Sealclubbing

[Tim Partlett]

I remember the first time seal clubbing hit the headlines back in the 80s with pictures of cute baby seals covered in blood. The clubbing of newborn seals is now illegal in Canada, but the issue of clubbing seals is back on the agenda again, because... well they are cute. It doesn't appear that they are in danger of extinction - in fact far from it. Professor Brad DeYoung of Newfoundland university says that even if a million were culled, there would still be twice as many seals now than there were 30 years ago, and the population would easily bounce back.

So why the fuss? Well apparently it is inhumane. Phyllis Campbell-McRae of Ifaw embarrassingly invokes the animal rights activist's equivalent of Godwin's Law and mentions puppies: "Bashing them over the head is akin to smacking a puppy on the head with a hammer". Well yes, Phyllis, but its also akin to slitting a lamb's throat and turning it into cutlets. Perhaps even more amusing is hunt co-ordinator Roger Simon's attempt to defend himself, saying that "[t]he Canadian Veterinary Association stated that 98% of seals are clubbed in a humane manner". The idea of someone clubbing anyone or anything in a humane manner just sounds like a hilarious oxymoron to me, and Roger really comes across as someone who hasn't spent one moment in the world of polite society that Phyllis belongs to. I'd love to see those two in a room together.

The real question that should be raised here is why we care about cute seals and puppies but don't give a shit about other animals. To paraphrase Denis Leary, "People are always talking about Dolphin-Friendly Tuna, but what about the fucking Tuna? Fuck them they taste good!" Our attitudes towards animals in the West appear highly hypocritical, and we cannot even bring ourselves to recognise it. When the Olympics were hosted in Seoul, Korea, we forced the Korean government to ban the sale of cats and dogs in the markets of the city for the duration of the event. I wonder what our reaction would have been if the Israelis had demanded the banning of pork in restaurants, or the Indians the removal of beef from supermarkets, at the Atlanta Olympics.

Personally I'd like to see all animals treated humanely, but I guess there is always going to be a problem about how humanely you treat what animal. I mean we can't spend too much of our time worrying about the humane treatment of fleas. Currently, at least in the West, we seem to base it as a correlation between cuteness and tastiness. The cuter and less tasty the animal the more likely it will demand our humaneness, and the uglier and tastier it is the less we care about how it is treated. I suppose that is one way to go, but I'd rather we based it on something that felt more rational, like how developed they are in evolutionary terms, and how intelligent they are.

The problem is if we used a rationale like that we'd find that pigs were far more intelligent than dogs, and that we couldn't reasonably keep them locked up in concrete chambers 24 hours a day. That would clash with the fact that pigs taste damn good. I guess we could come to a compromise and at least put an end to the factory farming techniques that allow for such cruelty to an animal that's far more intelligent that seals, only not nearly as cute.

[SolomonGrundy]

I think there is in some peoples mind a difference between animals that have been breeded for 1000's of years as food, and well, some wild animal that is getting smacked upside the head for a rich chicks coat.
Personally, I have no problem with killing an animal as long as you are using more than just the skin. Of course blugeoning it to death wouldn't be my preferred method.
Why does this arguement always put the picture of beevis and butthead in my mind playing frog baseball?

[Kalle]

Yeah, hypocrisy is part of life. Not exactly news. Time for a horseflesh sandwich.

[foogla]

"Cute" is a uniqely human attribute. We cannot harm cute things, and for some reason we find the young* of animals (and our own!) cute.

Animals have no trouble killing the young of other animals or even their own.

*Dolphins are an exception because, well they are grinning all the time, and that's cute.

[Tim Partlett]

I think there is in some peoples mind a difference between animals that have been breeded for 1000's of years as food, and well, some wild animal that is getting smacked upside the head for a rich chicks coat.

According to the Humane Society, seals are culled primarily for their skins, and the discarded bodies are left to rot (obviously very slowly) on the ice, but they would say that. According to the hunters they use every part of the body, skins for fur, oil for industry, meat for food (human and animal), but they would say that. According to Canadian government regulations the hunters must use all of the animal, whether they follow the regulations or not is open to debate.

You can make a case for not needing to kill animals at all: we don't actually need meat, it just tastes good. We need clothes to survive, just like we need food. We don't need fur, it's just that it looks good and feels great. I don't object any more to someone wearing seal fur just because they are rich any more than object to someone stuffing five boxes of factory farmed McDonald's chicken nuggets down their trap just because they are greedy.

[SpoofyChop]

I think we should pay the seals not to resist being clubbed in the event of a population uprising.

:twisted:

And you thought I was trolling before! Ha!

[Bullhajj]

You can make a case for not needing to kill animals at all: we don't actually need meat, it just tastes good.

I just read where canabilism usually only rose up in a culture because there were no large animials to consume for protien. Considering how important meat is in the various diets of the majority world population, I think you're off base.

