Skip Navigation

Seals (of the animal variety)

Travel Forums Off Topic Seals (of the animal variety)

Page

Last Post

11. Posted by Cupcake (Travel Guru 8468 posts) 10y

I am not sure that I understand what you're saying....
....I think/feel that quicker=less pain=more humane.
I would hope if I were to die by a gun, that it would be to the head and a high enough caliber that my brain is instantly destroyed.
From what I have seen....your heart stopping is not fast at all...it still takes minutes until brain death.....and I have also seen that gut shot is a terribly painful and prolonged death...so lets hope they are a good shot

12. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

I'm saying, to me "humane" implies human or at least human qualities. To treat something humanely in the sense that treat it as you would a human.

So if we want to save the fish stocks we should really be not only slaying hundreds of thousands of seals, but let's do-in in a few million humans as well - should tapper off the decline in fish populations.

13. Posted by Cupcake (Travel Guru 8468 posts) 10y

But that is a whole other issue...Over population. ;)
Doesn't that mean we are in agreement? About what humane means?
I (as a human) want a quick painless death, don't you want the same thing?

14. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

hmm... no I think we lost site of the issue - or at least what I meant to be the issue. I'm saying that killing a seal (or human) with a club or a gun is no different.

I don't think a gun is any more "humane" than a club, and I doubt quicker and painless.

Death unto itself is quick and painless.

15. Posted by Cupcake (Travel Guru 8468 posts) 10y

I definately beg to differ......I would wayyyyy rather be killed with a gun instead of a club.
And I have seen many many deaths that were FAR from quick and certainly not painless.

16. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

A well placed club would be as effective as a well placed bullet. As for death.. I mean death unto itself, not counting the time upto it.

I think we are on completely different islands on this one..

17. Posted by mim (Travel Guru 1276 posts) 10y

The seal thing...this is a sport/tradition? and are they seriously proposing that its for the sake of saving a population of fish?

I need to know more but I think so far its all sounding a bit wonky...

18. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Well every year the Canadian goverment sets the amount of young seals that can be culled. Supposidly the main reason is to protect fish populations (so the fisher-people can keep doing what they do best), another reason is the fur industry.

The sounds pretty normal for Canada, in Alberta there is a wolf culling every year to protect the caribu...

19. Posted by beerman (Respected Member 1631 posts) 10y

Here's a thought.....if we want to protect the fish population, then maybe WE should stop overfishing....DUH!!! Aren't we the species with the greatest impact to the planet and its populations? How many fish can you catch in a single net that covers hundreds of thousands of square feet (2 trillion sq. km)?

As well,is it necessary to develop huge swaths of land, then expect the wildlife to just move on? When do we stop anthropomorphizing animals? Is it really necessary to post signs in National Parks telling people: "Please do not feed the bears marshmallows with your teeth"?

As for the McCartneys....it would be nice if just once, some celebrity protester had even the vaguest idea of what they were talking about when they protested instead of getting a sound bite or snippet and running with it. And Sir Paul.....if you're so environmentally conscious, what are the "Linda Frozen Meals" made of? And the packaging? Stick to music.

As for the wolves in Alberta B...lets feed the seal clubbers and the fishermen to them, thereby helping the caribou, the wolves, the seals, and the fish. Brilliant. Then we feed the celebrity vermin to the seals, and all are happy.

Just my theory, and you know I could go on........

20. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 10y

Yeah Beerman, I've had the conversation (argument) a lot with people, especially here in Alberta. The standard argument being that farmers have the right to protect their live-stock.

I agree with you on all fronts, we've come to this idea that we hold dominion over all live. Therefore it falls upon us to decide what lives and what dies? The planet has been doing for some 4 billion odd years (280 U.S. Years).

Will there be a time of change? Probably not until all of the non-GMO animals are gone...

As for Sir Paul, Tway and myself went into this a bit, true that their statements may be... unlearned, but most peoples are. Most people have their opinions based on: faith, pop-culture, emotions, etc.. the opinions based on facts don't really come into play.

And it is true that there may be more "worthy" causes out there, saving the endangered snails of Hawaii, or trying to stop the "New World Order" - but he has chosen to save the lives of seals, which is noble regardless of the reason.