Clubbing seals and eating steak (PG)

[Junghalli]

Let me be more precise, because you’re being simplistic and naive: would you be prepared to risk the extinction of some livestock species as an alternative to them being farm-raised for food? Once we no longer have any use for them because we're eating plants and pills, you see.

Speaking as somebody who has ethical issues with meat farming, I wouldn't really have a problem with this.

I care about the well-being and suffering of individual sentient creatures. I attach no inherent value to abstracts like whether a certain species survives or not. If dairy cattle go extinct and the net result is less suffering I would consider this a good thing.

[K. A. Pital]

"Non-essential" to whom? The advocate, the protestor, the consumer, the hunter, the producer, or the seller? The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans maintains that the seal hunt is an economic mainstay of some northern communities. Are you oversimplifying a complex issue?

Society at large. Industrial society does NOT need seal hunting or even hunting in general (only for population control if needed to prevent eco-disaster). End of story. The fact that some idiots choose to make needless suffering as their "economic mainstay" why the bloody fuck should I care? Holocaust was an economic mainstay of Auschwitz, after all.

And you're not necessarily correct that seal hunts are superior to practices in cattle farming in that the latter alone "strives to be neither violent and painful nor unpredictable". DFO again maintains that the seal hunts in Canada are conducted in a manner appoved by veterinarian and legislative bodies as humane, organized, and responsible. If you have an objection, don't you think you should take it up with the Marine Mammal Policy of Canada and those charged with its approval and enforcement?

I think if I were a radical eco-activist, I would not care about what state bodies say about it, since they are corrupt motherfuckers taking bribes from hunters or farmers. There.

well, something I've been consistently arguing since the start of the thread is that no, meat is not MORE essential then seal fur as neither is essential.
meat is much much more useful, but it's not essential. in fact, you just said the same thing in the penultimate sentence.

Usefulness determines essentiality. Oil is "non-essential" too, except an abrupt collapse of oil production would lead to massive consequences if implemented abruptly. An abrupt end to seal hunts would have rather limited consequences, entirely offset by the benefit to natural seal populations.

So since it's non-essential, we're talking degrees of non-essentialness here, but I wouldn't consider either to be valid reason to inflict suffering either through the animal's life or in the manner of it's death.

The manner of death is important. We find death through torture far more abhorrent than an ordinary execution, even for humans themselves. Torture is a special crime separate from the mere act of killing. Cruel and unusual punishment is a separate term. So while I do not find many reasons for the infliction of suffering, I do understand the distinction between violent torturous death of a member of natural population and the analogue of euthanasia for bred livestock.

Seal fur is just one subset of fur. There are other ways to get fur. So I'm not sure how you can argue that meat as a broad category is no more essential than seal fur in particular. I highlighted the fallcy above. The cessation of seal hunting abruptly would not cause massive adverse consequences for a huge part of humanity. Collapse of meat production would. Although I agree that beef should be phased out, pure and simple.

If some absolutely painless way of killing was developed that could be used easily, surely that'd make hunting better then farming? Animal gets natural life until it's lights out time.

The hell? The very process of hunting disallows to use most painless methods (e.g. chemical killing, killing while unconscious, etc.). Of course if you could make hunting without it being efficiently the analogue of torture and violent murder for humans, perhaps you'd have a point. However, as it stands now even in restrained conditions it requires a special technique, skill and equipment to kill the animal painlessly. In hunting that's plain impossible (unless we're talking about tranquilizer hunting pure, after which the animal is killed in a restrained painless fashion using advanced killing equipment). And I doubt hunters would concur to such a process. Hunting is related to firearms and violent murder and cannot be easily decoupled with that.

And while the method of seal killing is definitely more haphazard and thus crueler then a restrained bolt, I would point out that modern cattle killing methods are, well, modern. 30 years ago people didn't look at what was being done and say, it's cruel and haphazard, we should ban the beef industry, they just developed better tools.

Yes, but it happened nonetheless even if for utility reasons as opposed to ethical ones. Are you going to engage in a fallacy saying that a painless hunting method can be developed? Please, fucking please. Painless murder from afar by firearms is not realistic, and painless clubbing of seals is even fucking less realistic. Nothing - nor utility neither ethic - will ever change hunting from the equivalent of torture and gruesome murder into the equivalent of euthanasia. Nothing. Aside from nanorobotic wanking or such.

