Clubbing seals and eating steak (PG)

[madd0ct0r]

recently, I got in minor trouble with thanas for posting this image:



given the context, it was a dickish thing to do.
It's also factually inaccurate - white coat immature seals are currently banned from being hunted. We go after the spotty teenagers instead.



but it got me thinking.

"What is the moral difference between clubbing seals and shooting cattle?"





Both methods of killing, if executed properly, should result in a clean fast death.

Seals are mostly killed for their skin. Byproducts such as meat and 'fish oil' are also sold but most of it goes to make luxury clothing.

Cattle are mostly killed for meat, with an important byproduct being their skin, which goes to make luxury clothing.

Neither is an endangered species, although cattle is a wholly artificial species, created by man for the sole purpose of living and dying at our whim.

One is a natural species, hunted for it's produce. This hunt is currently regulated to ensure sustainability. It provides an income in areas where unemployment is high, and other means of employment are scarce.

The other is a created species, capable of eating either grass or grain. The latter is frequently fed to North American cattle to ensure they fatten for slaughter quickly. Simply put, these cattle have greater buying power (via their consumers) then starving people in the poorer parts of the world.

But one is slaughtered mostly for it's hide. Surely that is more immoral? After all, starving Africans are an incidental byproduct of the meat manufacture process, not integral to cattle farming itself.

Comrades and the rest of the board, I suggest that meat itself is a luxury product. It is perfectly possible to live without meat, and massively easy to live with a reduced amount compared to the current North American consumption.
As i can hear you pragmatic utilitarians muttering at the back, eating a small amount of meat is cheaper then balanced vegetarianism, let alone veganism. To you I concede, with the minor caveat I am talking about cattle, and steak is not a traditionally cheap meat.

Assuming you wish to live a moral life, and further assuming you are against clubbing seals, will you still eat beef?

[NoXion]

Since you say that seals are sustainably hunted, I'm not seeing the problem. Although I will need more convincing that clubbing is as likely to be as humane as using a captive bolt gun - I imagine the former method, being intended for use "in the field" rather than in the more controlled confines of a slaughterhouse, has more room for variability and hence more room for potential suffering.

As for meat and fur being a luxury, I contend that the sustainable popularisation of such luxuries is both possible and desirable. Possible because meat and leather/fur aren't made out of exotic or rare elements, and desirable because luxuries that can be provided in quantity represent an undeniable increase in quality of life. Of course it helps that to get to the point of being able to provide animal products in quantity to a large fraction of the populous, a society has to be materially and intellectually prosperous. This means that increased meat consumption is a plausible outcome of educational and industrial development, which should be the goal in the first instance because so much else that is good flows from that.

[mr friendly guy]

I don't eat beef anyway except if its served at celebrations or parties (I at least make the effort to try and be polite) and prefer chicken. Not only do I like the taste better, they contribute less to methane production and climate change for an equivalent amount of mass.

As for killing seals, how intelligent are they? Close to whales or more like cows? Because people will object to killing animals which are more intelligent, and hence "more like us".

[AniThyng]

No one objects to Pigs though even though they are close to dogs (or surpass), so I'm sure cultural inertia has a lot of pull too. Unless the Pig intelligence thing has been debunked...

[aieeegrunt]

I find all forms of meat delicious, but I'm told seal is really gross. The best animal I've cooked and eaten was far and away a bear though. I seem to need a lot of protein in my diet to flourish, and steak is a delicious wrapper for it. So is chicken.

[Thanas]

One difference might be that the Cattle slaughter methods are designed to kill quickly and have failsafes. I fail to see both applied to the clubs.

Also, there is a difference in killing an animal for all its usable parts and killing it solely for a luxury item. Yes, meat is one as well, but there is a difference in the degree of product used.

[Spoonist]

Another factor is seeking out the animals in their habitat and specifically target their young.

[Knife]

What kind of increase in food production and farm land increase would be required to shift 300 million or so people, in the States even, to a pure vegetarian diet? If we are eliminating a huge portion of our diet, what will it take to make up for it, presumably in amounts enough so that it's possible for the population of have an adequate diet.

[Spoonist]

Not an increase but a decrease.
The process of turning vegetables into meat is innefficient from an acerage point of view.