[Tim Partlett]

People don't need meat. There are millions of people who survive on a meat free diet all their lives. Nearly a quarter of all Hindus in India are vegetarian, and the figure used to be far higher. The reason they are vegetarian is not due to lack of meat, and cannibalism is not prevalent on the sub-continent. Millions of Buddhists, Jainists, Hare Krishnas, etc. have no problem with being vegetarian either. You could argue that meat is better for you, although it would be hard, but you cannot argue that you need it to survive.

Also meat, like fur, was once the preserve of the rich. The poor would live mostly on fruit and vegetables, supplementing their diet with the occasional poached or wild animal, or maybe some offal from the lord's waste. It is only through the use of factory farming that it has become a food for everyone's plate. European peasantry didn't engage in cannibalism despite the fact that most of the meat ended up in the hands of a few.

[Nick Walter]

People don't need meat.

There's a huge gulf between "vitally necessary" and "complete unncessary luxury item". Meat isn't pegged all the way at the necessary end of the scale but it's closer to that pole than luxury item.

[John Many Jars]

I've known quite a number of women who need meat.

[Jason McCullough]

The real question that should be raised here is why we care about cute seals and puppies but don't give a shit about other animals.

Beats the hell out of me. I gave up on convincing anyone pretty quick and just stick to the vegetarian lack-of-guilt part.

[TrodKnee]

What about the cute little microorganisms in your mouth? Don't they deserve to live too?

Listerine is Murder!

[fire]

Beats the hell out of me.
Ha ha ha ha ha, oh, ha ha, yeah, clubs me, too. Heh heh. Hoh.

[Bullhajj]

People don't need meat.

You could argue that you don't need meat to survive, but I think you lose credibility when you attempt to make sweeping generalizations for the entire planet. For example, the cannibals on various Polynesian islands documented in Guns, Germs, Steel would be inclined to disagree for they ate one another to survive.

Also meat, like fur, was once the preserve of the rich. The poor would live mostly on fruit and vegetables, supplementing their diet with the occasional poached or wild animal, or maybe some offal from the lord's waste. It is only through the use of factory farming that it has become a food for everyone's plate. European peasantry didn't engage in cannibalism despite the fact that most of the meat ended up in the hands of a few.

And I'm willing to bet that many of those European peasantry died of malnutrition because of a lack of protein in their diet. And if they didn't die from malnutrition, at least they didn't take too kindly to being told to Eat fawcking cake. You could just as easily argue that only by factory farming did we get a higher standard of living. Or that the lack of cannibalism in Christian Europe was because of taboos not shared by their Polynesian brothers.

[Tim Partlett]

Oh come on, Tim. You can't seriously believe that people on vegetarian diets die of malnutrition because they lack protein. I know people who have been raised as vegans (no meat or dairy products of any kind) and they are far healthier than me. Some would argue that a vegetarian diet is healthier, some would argue that you need meat for a proper balanced diet, but to claim that people die of malnutrition if they choose a vegetarian diet over a meat based one is just insane. If any group of people did choose cannibalism to supplement their diet because of need, and this is arguable, then it would be because the available protein and energy from the environment (vegetable and meat) was lacking. A modern diet (vegetarian or not) does not suffer from a lack of available, suitable food produce.

[mouselock]

Oh come on, Tim. You can't seriously believe that people on vegetarian diets die of malnutrition because they lack protein.

...

A modern diet (vegetarian or not) does not suffer from a lack of available, suitable food produce.

How many medieval Europeans ate a modern diet? And how reasonable is it to view seal-clubbing as a modern activity?

Maybe we kill and eat the animals we do because we have 10,000 years of history of doing so because, as it turns out, 2000 years ago modern soy products for supplemental protein weren't as prevalent. Also, it's somewhat likely that 2000 years ago the knowledge of what amino acids were contained within which grains and legumes wasn't quite as common as it is today.

In other words, we eat meat now because we've culturally accepted it, and we did it then because it was quite likely the only reliably available source of nutrition without going through all sorts of nutritional contortions that we,as a species, weren't smart enough to know about at the time.

I would assume that's somewhat akin to why, in some places, meats that aren't all that palatable or nutritious (tripe, anyone?) are still eaten within subcultures. (Come to think of it, the whole cat/dog thing probably works from that angle too.)

Meat is meat. We're just more likely to eat it if we don't feel that, had things worked out differently, we might have enjoyed a nice game of fetch or a nice visit at the zoo with last night's dinner.

(Aren't you going to be screwed when we find out plants can feel pain too? ;) )

[MikeJ]

Oh come on, Tim. You can't seriously believe that people on vegetarian diets die of malnutrition because they lack protein.