Is there a reason the same reasoning cannot be applied to the seal hunt? that they need to develop specialist ammunition or better marksmen or go back to the hakapik only? (After all, being hit by the business end of a hakapik is almost exactly like being hit by a restrained bolt)

No, because that is absolutely bullshit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And while the method of seal killing is definitely more haphazard and thus crueler then a restrained bolt, I would point out that modern cattle killing methods are, well, modern. 30 years ago people didn't look at what was being done and say, it's cruel and haphazard, we should ban the beef industry, they just developed better tools.

Actually, they did exactly that. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in the 1970s, and while there are exemptions in some parts of it related to the day to day care of agricultural animals, there are no such exemptions with regard to the manner in which animals may be killed in an agricultural setting. Captive Bolt, certain gases, or rapid exsanguination are the only acceptable methods. So, you can either stab a pneumatic spike into the brainstem, gas them with nitrogen or CO2 (which causes no pain or distress/is an analgesic at high concentrations respectively), or use a razor edged knife to sever the jugular vein and carotid artery, causing practically instant unconsciousness and death (the last one has to be carefully monitored though. It is often done incorrectly).

This was done for top-down imposed ethical reasons. And none of them work on a wild animal that is not otherwise restrained.

[madd0ct0r]

Let me unscramble my syntax:

Thirty years ago, they didn't look at what was being done and say, 'it's cruel and haphazard therefore we should ban the beef industry'.
Thirty years ago, they looked at what was being done and said, 'it's cruel and haphazard' therefore they developed better tools.

I think I changed tense halfway through the original sentence, apologies for confusion. My point was is that demonstrating the cruelty of slaughter used in seal hunting is not necessarily enough to ban it, as it might (or should) be possible to improve the methods used.

As for what possible methods - Stas suggested tranquilizing, I have no suggestions becuase I know fuck all about ways to kill things - overpowered tazer perhaps?

I still contend that, having your skull crushed by a big spike of metal is rather like having your skull crushed by a restrained bolt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakapik
But since the modern hunt targets seals that can get away, that might be why they've switched to mostly shooting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez

his article reports the results of observations made by representatives of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association at the hunt in recent years and compares them with observations made by members of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. The conclusion is that the large majority of seals taken during this hunt (at best, 98% in work reported here) are killed in an acceptably humane manner. However, the small proportion of animals that are not killed effectively justifies continued attention to this hunt on the part of the veterinary profession.

as for 'humane standards' shot seals were immeadietly clubbed as soon as the boat reached them, followed by exsanguination, in a similar method to the cattle. Quote is from same source:

No interval between an animal being shot and losing consciousness will ever be acceptable to some people. Conversely, others may consider that, in cases when the animal is not killed by the initial shot, an average interval of 45.2 s between being wounded and dying is acceptable from a humane perspective.


...


A welfare audit of 41 beef slaughter plants in the United States in 1999 revealed that the percentages of cattle stunned with 1 shot from a captive bolt stunner were 100% at 5 (12%) plants, 99% at 10 (24%) plants, 95 to 98% at 22 (54%) plants, 90 to 94% at 2 (5%) plants, and < 90% at 2 (5%) plants (24). All cattle where the 1st shot missed were immediately restunned. The author emphasized the need for continuous auditing in order to prevent deterioration of handling practices. Ultimately, the quality of the seal hunt will depend on appropriate and enforceable regulations, adequate supervision and monitoring by DFO officers, and the training and ethics of the sealers.

Now, what did Stas argue?

1) economic mainstay is no argument.

I assume this applies equally to beef farming?

2) State orgnaisations might be biased and/or corrupt and thus are bad sources.

Fine. Have you got any alternative sources? I've been using stuff from Sea Shepard and PETA where it applied. If not got alt sources, should we continue this discussion without evidence?

3) Economic mainstay IS important

oh. How do I reconcile 3) and 1)? well, I could point out that I've not argued for an abrupt change in anything more then about 14 peoples eating habits, some of whom don't eat beef anyway. Or are you arguing that industrial society Needs beef like it Needs oil?
Are we taking the length of time required for a switchover as a measure of essentialness? How long do you think repurposeing the land used to grow grain for cattle will take?
Teaching people new recipes might be harder.

4a) A painless hunting method is impossible, unless you're talking about tranquilizer hunting
4b) - hunting is related to guns and violence, and hunters will never give up their right to violate baby seals. (paraphrased for brevity and comedic effect)

4b I don't think I'll comment on, since it's a ideological position that isn't directly related to the matter at hand.

4a) Since I don't think these guys are pleasure hunters, if i spread my magic wings and made hunting by tranq the only legal option, would that remove your opposition (at least on this aspect)?
frankly 42.5 seconds of having been shot is longer then I'd like either.

