, and the spirit of mercy that
extends even to humble animals - ideas readily grasped by all except the
perverse hard of heart.

There is a passage in The Heart of Darkness that has a familiar ring. If you
substitute "sealskin" for "ivory," Joseph Conrad could be reporting directly
from the ice floes: "The word ivory rang in the air, was whispered and sighed.
A taint of imbecile rapacity blew threw it all, like a whiff from some corpse
... and outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck of the
earth struck me as something great and invisible, like evil or truth, waiting
patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion."

A harsh but truthful portrait of the type -- of men who think that every last
thing on Earth is there for the taking, and traipse about as if their only
business in this world is to allocate death.

More than anything else, what really amazes me about the seal-pup slaughter
is the stubborn pridefulness of it: Let all the world think they are callous fools.
Let nation after nation slam the doors on their stolen products, as Greenland,
Denmark, and Italy have done in recent days. Let a worldwide boycott of
Canadian fishery products destroy the markets and jobs of other people. For
these folks, all of this is only more reason to set course toward the seal
nurseries.

They talk a lot about traditional values and the like, as opposed to modern,
"urban" values, and you wonder how many of these characters still like to think
of themselves as good Christian men. Maybe by now, as I am told by witnesses
to the mayhem, the pretenses have all pretty well fallen away. We can be certain,
in any case, that even when the cameras are barred and the protesters kept away,
no cruelty goes unrecorded, and no forsaken creature's whimper is beyond His
hearing. If the Good Shepherd does indeed watch over those scenes, I would
not want to be wearing their bloody boots.

Recall, too, that all of this cruelty is subsidized, propped up by millions of
dollars a year from Canada's taxpayers. Yet all arguments were lost last time
around on Prime Minister Paul Martin. Even to the very end, he could be
heard pandering in Atlantic Canada during last month's election with pledges
to "save the seal hunt."

So let it be a Conservative government that finally brings the wretched business
to an end. It would be a fitting start for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a
courageous and merciful exercise of his new powers.

And to a watching world, no decision of his could more dramatically
demonstrate that corrupt old ways will no longer be tolerated, and a new day
has truly arrived in Ottawa.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060219_1p.html

pearl wrote:
> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:C8nPj.1166$PM5.326@edtnps92...
>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> news:fukk29$v7b$2@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>>> news:%Q6Pj.1167$XI1.520@edtnps91...
>>>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>>>> news:fuin4n$4nq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>>> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:ZZ3Pj.1119$XI1.304@edtnps91...
>>>>>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fuig96$1n7$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>>>>>>> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:yN2Pj.1103$XI1.802@edtnps91...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What constitutes proof for scientists and what constitutes proof
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> ARAs
>>>>>>>> are two different things.  If I've lied here's your big chance to
>>>>>>>> expose
>>>>>>>> me!
>>>>>>> "Throughout my career as a veterinarian, I have seen animals die in
>>>>>>> slaughterhouses, research labs, and animal shelters, and I can
>>>>>>> assure
>>>>>>> you that the cruelty existing in the seal hunt would not be
>>>>>>> tolerated in
>>>>>>> these institutions." Dr. Mary Richardson Animal Care Review Board
>>>>>>> Solicitor-General of Ontario After observing Canada's 1995 seal
>>>>>>> hunt"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Science?  Opinion?  Expert opinion?  Qualified veterinary observer?
>>>>>> Some veterinarians say one thing, some another.  Science isn't about
>>>>>> consensus and opinion, it's about empirical evidence.
>>>>> 'em·pir·i·cal
>>>>> adj.
>>>>> 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
>>>>> b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
>>>>> 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
>>>>> medicine.
>>>>> ..
>>>>> A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence
>>>>> must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or
>>>>> consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data
>>>>> that is produced by experiment or observation.[1] .. "Empirical" as an
>>>>> adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social
>>>>> sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable
>>>>> using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific
>>>>> statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or
>>>>> observations.
>>>>> ..'
>>>>> http://www.answers.com/empirical&r=67
>>>> I hope you were posting this for your own beneft because I don't have
>>>> trouble with the definitions of words I use.  So are you clear on what
>>>> "empirical" means now?  I'll use it in a sentence to demonstrate my
>>>> understanding of the word: "The peer-reviewed, empirical evidence
>>>> gathered
>>>> by the CVMA found that the seal hunt is acceptably humane."
>>> So you now accept that expert observation is science and not opinion.
>>>
>>> 'After viewing footage of the 2004 seal hunt at the recent Council of Europe
>>> Hearing on Seal Hunting, a Norwegian expert - and a proponent of sealing
>>> and whaling - noted that the sealing practices recorded on the film would
>>> not be permitted in Norway.'
>>>
>>> ..
>>>>> I've been waiting for a link, thanks.  So it's been peer-reviewed
>>>>> since.
>>>> You were grasping at straws to discredit the report.  You got gobsmacked.
>>> I don't need to grasp at straws to discredit that report.  Just checking.
>>>
>>>>>> "This article has been peer-reviewed / Cet article a été examiné par
>>>>>> les
>>>>>> pairs"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://canadianveterinarians.net/Documents/Resources/Files/130_Seal%20Hunt%20Report.pdf
>>> ..
>>>>>>> Oops.  So since we're on an even playing field, study that review
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3ruvw5 as the unbiased objective and scientific
>>>>>>> type you claim to be, and then get back to us with your findings.
>>>>>> Got you again.  While the report I referenced IS peer reviewed, the
>>>>>> one you
>>>>>> cited has a sole author (Dr. Mary Richardson) and has not been peer
>>>>>> reveiwed.
>>>>> 'David M. Lavigne, Science Advisor, International Fund for Animal
>>>>> Welfare.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr David Lavigne has conducted research on harp seals since 1969. He has
>>>>> observed the hunt on a number of occasions and, in 1973, acted as an official
>>>>> observer for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. From 1973-1996
>>>>> he was a zoology professor at the University of Guelph, Canada. He is
>>>>> co-author of Harps & Hoods: Ice-breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic
>>>>> (University of Waterloo Press: 1988) and a long-standing member of IUCN's
>>>>> Seal Specialist Group. He recently appeared as an invited expert before the
>>>>> Council of Europe's Hearing on Seal Hunting (see Lavigne,  D.M. 2004.
>>>>> Notes for a presentation to The Hearing on Seal Hunting, Committee on the
>>>>> Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Parliamentary
>>>>> Assembly of the Councilof Europe. 5 October 2004. Strasbourg, France. 6 pp).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that "peer" (reviewed) enough for you?
>>>> What does David Lavigne have to do with Mary Richardson?  Is he a peer?
>>>> Does he referee her work?  Please clarify.  I see he does work for IFAW,
>>>> so
>>>> he cannot be considered impartial and unbiased.
>>> He is the author of this review of the two studies, not Mary Richardson.
>>> He's a leading authority and expert.  Being a scientific advisor to IFAW
>>> doesn't imply bias or partiality.  Could we claim that of the DFO crew?
>>>
>>>>>> Pearlie strikes out again....
>>>>> 'fraid not.  You're clearly avoiding commenting on the content.  Why's
>>>>> that?
>>>> Anything posted without accompanying commentary/explanatory note SHOULD
>>>> be
>>>> ignored.  Any person can Google shit up ad nauseum, but then you might as
>>>> well be debating Google.  Are you a "Google Intellectual", pearlie, or do
>>>> you actually have an argument of your own?  Instead of PARROTING
>>>> everything
>>>> you read, why don't you try analysing and commenting on it?
>>> Thought you wanted FACTS not OPINION?  READ the FACTS and
>>> get back to us, before I drag the entire review right here into the thread.
>> You've lost the argument, pearlie.
> 
> My goodness... talk about being in *complete denial*.  Unbelievable.