Such an adaption would just be along lines of different crops.

However that is not necessary nor rational. Instead what would be good for any "1st" world would be an increase of vegetables in the diet and a decrease in animal stuff. Both from an economic and a health perspective. But removing it completely is not an option.

[NoXion]

Not an increase but a decrease.
The process of turning vegetables into meat is innefficient from an acerage point of view.

Aren't certain types of land better for rearing livestock as opposed to growing crops? I would imagine that in places like the Brecon Beacons it makes more sense to rear sheep than to grow vegetables...

[Akhlut]

What kind of increase in food production and farm land increase would be required to shift 300 million or so people, in the States even, to a pure vegetarian diet? If we are eliminating a huge portion of our diet, what will it take to make up for it, presumably in amounts enough so that it's possible for the population of have an adequate diet.

Not that much, necessarily. Most US cattle are fed diets with substantial amounts of soy and corn, which can instead either be fed directly to humans or the land can be used to grow other food products.

However, I'd be much happier converting large tracts of land used to feed cattle in the Great Plains back to prairie to feed pronghorn and bison, which we could cull to feed people instead. That would necessitate reducing meat intake rather substantially, though, as we would probably be able to maximally rely on only 30 million bison as opposed to the 90+ million cattle we have currently (assuming total conversion, which is unlikely).

[Spoonist]

Not an increase but a decrease.
The process of turning vegetables into meat is innefficient from an acerage point of view.

Aren't certain types of land better for rearing livestock as opposed to growing crops? I would imagine that in places like the Brecon Beacons it makes more sense to rear sheep than to grow vegetables...

If we are talking hens, goats and sheep then yes. But since most acerage is for cows and pigs so no.

[Akhlut]

If we are talking hens, goats and sheep then yes. But since most acerage is for cows and pigs so no.

Depends on how they're being raised. Modern factory farming? Not so much, because the land being used to feed the pigs and cows can be used to feed people instead. Free-range pigs and cows, though, can possibly be used on land that is not particularly usable for most farming (very hilly territory, where one cannot possibly run a combine; soils that are too alkaline or acidic to grow certain crops, but grow fodder for animals just fine, quasi-wild areas that one does not want to clear-cut for farming, but would be just fine to let a few dozen cows or pigs wander around and eat stuff in).

Also, if we were willing to diversify our foodstocks, we'd be much better off, both in environmental terms and ability to still have a moderately high protein diet. If western people were more amenable to eating, say, crickets, well, they're super easy to raise and much more efficient at converting plants into meat. Hell, even if we want to stick primarily to vertebrates, rabbits would work out much better for us, as would aquaponics (a system where one grows vegetables on a platform above a large water tank used to grow fish; water from the fish tank is used to grow vegetables, which in turn oxygenate the water, to grossly simplify the system).

[madd0ct0r]

Another factor is seeking out the animals in their habitat and specifically target their young.

ignoring specialty products like veal, most beef bullocks are slaughtered at 48 months (give or take)
seal pups are legally able to be hunted at age 14 days.

Do you feel the age is an important moral distinction?

One difference might be that the Cattle slaughter methods are designed to kill quickly and have failsafes. I fail to see both applied to the clubs.

Also, there is a difference in killing an animal for all its usable parts and killing it solely for a luxury item. Yes, meat is one as well, but there is a difference in the degree of product used.

from wikipedia: "In the Canadian commercial seal hunt, the majority of the hunters initiate the kill using a firearm. Ninety percent of sealers on the ice floes of the Front (east of Newfoundland), where the majority of the hunt occurs, use firearms"

"Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the forehead until its skull has been crushed," and that "No person shall commence to skin or bleed a seal until the seal is dead," which occurs when it "has a glassy-eyed, staring appearance and exhibits no blinking reflex when its eye is touched while it is in a relaxed condition."[29] Reportedly, in one study, three out of eight times, the animal was not rendered either dead or unconscious by shooting, and the hunters would then kill the seal using a hakapik or other club of a type that is sanctioned by the governing authority"

I can't find evidence of similar failure of stunning rates for the slaughterhouse processing of cattle. I think the methods are designed to kill quickly (the hakapik especially) and there are fail safes in use.