[K. A. Pital]

I assume this applies equally to beef farming?

Yes. I already said so. Selecting beef in particular among other types of meat is simply excessively damaging to the ecology and is not a huge issue except for Western cultural preferences. Dealing with Islam might be harder, though. *laughs*

Fine. Have you got any alternative sources?

However, a 2001 study, by Burdon, et al., the IFAW Veterinary Report on the Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt 2001[99] conducted by five international veterinarians and commissioned by IFAW, an organization that opposes the seal hunt,[100] disputes these findings. This report concludes the Canadian commercial seal hunt results in considerable and unacceptable suffering.

The veterinarians examined 76 seal carcasses and found that in 17% of the cases, there were no detectable lesions of the skull, leading them to conclude the clubbing likely did not result in loss of consciousness. In 25% of the remaining cases, the carcasses had minimal to moderate skull fractures, indicative of a "decreased level of consciousness", but probably not unconsciousness. The remaining 58% of the carcasses examined showed extensive skull fractures.

This veterinary study included examination of video footage of 179 seals hunted in 1998, 1999, and 2000. In these videos, 96 seals were shot, 56 were shot and then clubbed or gaffed, 19 were clubbed or gaffed, and 8 were killed by unknown means. In 79% of these cases, sealers did not check the corneal reflex to ensure that the seals were dead prior to hooking or skinning them. In only 6% of these cases, seals were bled immediately, where struck. The average time from initial strike to bleeding was 66 seconds.

In 2005, IFAW published a comparison of the CVMA-funded study and its own study, entitled Canada’s Commercial Seal Hunt is "Not Acceptably Humane".[101] In this critique, Dr. David M. Lavigne, Science Advisor to IFAW, writes, "The Burdon et al. evidence cited above addresses the question of whether seals were likely conscious or unconscious at the time they were skinned, using post-mortem examination of skulls. In marked contrast, the figure cited from Daoust et al.’s report represents the number of seals clubbed or shot that were brought on board sealing vessels while still conscious. That number ignores any and all animal suffering that occurs between the time animals are clubbed or shot until they eventually reach a sealing vessel, usually on the end of a hook or gaff." Another difference between these reports is "Daoust et al.’s direct observations were made under very different conditions than those provided by Burdon et al. Unlike Burdon et al.’s observations, they were made directly from sealing vessels so that the sealers were unavoidably aware that observers were present. As Daoust et al. (p 692) admit, the presence of an observer on a sealing vessel “may have incited sealers to hit the seals skulls more vigorously”. Of course, the presence of an observer also has the potential to modify other sealing practices, including checking for a corneal reflex and bleeding animals immediately after clubbing."

I've not argued for an abrupt change in anything more then about 14 peoples eating habits, some of whom don't eat beef anyway

Neither do I. So? The whole ethical exercise is pointless if it does not tell us what to do. Unlike you, I actually understand that speaking out against the eating of beef is only reasonable when you speak out against it completely, since a boycott by 14 people will not impact the beef industry at all.

Are we taking the length of time required for a switchover as a measure of essentialness? How long do you think repurposeing the land used to grow grain for cattle will take? Teaching people new recipes might be harder.

Yes, length of time required for a switchover without gross negative consequences is definetely a measure of essentialness. For example, China can principally switch from coal to nuclear, however, it cannot do so immediately. Repurposing the land would not take that much time and the excess grain can be used to feed more people.

Since I don't think these guys are pleasure hunters, if i spread my magic wings and made hunting by tranq the only legal option, would that remove your opposition (at least on this aspect)?

If you did so, then of course I would not oppose hunting for reasons of particular cruelty, sadism or torture, but only in cases when hunting adversely impacts population stock (threat of extinction or damage to future population viability). I would also be less averse to support hunting as a method of population control.

I don't think I'll comment on, since it's a ideological position that isn't directly related to the matter at hand.

It is not an ideological position. Hunting in general is violent and often downright torturous. Painless hunting with what we have now is simply impossible, neither for large game on land, nor for the seals as far as I understand.

[Thanas]

So maddoctor, what is your argument for continuing seal hunting?

[madd0ct0r]

Stasbush first:

4b) i was referring more to "Hunting is related to firearms and violent murder and cannot be easily decoupled with that."

the murder goes without saying - killing something before you eat is much nicer then not. But firearms and violence? maybe in the general case, but I don't think seal hunters are out to inflict pain or even to shoot their manhood off, i think they're out to make a buck on sealskin.

and it seems we agree on the other points, except you think I should be campaigning much more loudly for vegetarianism?



