Canada's seal hunt about to begin [Archive]

leonmarino

Mar 17, 2007, 04:04

humans of course are priority, but that doesn't mean that what happens to baby seals, whales, or dolphins is any less tragic.I take it you are vegetarian? I hope so, because what about the rights of cows, pigs, chickens etc..

Without making personal attacks, I find all these things about animal rights and animal abuse often very inconsistent. I mean, many people call themselves animal-lovers by keeping pets. In the case of cats and dogs, these pets are feeded with food made from animal products. Now why is your Rex, Pochi or Tama so sweet and the cow that went into the can of food not? And if you give them meat to eat, why bother about seals and dolphins?

I am not saying that I endorse these killings, I find the products related to seals completely unnecessary as far as I am aware of them. If I ruled the world all seals would live in peace. Not because I care, but because I don't care.

made of stone

Mar 17, 2007, 04:54

Very sadly, I think there are probably cruelties of many different kinds happening all around us, every minute of every day, if we choose to open our eyes and acknowledge them. Once we have done that, personally I think we have to consider if each individual case is something we'd like to see stopped. If it is, then either you do something, no matter how little, in the spirit of protesting that cruelty, or you do nothing. The choice is yours.

Human torture is very real, it's happening right now. Quite rightly, almost all of us lend our shrill voices to denounce it, (although it's a completely different question whether any of us are doing anywhere nearly enough.)

The animal equivalent is far more frequent, and far less talked about. leonmarino, try to see the many grey shades in between those blacks and whites that are so easily spotted! Man has killed animal for thousands of years, but the technique is very important indeed. If you slit a goat's throat, it will gently slip away, akin to falling asleep. Modern farming methods favour stunning it by electrocution and then slitting it's throat. The great difference is that in many cases the goat (or sheep, or whatever) can see the production line it's on, what has happened to the others before it, and even before it's turn has come, it's a terrified animal indeed.

I'm a meat eater at present, and doing my best to preserve that status (I love a good steak!) But my meat must be ethically raised and killed. The way these seals are slaughtered is deeply inhumane and completely unethical and the end product is not a mere staple of life (as meat is for many communities and cultures) it's a fashion accessory for those who are so rich it's the only status symbol they have yet to acquire!

I applaud Sarapva for her thread. She has now made one thread on the Japanese dolphin hunts (massacre?) and one on this, in her own continent. It seems very balanced to me, and she comes across as somehow who values life, pure and simply. Bravo!

Sarapva

Mar 17, 2007, 08:52

Thank you for all these discussions! I know that people are also suffering abuses all over the world, as well as animals, and I'd like to see all this suffering come to an end. But I see all this as interrelated - if we treat animals badly, we're a step closer to treating humans badly, too. I don't think that advocating for animals rights means ignoring humans. Any living thing that has the capacity to suffer should be treated with respect. As humans, we have more power over animals than they do over us (in an overall sense - I know that if a person is attacked by a bear, the bear probably has more power!). So we have more responsibility to treat them right, as well as to treat each other right. I know this ideal is far from the reality of today's (and yesterday's) world, but if we each do what's right in our own tiny area, treating animals and humans alike with respect, it brings it that much closer to being a reality worldwide.

Leonmarino - I think you're right that it's the demand for the seals' fur that keeps the slaughter going. But it seems that as more and more people are finding out exactly how the fur gets to the stores, they're choosing not to buy it. And I agree that cows and pigs, etc. are as important as our own pets. (I've been a vegetarian for almost 3 years now!)

Made of stone - Thank you for your good defense of myself and the thread! Your example of the goat being slaughtered humanely versus in a factory farm assembly line is a good one. I think the psychological/emotional stress of animals in this situation is about as cruel as the physical stress. Do you buy your meat from a farmer you know, who uses humane methods with the animals? My cousin raised lambs for a while on a farm in Kent (I think), and he was planning to start selling organic beef. I'll have to find out exactly where - you might be buying from him!