The thing about the degree of difference is that all the parts of the seal are used too. Money is money. Meat is sold to the pet food industry, and to Asia. Blubber is rendered done ect.
The primary produce of beef cattle is beef, but bone meal, hide ect are all used as by products purely because they're available.

I think you are arguing that a beef steak is less of a luxury then a seal skin coat. Before the EU banned the imports in 2009, a seal pelt went for $100. How many pelts to make a coat?
How many steak dinners could you get for that money?
Which one is the durable good, and which (for continued luxuriousness) requires you do it all over again in a month or two?

[Thanas]

Another factor is seeking out the animals in their habitat and specifically target their young.

ignoring specialty products like veal, most beef bullocks are slaughtered at 48 months (give or take)
seal pups are legally able to be hunted at age 14 days.

Do you feel the age is an important moral distinction?

It should be. And I don't eat veal.

"Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the forehead until its skull has been crushed," and that "No person shall commence to skin or bleed a seal until the seal is dead," which occurs when it "has a glassy-eyed, staring appearance and exhibits no blinking reflex when its eye is touched while it is in a relaxed condition."[29] Reportedly, in one study, three out of eight times, the animal was not rendered either dead or unconscious by shooting, and the hunters would then kill the seal using a hakapik or other club of a type that is sanctioned by the governing authority"

I can't find evidence of similar failure of stunning rates for the slaughterhouse processing of cattle. I think the methods are designed to kill quickly (the hakapik especially) and there are fail safes in use.

3 out of eight times? Sorry, but if that happened in a cattle slaughterhouse over here said slaughterhouse would be shut down. Heck, they recently shut down one slaughterhouse because its assembly line had the living animals being dragged on their knees for a short time. 3 out of eight times failure is not acceptable nor moral.

I would expect something like a 5% failure rate here, but good god man. How can you defend such rates?

I think you are arguing that a beef steak is less of a luxury then a seal skin coat. Before the EU banned the imports in 2009, a seal pelt went for $100. How many pelts to make a coat?

I do not know, but the coats I have seen looked pretty big. Then again, so are seals....

How many steak dinners could you get for that money?

Over here? Depending on where you eat anything from 7 to one.

But really, 3 out of 8 times?

[madd0ct0r]

delving into the wiki discussion pages this apeears to be a controversial subject. who knew ?

"EFSA Q-2007-118, 4.2.2.1. Shooting
Of 47 carcasses of harp seals shot on the Front in 1999 and examined by Daoust et al. (2002),
35 (75%) had been shot in the head: the skull and brain were “completely destroyed” in 28
cases, the mandible and base of the cranial cavity destroyed in 5 cases, and the snout and
frontal region of the cranial cavity destroyed in 2 cases. Six (13%) of the 47 animals had been
shot in the neck, with complete transection of the cervical portion of the vertebral column;
three (6%) had been shot in the ventral region of the neck with destruction of soft tissues,
including major blood vessels. The remaining three seals (6%) had been shot in the thorax or
abdomen, one of which was “found alive by itself on an ice floe and was immediately killed
with a hakapik by a DFO officer”.
In 2001 in the Gulf, in most (estimated 85%) of 43 cases where the animals had been shot, the
interval between the shot and first contact by a sealer (resulting primarily from the time
required for the vessel to get close enough to the ice floe for one of the sealers to land) was 1
min (Daoust et al., 2002). Some of these animals (3 of 8, in one instance where exact records
were kept) were still alive during this interval. Retrospectively, the authors thought that
ammunition of lower caliber than allowed by the Canadian Marine Mammal Regulation may
have been used that year.
In the 169 cases examined on video by Butterworth et al. (2007), of which 37% were shot, the
authors were able to establish the start sequences for 88% of the seals. Of the seals shot, 78%
were shot once. Of 51 shots where the point of impact could be established, 41% were in the
head region, 55% were in other parts of the body, and 4% missed the animal entirely. The mean
time interval from the first shot to contact by a sealer was 48.8±9.4 seconds. Sixty-six percent
of the shot animals received subsequent blows from a hakapik and a further 16%, which were
not clubbed, responded to stimuli after being shot."


that stat is presented as 3 out of 8 as a subset of a larger study of 43 animals. even if it refferred to the full 43 as a representive sample I still think t's a bit small, not to mention subject to sytamatic bias (all one boat).

i'll add more later.