Hello Thanas? My argument is and never has been that seal hunting is good, it's that your position where eating beef is fine and clubbing seals is not is hypocritical.
have you found any more arguments i ignored?

[K. A. Pital]

Stasbush first:
4b) i was referring more to "Hunting is related to firearms and violent murder and cannot be easily decoupled with that."
the murder goes without saying - killing something before you eat is much nicer then not.

Does not really matter, since seals are not eaten.

But firearms and violence? maybe in the general case, but I don't think seal hunters are out to inflict pain or even to shoot their manhood off, i think they're out to make a buck on sealskin. and it seems we agree on the other points, except you think I should be campaigning much more loudly for vegetarianism?

Much more impractical and futile. Banning hunting is much easier. A more practical goal would be campaining against beef consumption in particular, with pigs acting as the interim meat supplier (without the methane problems) until we find a way to introduce a safe universal diet for all (and make most if not all people actually follow it).

[Broomstick]

You do realize that a substantial portion of humanity regards pork as a vile and hideous thing, yes? That alone makes your strategy impractical. Might as well just campaign for vegetarianism.

[K. A. Pital]

You do realize that a substantial portion of humanity regards pork as a vile and hideous thing, yes? That alone makes your strategy impractical. Might as well just campaign for vegetarianism.

Yes, I noted that Islam is a problem - perhaps insurmountable. However, given the poverty of islamic nations, the vast majority of cow methane is the fault of Western Christians, I would believe.

In the end, if I had my way, religions would be greatly weakened if not gone in a reasonably remote future anyway, so I guess not all positions I hold are really practical.

[Broomstick]

Would transitioning to goats and sheep instead of cows be of any benefit? They would have the advantage of being able to convert scrubland unsuitable for food crops into meat as well while decreasing overall meat consumption.

[Lagmonster]

Fine. Have you got any alternative sources?

However, a 2001 study, by Burdon, et al., the IFAW Veterinary Report on the Canadian Commercial Seal Hunt 2001[99] conducted by five international veterinarians and commissioned by IFAW, an organization that opposes the seal hunt,[100] disputes these findings. This report concludes the Canadian commercial seal hunt results in considerable and unacceptable suffering.

I'm still working on much longer replies to Thanas and Alyrium from pages back, but I'm getting fucking tired of people quoting pre-2009 studies of the seal hunt as if they mean shit. The law, policies, and monitoring of the seal hunt were all changed in 2009 to conform to veterinary-approved kill methods. Anything before that time is worth precisely dick.

Repurposing the land would not take that much time and the excess grain can be used to feed more people.

Based on what? What makes you think that the land, infrastructure, and financial programs supporting the beef industry are actually that easy to dismantle, or that infrastructure for grains and oilseeds processing can be put into place as quickly? Do you even know how food producers are networked to prevent change by exploiting how scared people are to have either no food or no cheap food, and how they wield political power in North America?

[madd0ct0r]

does that second quote belong to stasbush or me?

[K. A. Pital]

I'm still working on much longer replies to Thanas and Alyrium from pages back, but I'm getting fucking tired of people quoting pre-2009 studies of the seal hunt as if they mean shit. The law, policies, and monitoring of the seal hunt were all changed in 2009 to conform to veterinary-approved kill methods. Anything before that time is worth precisely dick.

Really? I thought we were talking about the industry in general, not just Canada's rules.

[Lagmonster]

I'm still working on much longer replies to Thanas and Alyrium from pages back, but I'm getting fucking tired of people quoting pre-2009 studies of the seal hunt as if they mean shit. The law, policies, and monitoring of the seal hunt were all changed in 2009 to conform to veterinary-approved kill methods. Anything before that time is worth precisely dick.

Really? I thought we were talking about the industry in general, not just Canada's rules.

Don't play weasel with me, Stas. Your quote specifically mentioned the 2001 report on the Canadian seal hunt. Like it or not, that's what you were talking about.

[madd0ct0r]

Canada's is by far the best documented, and the Canadian government helpfully provides stuff in English.

we could do the world wide seal hunt, but then we'd also have to look at the world wide beef industry for parity.

[K. A. Pital]

Don't play weasel with me, Stas. Your quote specifically mentioned the 2001 report on the Canadian seal hunt. Like it or not, that's what you were talking about.

I am not. I just find it unlikely that other nations used a process much different or much more humane than that of Canada in 2001 (and still use).

[madd0ct0r]

Is this thread finished?

cos if so I'll write up a conclusion, it was a good debate.




EDIT (That is not the conclusion - i was going to briefly summarise the points that defeat the OP)