And you said it, mos, about fur being a fashion accessory, certainly not a necessity. Don't people realize they're wearing dead animals?? www.furisdead.com

Duo

Mar 18, 2007, 02:52

I take it you are vegetarian? I hope so, because what about the rights of cows, pigs, chickens etc..
Without making personal attacks, I find all these things about animal rights and animal abuse often very inconsistent. I mean, many people call themselves animal-lovers by keeping pets. In the case of cats and dogs, these pets are feeded with food made from animal products. Now why is your Rex, Pochi or Tama so sweet and the cow that went into the can of food not? And if you give them meat to eat, why bother about seals and dolphins?
I am not saying that I endorse these killings, I find the products related to seals completely unnecessary as far as I am aware of them. If I ruled the world all seals would live in peace. Not because I care, but because I don't care.
No I'm not a vegetarian....far from it. I'm not a vegie animal lover lovey dovey guy, but still I do think that some things that we humans do to animals are very cruel and if there is something that can be done to curb these practices then why not? I'm not saying take efforts away from stoping human rights violations and focusing on animals.

yukio_michael

Mar 18, 2007, 03:25

leonmarino

Mar 18, 2007, 04:41

No I'm not a vegetarian....far from it. I'm not a vegie animal lover lovey dovey guy, but still I do think that some things that we humans do to animals are very cruel and if there is something that can be done to curb these practices then why not? I'm not saying take efforts away from stoping human rights violations and focusing on animals.If you want cruelty against animals to stop, I'd also stop eating any meat if I were you. Cows, pigs and chicken are often held in spaces too small to be "decent" for these animals. Or you could switch to free-range/biological meat, but then you'll have the pay a premium and refrain yourself from eating in any restaurant that does not have bio-meat.

I too am against these killing of seals but I find the arguments I read in this thread very strange. The meat on your burger and the bacon that comes with your sausages have suffered for a long period under bad conditions. These seals suffer only for only a few minutes, maybe an hour max if there's one sadistic worker involved.

If you care for animals, care for those who suffer most, not the ones that are most cuddly, ignoring your mammals that you eat as food. Care for all or care for none at all.

Sarapva

Mar 18, 2007, 07:44

Once you realize that PETA would prefer animals not be tested upon, at the behest of curing cancer, you really start to distance yourself from animal activists... that's just my opinion. This has been stated by whomever runts PETA, it's not simply a nebulous opinion they share.... They would rather Humans suffer, than animals.

I don't think it's that PETA would rather have humans suffer, but that there are more modern computer models now that can be used instead of animals. And animals don't always react to medicines the way humans do.

KirinMan

Mar 18, 2007, 08:43

If you want cruelty against animals to stop, I'd also stop eating any meat if I were you. Cows, pigs and chicken are often held in spaces too small to be "decent" for these animals. Or you could switch to free-range/biological meat, but then you'll have the pay a premium and refrain yourself from eating in any restaurant that does not have bio-meat.
I too am against these killing of seals but I find the arguments I read in this thread very strange. The meat on your burger and the bacon that comes with your sausages have suffered for a long period under bad conditions. These seals suffer only for only a few minutes, maybe an hour max if there's one sadistic worker involved.
If you care for animals, care for those who suffer most, not the ones that are most cuddly, ignoring your mammals that you eat as food. Care for all or care for none at all.

I have to agree with this statement here, I find it funny that people who want to stand up for the "so-called" rights of the seals, whales, dolphins, what ever, do so while enjoying that nice thick juicy steak that they just took off the grill.

The majority of them come across as hypocrites to me. Next thing they are going to be complaining about the "feelings" of a head of lettuce too, heck they are living organisms just as well.

Human's were put at the top of the food chain for a reason, and I don't care to share that with any other species except my own.

yukio_michael

Mar 18, 2007, 09:27

I don't think it's that PETA would rather have humans suffer, but that there are more modern computer models now that can be used instead of animals. And animals don't always react to medicines the way humans do.There aren't computer models that can acurately simulate a simple red blood cell, so I don't know where you're getting this. (ed: Please refer to Scientific American, a magazine which specifically published the attempts people have been making to test drugs on computerized models...)

As for the second part of your statement, though there may be differences in the way that say mice react to a certain drug, they do react in an appreciable way that is useful to the scientific community to ascertain a drug's possible use for testing on humans... this is the point... without this go-between, we would be blindly testing drugs on human beings.

Sarapva

Mar 19, 2007, 07:17

I think that we are, to an extent, blindly testing drugs on humans. We don't really know what side effects a drug will have until hundreds of people have used them.

I don't know about specific computer models about drug testing - I've just heard that this is possible now.

made of stone

Mar 24, 2007, 08:09

What an interesting thread!

There are really so many issues here that each could perhaps have their own thread!

I particualrly agree with what leonmarino said:

Care for all or care for none at all.

Absolutely! But there are two ways to looking at this fine statement. To me it means care for all living life more, and that I whole-heartedly agree with. However, to some it appears to mean something like 'if you eat meat, then don't decry any cruelty to animals' and that is something that turns the stomach!

There is a world of difference between eating meat, and unnecessarycruelty to animals!