[Thanas]

Still too much. Even if it is a small size and the other boats would be twice that competent, that still is too high.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Both methods of killing, if executed properly, should result in a clean fast death.

One animal is as dumb as a box of rocks and is killed via a spike applied directly to the brain, and slaughterhouses are designed to minimize stress to the animal. They go willingly to the room, the spike is driven in, the dead cow is removed and floor sprayed etc. It dies instantly, no stress. It walks into a room, and lights out.

The other animal is at least as smart as a dog (probably moreso), and is being repeated beaten over the head with a club. This animal is also presumably trying to survive. This animal dies frightened and in pain.

One is a natural species, hunted for it's produce. This hunt is currently regulated to ensure sustainability.

There is no such thing. No. Seriously. No hunt or fishery in the world is really sustainable unless the animal has no predators (because we have killed them all). Kill quotas are negotiated and based only loosely on the recommendation of scientists. Each country also regulates said hunting independently, and in a migratory population that breeds on pack ice, that is not a good thing. Moreover, hunting quotas as large as those used today are the same numbers that drove the number of harp seals world wide to under two million in the 1950s and 1960s. They have recovered somewhat because from the 1970s through the 1990s, the quotas were much lower, less than 100k per year. Now they are at 300k per year for canada alone. Combine this with the fact that the seal food supplies are in a state of free fall (because of our "sustainable and regulated" commercial fisheries), and they wont have any pack ice to breed on in a few years... Yeah. The population is not stable. Not at all.

Comrades and the rest of the board, I suggest that meat itself is a luxury product. It is perfectly possible to live without meat, and massively easy to live with a reduced amount compared to the current North American consumption.

Which is why we need to massively reform our meat farming practices. However, luxury is also not a binary. There are degrees. Meat is not necessary, but it is an integral portion of the diet of most of humanity to the extent that they eat it culturally. A seal fur coat is a high end luxury item for the wealthy.

Moreover, only the skin is taken from the seal. If you are going to kill an animal, you should at least have enough respect for it to use as much of it as you can. Cow and pig parts are used in everything from glue to making bullets. Most of chickens are also usually used for something.

ignoring specialty products like veal, most beef bullocks are slaughtered at 48 months (give or take)
seal pups are legally able to be hunted at age 14 days.

Do you feel the age is an important moral distinction?

Yes. A 48 month old cow is a mature adult. A 14 day old seal is barely weaned. It cannot defend itself, it has no life experience, has had no chance to breed (so you cut the bottom out of the population and fuck up the age structure), and has probably just figured out that mom is not coming back.

So yes. There is a difference. In the same way that murdering a child is a bit more wrong than murdering an adult human.

[K. A. Pital]

Meat is not necessary, but many people (due to hormonal specifics, for example) might find it extremely hard to adapt to a purely plant diet. On the other hand, seal fur coats are something rich fucktards wear to show off they're Alpha Males (or females) in a world of stupid apes.

If you want a good analogue, pick Japanese whale slaughter. Whales are slaughtered for extreme high-end consumption of some fuckers. Fuck them.

Also, people did not breed the seals. If you don't breed something, you fucker have no right to take a life you had no hand in producing.

That pretty much sums it up. Same as the Japanese whale hunting, killing seals for fur is repugnant atrocious bullshit. Like gold-plated yachts, huge mansions, palaces built and whales killed for merely a few people to satisfy their vainglorious desire to demonstrate superiority and their class position to others, seal fur coats should disgust people.

I see no difference between this and some rich fuck showing off by say, going on moose hunting with a helicopter. We don't object to deer hunting in principle when the moose has at least some chance. When the rich fuck burns tons of kerosene fuel to use a killing machine from which there is no escape.

Rick fucks are disgusting and everything they do to show off to other apes of their class is disgusting.

[spaceviking]

Ya fuck the selfish upper class. I will never own a seal coat because of the price, but in terms of extreme cold weather seal is the best possible coat.

[Broomstick]

Most of us don't live in the sort of climate where use of sealskins for coats could be justified from a survival perspective.

I live in a pretty harsh climate myself (today is the anniversary of Chicago's coldest day ever, -33 C) and yet I'm managed to stay warm around here, even when spending hours a day outside, without needing to wear dead animal fur. (I confess a liking for genuine leather boots, one pair of which I've been using for 34 years, but they aren't necessary any more than meat in the diet is necessary.)