It might be the case that for various historical groups, they didn't have access to a wide enough variety of plants or the right plants to meet all their nutritional needs. In "Gun, Germs and Steel" he talks a lot about the protein content in various native plants in different parts of the word. Some people didn't have access to high-protein plants.

I don't think that really has anything to do with the modern world though. As you say, lots of vegans seem to get along fine.

edit: Ok maybe I should finish reading the rest of the post...

[Tim Partlett]

(Aren't you going to be screwed when we find out plants can feel pain too? ;) )

No, because I don't think eating meat is wrong. Your reply doesn't really make any sense. My point is that I don't see seal clubbing as being all that much different from, say, eating bacon from pigs that have been kept in concrete bunkers all their lives. In fact I see it as far more humane. My question is why people get so uptight about seeing seals getting clubbed, when they happily fill their faces with bacon and Chicken McNuggets. The "I hate to see rich people get enjoyment from animal cruelty, but it's ok for me" argument doesn't wash.

[Bullhajj]

Oh come on, Tim. You can't seriously believe that people on vegetarian diets die of malnutrition because they lack protein... but to claim that people die of malnutrition if they choose a vegetarian diet over a meat based one is just insane

You intially were discussing meat once being the preserve of the rich, which means people on forced vegetarian diets did die of malnutrition. It's more a factor of being poor.

If any group of people did choose cannibalism to supplement their diet because of need, and this is arguable, then it would be because the available protein and energy from the environment(vegetable and meat) was lacking. A modern diet (vegetarian or not) does not suffer from a lack of available, suitable food produce.

Correct. Unlike you, I am not advocating one way of eating over another. I'm just pointing out that meat has its place in the populations of the world and no amount of hand waving on your part can change that simple fact.

[Tim Partlett]

Where have I advocated one way of eating over another? I've not said anything of the sort, and that has not been the point I've been making at all. Even in my very last post I started off by stating as clear as day "I don't think eating meat is wrong." I'm not advocating vegetarianism. Try reading my posts again and try and see what it is I am really bringing into question, before simply assuming that I must be arguing something else based on a limited reading of my posts. I'll give you a hint, I've stated the question repeatedly. Even bigger hint: it's in the last post before you replied.

You intially were discussing meat once being the preserve of the rich, which means people on forced vegetarian diets did die of malnutrition. It's more a factor of being poor.

In the Western world, as it still is for much of the poor in the third world, meat was a luxury that most could not afford. This is a simple statement of fact, and not an advocation of a vegetarian diet. It was a point made to show that clubbing seals for fur is not so different from turning pigs into bacon, and to show that meat is only not a luxury any more because of the way we mistreat these animals in factory farms. You were arguing that people who eat a vegetarian diet would die of malnutrition, and therefore clearly advocating a meat diet as the only one we can survive on. By pointing out that you are insane for saying this does not make me an advocate of vegetarianism :roll:.

It's bizarre that in a post where I mock people for trying to stop Canadian seal culls, I'm accused of propagandising a vegetarian diet because I challenge people to think about their values of humanity in regards to animals. Obviously some people here are incapable of thinking, and just want to trot out their preformed opinions without regard for what is actually being said. "Oh! Oh! He said animals aren't all treated humanely! He must be advocating a vegetarian diet!" Newsflash: farm animals really aren't treated humanely, and you don't have to be a vegetarian to accept that as fact.

I like the taste of meat. I think meat can be good for you, as part of a balanced diet. I also think that animals are mistreated in factory farming and try to avoid meat produced by that process, or at least reduce the amount of that meat that I consume. I also think that you can live happily without meat, and don't feel the need to shout down anyone who wants to live on a diet of whatever they like. Most of my friends live on all kinds of diets, porkless, beefless, meatless, and I don't feel the need to tell any of them they will die of malnutrition unless they switch to a diet the exact same as mine.

[Bullhajj]

Jesus, Tim, you ever think you might be wound up a little too tightly?

[mouselock]

My question is why people get so uptight about seeing seals getting clubbed, when they happily fill their faces with bacon and Chicken McNuggets. The "I hate to see rich people get enjoyment from animal cruelty, but it's ok for me" argument doesn't wash.

Probably because it has to do with perceived utility of the overall animal. I wear leather coats, yet I think seal clubbing is bothersome, at the least. Why? Because I don't eat seal, primarily. I think killing elephants or rhinos for ivory (regardless of them being endangered) is just as bothersome. Whether or not I can survive without meat, I think it's reasonable to say that meat is not a strictly luxury item. Something like, say, Chinchilla fur, is. I have no issues with wild chinchillae being hunted down in the rainforests of wherever it is wild chinchillae live (Argentina?) for sustenance, or for clothing for indigenous peoples, or the like. Likewise, I'm not particularly bothered by protein farming in the US or any other industrialized country (inasmuch as the distress to the animals goes; the ecological harm is a different matter). In both cases they're serving a purpose that's a bit more than vanity. No matter how possible it might be to survive without ever eating meat, it's nevertheless true that the consumption of that meat serves a useful biological process which would substantially be altered by not consuming that meat. (Diets must be changed, effort must be undergone to adequately supplement meat proteins.)