And I do also believe that humans are near the top of the food chain (through technology, no less) but that in no way gives us carte blanche to treat other species however we wish.

Traditional hunting methods for food, going back many hundreds, if not thousands, of years = ok!

Brutal slaughter of mammals for the skins in a (relatively) new and unnecessary fashion = something that can and should be avoided wherever possible!

There aren't computer models that can acurately simulate a simple red blood cell, so I don't know where you're getting this. (ed: Please refer to Scientific American, a magazine which specifically published the attempts people have been making to test drugs on computerized models...)

As for the second part of your statement, though there may be differences in the way that say mice react to a certain drug, they do react in an appreciable way that is useful to the scientific community to ascertain a drug's possible use for testing on humans... this is the point... without this go-between, we would be blindly testing drugs on human beings.

Exactly. That's why a certain 'global-player' company from the US has been caught out recently using children in Russia as human guinea pigs for their drugs, to circumvent the tight restrictions on even animal testing at home.

KirinMan

Mar 24, 2007, 08:19

And I do also believe that humans are near the top of the food chain (through technology, no less) but that in no way gives us carte blanche to treat other species however we wish.

Ok, if humans "are near the top" as you say here, than who or what is at the top?

While I agree that with todays technology more humane methods of killing animals for human comsumption is possible, I also believe that culling of animals groups is necessary as well.

If humans want to pay for the luxury of having a fur coat, fine with me, doesnt mean that I am going to purchase one. However as long as there is a viable market for this the killing will not stop.

You know what surprises me here is people seem to be so concerned about whales and seals but I don't see anyone complaining about the slaughter of elephants for their ivory. You may see the point I am trying to make here and this comment is not directed towards you alone but to all that make such a big stink about the whales and seals. These people are very selective of what they want protected, probably because you see those animals/mammals as being cute and cuddly but when it comes to elephants, oh well tough luck.

Which makes me agree with this quote from lemonmarino even more,

If you care for animals, care for those who suffer most, not the ones that are most cuddly, ignoring your mammals that you eat as food. Care for all or care for none at all.

made of stone

Mar 24, 2007, 08:49

I have to start Obeika, by saying that I sense you are looking for a fellow antagonist here more than anything else, and you will not find one in me - I am not here to argue with anyone. Nevertheless, here's my reaction to your post.

Ok, if humans "are near the top" as you say here, than who or what is at the top?

It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and not my point at all. There are many predators to man, all the world over. I can go into detail on this, but there's no need.

While I agree that with todays technology more humane methods of killing animals for human comsumption is possible, I also believe that culling of animals groups is necessary as well.

Yes, certain animal groups for sure. To keep this thread on track, could you kindly provide the evidence that this seal cull for luxury coats for the Western market is 'necessary'?

You know what surprises me here is people seem to be so concerned about whales and seals but I don't see anyone complaining about the slaughter of elephants for their ivory.

You are most correct here - there needs to be a thread. Why not start one yourself, if you feel so strongly, instead of be-littling those who start a thread in the name of just one mammal? Again, are you saying that we should get pro-active about all animals, or else forget about them all, and just slaughter and maim as the 'higher' human mind sees fit??

These people are very selective of what they want protected, probably because you see those animals/mammals as being cute and cuddly but when it comes to elephants, oh well tough luck.

I grew up with elephants, giraffes and snakes. They are all creatures that deserve respect, but it doesn't mean we as humans can't look at them as food. The key is: what is humane, and what is necessary?

What is your point, Obeika? Again, if you're just someone who's bored and looking for an internet 'tussle' look elsewhere please!

KirinMan

Mar 24, 2007, 09:43

What is your point, Obeika? Again, if you're just someone who's bored and looking for an internet 'tussle' look elsewhere please!

First off you are wrong in assuming that I am looking for a tussle or fellow antagonist, you assume too much. I have every much a "right" as anyone else here to voice my opinions, dont event begin to presume otherwise, that is your mistake.

Yes, certain animal groups for sure. To keep this thread on track, could you kindly provide the evidence that this seal cull for luxury coats for the Western market is 'necessary'?

It necessary for the people who want to purchase the products created by use of the seal skins. What evidence otherwise is necessary.
It is also a fact that without the culling the seals they would threaten the Atlantic Cod fishing industry. The numbers may be off but culling one species to protect the livelihood of another is a fact of life.

You are most correct here - there needs to be a thread. Why not start one yourself, if you feel so strongly, instead of be-littling those who start a thread in the name of just one mammal? Again, are you saying that we should get pro-active about all animals, or else forget about them all, and just slaughter and maim as the 'higher' human mind sees fit??