Yes, we all marveled at your inability to see that you lose every time.

"pearl"  wrote:

> My goodness... talk about being in *complete denial*.  Unbelievable.

Pearlie, you don't have anything except opinon... you contradicted yourself 
a number of times.... you demonstrate hypocrisy....  you provide studies and 
data that you can't back up except with deliberately misleading ARA 
propaganda... and you parrot it all with zero critical analysis  There is no 
escape for you.  You're welcome to the last word because at this point all 
you can do is further damage your credbility.

See you next year, same place same time... and the next, and the next.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:38:06 +0100, "pearl" 
wrote:

Seal hunt protests are stupid
Posted By Den Tandt, Michael
Posted 4 hours ago
Each year it's the same thing: A parade of wealthy celebrities swoop
down on Canada's east coast and accuse Canadian sealers of being big
meanies. This year Farley Mowat himself has joined the fight and is
campaigning hard for a European ban on all seal products, which would
effectively kill the hunt. 
The images are potent - defenceless animals, grim-faced sealers
wielding wickedly sharp gaffs. Check out 'seal hunt' on a Google image
search and you'll see what we mean. The google seals are cute as a
button - like every child's dream of a favourite puppy. 
Here's the problem: They aren't real. They're propaganda. 
Oh, the photos are real enough. But these seals, the little white baby
harps, haven't been hunted in Canada for a generation. That was banned
in the 1980s. Only adults are harvested now. We use the word harvest
deliberately, because this actually is a harvest, not a hunt. The
animals are shot on the ice, killed - either with a second bullet or
with a gaff - and skinned. 
That doesn't sound very appealing, does it? For most of us, it isn't.
We like our meat, our fish, our poultry, for certain. But we don't
ever have to see it slaughtered or harvested. That happens in the
privacy of an abattoir. But funnily enough, Farley Mowat isn't calling
for a European ban on beef cattle, or pig farming. Why is that? 
Here's why: There is a double standard, driven purely by sentiment,
that allows activists to set the harp seal apart from other animals
that we harvest for food or pelts. They get away with this because
seals look more like human beings than do steers, pigs, chickens, or
trout. That, and that alone, explains why culling seals is
controversial. 
The truth? Harp seals are not endangered - not even close. The
Canadian herd is estimated at 5.5 million - three times what it was in
the 1970s.
The spring cull has been repeatedly investigated and found to be
humane, by the Canadian Medical Veterinary Association, among others.
There is nothing wrong with the seal hunt. 
"Killing animals en masse simply to make a profit is totally
abhorrent,"
says Farley Mowat. Really? Then protest trout farming, Mr. Mowat. Go
to Alberta and picket a cattle ranch - see how far you get. 
But please, leave the sealers of Newfoundland and Labrador alone.
They're working to earn an honest living.