Compare this to the completely vanity purpose served by wearing a chinchilla coat vs., say, a leather coat (which is, conveniently, capable of being produced as a byproduct of all that meat we eat).

That's why I find there to be a difference between clubbing seals (for fur alone) and raising bacon. On the other hand, I'm all about Eskimos clubbing seals or whaling for the whole product and then using the valuable bits (narwhal ivory, seal pelts, etc..) to supplement their income. To me, that's the same as slaughtering a cow and not only having a nice juicy burger, but also having a decent coat or pair of boots made out of it. And while I'm not particularly interested in ever having nor being around others who regularly have cat or dog (because, y'know, my cat would know), I certainly understand the convenience of ready-raised meat, and I don't see much difference between that and the fact that 100 years ago my great-grandparents used to send my mom out to feed the calf that 6 months down the road, despite having made friends with, would eventually end up on the table.

[quatoria]

Jesus, Tim, you ever think you might be wound up a little too tightly?

Catholicism sucks, Tim.

[Peter Frazier]

So this seal walks into a club.....

[Tim Partlett]

That's why I find there to be a difference between clubbing seals (for fur alone) and raising bacon.

It's illegal to hunt seals for fur alone in Canada. The hunters must use every part of the animal. According to the hunters they sell the oil to industry, and the meat for food for human and animal consumption. The fact that you don't eat them down south in the USA shouldn't be an issue. What should be an issue are factors like: is the creature an endangered species. That is why I would oppose the sale of ivory from rhinoceroses, for example, and not because they don't appear on the menu of my local Burger King.

[Bullhajj]

That's why I find there to be a difference between clubbing seals (for fur alone) and raising bacon.

Yep, that's it exactly. I don't have a problem eating animals that have been bred for meat. My understanding is that seal tastes horrible. Maybe if they taste more like bacon, we might have enormous seal farms.

[mouselock]

That's why I find there to be a difference between clubbing seals (for fur alone) and raising bacon.

It's illegal to hunt seals for fur alone in Canada. The hunters must use every part of the animal. According to the hunters they sell the oil to industry, and the meat for food for human and animal consumption. The fact that you don't eat them down south in the USA shouldn't be an issue. What should be an issue are factors like: is the creature an endangered species. That is why I would oppose the sale of ivory from rhinoceroses, for example, and not because they don't appear on the menu of my local Burger King.

Well, I agree about endangered animals, but on the other hand if it's a matter of you needing to kill the tiger to survive or vice versa, while I can sit here in the 1st world and say "No, don't kill the tiger, you should be able to live some other way!" I realize that's a luxury position to be in. (Though, again, nobody that I know of eats tiger, so killing it because some wealthy prick somewhere thinks it'd be cool to have tiger-skin seat-covers in their ferrari pisses me off to near-homicidal proportions.)

And if the seal truly is hunted for the entirety, that's fine with me, really. (So long as it's not the endangered harp seal or whatever being hunted to near extinction, of course.) However, selling seal pelts for $15k, and selling seal oil for $2.95 and making seal-fricasee which gets immediately fed to the dogs, while techinically "using" all of the seal, isn't really. Of course, you can't legislate nor enforce such things anyway.

[Bullhajj]

Catholicism sucks, Tim.

I will light a candle for you my son.

[tromik]

You can't kill a newborn seal, but once it hit 12 days old it's fine.

I've heard the seals has soft skulls, and that a single blow to the head does work fast, but is it true?

All those who work the seal pelt trade stand to make a combined 22 million Canadian I believe it was. I've heard PETA spends over that on anti seal clubing ads and information distribution. True?

[shift6]

It's illegal to hunt seals for fur alone in Canada. The hunters must use every part of the animal. According to the hunters they sell the oil to industry, and the meat for food for human and animal consumption.
In addition to being legit, it seems to me that it would also be a more profitable industry if the seal-clubbers did the whole thing and sold the meat, oil, etc. I mean they go to the effort to skin the animal already, so why would they then toss the carcass instead of finding a buyer?

That makes no sense from a pure corporate business point of view. Elephants I can see (that's a big fat ass to haul around the Serengeti), but baby seals?

[Bullhajj]

I mean they go to the effort to skin the animal already, so why would they then toss the carcass instead of finding a buyer?

I hear seal tastes like crap.

[Qenan]

You can't kill a newborn seal, but once it hit 12 days old it's fine.

Chalk me up as one of them soft-hearted liberals who thinks this is icky and brutal.