Natural animal products such as leather, wool, and fur can be very nice in cold climates, however, for the vast majority of climates where winter clothing is needed something as common as domestic rabbit fur, the leather from cows we eat anyway, and wool from domestic sheep are entirely adequate. We don't need to pursue rare species, or species where all we use is the fur and let the rest go to waste. It seems more sensible to fully utilize the domestics than to pursue increasingly rare creatures, or those whose ecological status we are unsure of, if we use animals products for clothing at all.

[Akhlut]

Ya fuck the selfish upper class. I will never own a seal coat because of the price, but in terms of extreme cold weather seal is the best possible coat.

You realize most modern Eskimos and Inuit wear stuff from North Face or some other outdoor company, right? A lot of them also use or make use of snowmobiles, bush planes, rifles, and gas stoves. So, it's a bit disingenuous to trot out an image of Eskimo/Inuit people from a century ago.

Additionally, when they do go on traditional seal hunts, they don't just hack off the skin and leave the rest to rot, they actually eat the animal and use it for something other than a coat.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ya fuck the selfish upper class. I will never own a seal coat because of the price, but in terms of extreme cold weather seal is the best possible coat.

No, it actually is not. Seals use blubber to keep their core temp up except when they are really really little and have no blubber (moms milk is 48% fat for a reason, so when she leaves after two weeks, the baby has gained a layer of thick blubber). Synthetics and synthetic/natural composites from domestic animals are far better both functionally, and ethically (as we are fully utilizing animals we kill anyway, or not killing anything at all). Additionally, First Nation peoples take a miniscule fraction of the total catch. Around 3%. They also use the whole animal, which is a vital source of food and materials for a people trying to maintain their rather ancient cultural practices.

It is highly disindigenous to compare what they do to the modern commercial hunt of seals.

[Scrib]

This may make me seem odd, but I fail to see the point of the distinctions being made in this thread.

What difference does it make how old the seal is? From a logical perspective does it really matter? And the idea of 'respecting' an animal by using as much of it as possible? Yeah that smells like rationalized bullshit to me. It seems like just another way to make ourselves feel better about what we're doing. The seal's corpse doesn't care about how you 'respect' it. The purpose really makes no difference really.

Perhaps better measures need to be taken to make sure the seals die as painlessly as possible. But the arguments about the purpose seem pointless.

It seems to me the whole issue is based in some vague, emotional double standard we have in terms of animals. I see it all the time, some animals are simply valued more than others, because they're cuter or smarter or whatever. I'm not quite sure what the difference between eating a dog and a cow is but people seem to feel very strongly about it.

People seem to make the argument that such animals are more intelligent and I guess, therefore more useful, but that problem can simply be solved by breeding the animal you need for the specific task and not worrying about the rest.

[Thanas]

This may make me seem odd, but I fail to see the point of the distinctions being made in this thread.

What difference does it make how old the seal is? From a logical perspective does it really matter? And the idea of 'respecting' an animal by using as much of it as possible? Yeah that smells like rationalized bullshit to me. It seems like just another way to make ourselves feel better about what we're doing. The seal's corpse doesn't care about how you 'respect' it. The purpose really makes no difference really.

Yes it does. Killing is an evil act that can be rationalized due to the necessity of the killing. If there is no purpose or necessity for it, then it cannot be justified. Likewise, the more you take away from the thing you kill, the harder it is to rationalize the killing.

Perhaps better measures need to be taken to make sure the seals die as painlessly as possible. But the arguments about the purpose seem pointless.

It seems to me the whole issue is based in some vague, emotional double standard we have in terms of animals. I see it all the time, some animals are simply valued more than others, because they're cuter or smarter or whatever. I'm not quite sure what the difference between eating a dog and a cow is but people seem to feel very strongly about it.

People seem to make the argument that such animals are more intelligent and I guess, therefore more useful, but that problem can simply be solved by breeding the animal you need for the specific task and not worrying about the rest.

So your response to the argument is to declare it bullshit by fiat and then make a blatant ad hominem against the people arguing it.

I see this will bring you far in life. *slow clap*