A bit condescending here aren't we. Yeah go ahead get proactive about all animals if you want, while I sit back and enjoy my tuna sushi or whale meat shashimi. If you want to think that I am be-littling anyone so be it, that's your opinion which you are entitled to as I am to mine as well.

The key is: what is humane, and what is necessary?

Who decides what is humane or necessary?

To the fishermen subsidising their income from the culling of the seals will probably tell you that they need the money for their livelihood, are you or anyone else for that matter willing to replace their lost income from not killing the seals? If someone would come up with the money to pay them I would bet that they would stop. But the market still exists for the skins.

Eliminate the market and the "volume" of the kill would drop, however there still would be culling of the seal population no matter what, while 300,000 pups vs 1,000,000 is a huge difference, 300,000 would still probably need to be killed to protect the fishing grounds.

I submit that the people that are so against this culling of seals should go after the market first.

It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and not my point at all. There are many predators to man, all the world over. I can go into detail on this, but there's no need.

In my opinion here you are dead wrong, it is very prevalent to the discussion as humankind is the final dictator of what happens on this planet. It is humans that make the choices, sure there are predators to humans, but there is no predator like the human race, and to think otherwise is ............

We are the top, no matter if you think otherwise or not.

leonmarino

Mar 24, 2007, 15:06

There is a world of difference between eating meat, and unnecessarycruelty to animals!If you think that any cruelty to animals that one deems unnecessary should be avoided, how necessary is it to eat meat? Being descendants of apes, it is highly plausible that we are not omnivores but rather herbivores. But this is disputable and there seems to be no scientific consensus about it. (If there is, please show me link because I haven't been able to find any..)

My opinion about this is that eating meat is mainly a cultural thing; it seems to me that if one is raised in a 100% meat-free environment with a vegetarian diet, that person would never instinctively think about killing the first cow he sees. Other, carnivorous/omnivorous animals have this killing instinct.

Mind you, my argument is based on a hunch, so it's nothing scientific. I apologize, but since there is little research done involving deliberately isolating people from their meat-eating environment to see the effect on their hunting behaviors, I have no other way to argue this.

Second, even if meat is a essential, unmissable part of our natural diet, is it necessary to treat them like the animals are often treated nowadays in the bio-industry? Small cages, little sunlight if any.. If one thinks there is a difference between necessary cruelty and unnecessary cruelty being done to animals, how necessary is it to support this way of producing meat?

There is also the possibility to eat free-range meat (I don't know how it is called exactly). For a few quid more people can buy off their guilt, and eat "animal friendly" meat. But isn't taking the life of a living animal away the highest form of cruelty? Sure, if an animal is in an obvious state of constant suffering, I would kill it for sure, but these free range pigs and cows -supposedly- live a good life! It seems very paradoxical to kill these animals instead of the ones suffering their bio-industry cages.

My conclusion, again is the same: if one cares for animals, one should care for all animals equally and refrain oneself from eating meat.You know what surprises me here is people seem to be so concerned about whales and seals but I don't see anyone complaining about the slaughter of elephants for their ivory.I think that the people complaining about seals being killed are equally considered about their trunked friends, but as this is a Japan-related forum, it is not suitable for any discussion of that kind. We even had a row a while ago about not being allowed to have any discussion on Europe, not even in the Chit-Chat section, so I guess a discussion on Africa would be very much out of the question!! :blush:

KirinMan

Mar 24, 2007, 15:13

I think that the people complaining about seals being killed are equally considered about their trunked friends, but as this is a Japan-related forum, it is not suitable for any discussion of that kind. We even had a row a while ago about not being allowed to have any discussion on Europe, not even in the Chit-Chat section, so I guess a discussion on Africa would be very much out of the question

Ok, thanks for the reply on this.

I now wonder then why is the "seal" hunt in Canada allowable for a topic?

leonmarino

Mar 24, 2007, 15:42

Ok, thanks for the reply on this.
I now wonder then why is the "seal" hunt in Canada allowable for a topic?HAHAHA!! Indeed!! I completely overlooked that!! :p

What is the connection to Japan?

Sarapva

Mar 25, 2007, 07:23

No connection to Japan at all - since this is "Chit Chat" I thought it was an allowable topic (I didn't know topics on Europe weren't).

A lot of good points raised! I see the point about being concerned about other animals as well as whales and seals. Just because the topic of one is brought up doesn't mean there isn't concern for another. Animal rights groups are concerned about all animals, down to hamsters and mice, and advocate treating all with respect.

I think that as people in general are becoming more educated about how fur gets to the market and the cruelty involved, they're deciding for themselves not to support that industry. There have been a lot of fur stores in the U.S. that have closed because of this. I think the same will happen in Europe and Russia eventually. It seems the main population of people are against this kind of cruelty to animals, and it's only a matter of them finding out what really goes on in these industries that have kept the cruelty quiet to keep up their profits.

Since it's not likely that people as a whole will stop eating meat any time soon, the lesser evil to me seems to try to support companies that are making an effort to keep animal suffering to a minimum. Organic farms have rules regarding the humane treatment of animals, so I would buy organic meat if I ate meat. And of course organic meat doesn't have the added hormones and anti-biotics. Even though right now this costs more, in the long run it's better for humans and animals, and it's been predicted the price of organic meat and produce will go down as more people buy it.

KirinMan

Mar 25, 2007, 08:24

No connection to Japan at all - since this is "Chit Chat" I thought it was an allowable topic (I didn't know topics on Europe weren't).
A lot of good points raised! I see the point about being concerned about other animals as well as whales and seals. Just because the topic of one is brought up doesn't mean there isn't concern for another. Animal rights groups are concerned about all animals, down to hamsters and mice, and advocate treating all with respect.
I think that as people in general are becoming more educated about how fur gets to the market and the cruelty involved, they're deciding for themselves not to support that industry. There have been a lot of fur stores in the U.S. that have closed because of this. I think the same will happen in Europe and Russia eventually. It seems the main population of people are against this kind of cruelty to animals, and it's only a matter of them finding out what really goes on in these industries that have kept the cruelty quiet to keep up their profits.
Since it's not likely that people as a whole will stop eating meat any time soon, the lesser evil to me seems to try to support companies that are making an effort to keep animal suffering to a minimum. Organic farms have rules regarding the humane treatment of animals, so I would buy organic meat if I ate meat. And of course organic meat doesn't have the added hormones and anti-biotics. Even though right now this costs more, in the long run it's better for humans and animals, and it's been predicted the price of organic meat and produce will go down as more people buy it.

While I may not agree with you personally this subject I have to say that I can and do respect your opinion. Well done.

leonmarino

Mar 25, 2007, 16:17

I think that as people in general are becoming more educated about how fur gets to the market and the cruelty involved, they're deciding for themselves not to support that industry.While I may not agree with you personally this subject I have to say that I can and do respect your opinion. Well done.Yep. This must be the first time I've had a normal discussion about this subject on this forum without the whole blaming and shaming game. Respect!! :cool:

Sarapva

Mar 26, 2007, 02:24

Yes, I think it's important to be able to voice our opinions on things without blaming or putting others down.

made of stone

Mar 27, 2007, 06:35

Yes, I think it's important to be able to voice our opinions on things without blaming or putting others down.

Many thanks for your last two posts, Sarapva.

The first one very eloquently articulated some points that i'd hoped to touch on myself on this thread, (obviously without success though!)

Sarapva's second post (quoted) reminds me that I was far too rude in one of my posts here to Obeika. I apologise to him for my part in the mutual antagonism between us, and very much hope that this thread (which has raised so many interesting points so far, many of which might deserve their own thread on the right forum!) will continue in a spirit of friendly discussion, and also mutual (attempted!) understanding.

:-)

Sarapva

Mar 27, 2007, 07:17

Thank you, made of stone! I didn't mean to imply that I thought your or Obeika's posts were inappropriate. I thought they were very civilized in an argumentative way! I only meant that I didn't want anyone to be judged (including myself) or put in a certain category that would close people's minds to this topic. Keep up the arguments! It helps to hash things out sometimes.
:box:

I looked up this quote from Mahatma Ghandi:
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Ghandi, In Philosophy

KirinMan

Mar 27, 2007, 07:50

made of stone, that was most gracious of you, thanks, I also hope we may be able to find mutual ground here as well.

I also apologize for making you feel that you were rude to me.

Now then niceities aside here.....:relief: (just joking) back to the topic at hand. I have a question for you Sarapva and anyone else that wants to answer as well.

Where do you stand on the culling of the seals in relationship to the need of the economy of Canada and the fishermen to protect their fishing grounds from the seals? Outside of the skin market, which as you noted is shrinking as people become more aware of the "way" the seals are killed, there is debate that the seals would have to be culled either way, just a difference in numbers. Not to belittle the numbers, granted a huge difference.

Many times for the sake of man animal herds need to be culled to protect man. I know of locations in the United States that have serious problems with overly large deer herds. The deer cause damage to crops, are the cause of fatal car accidents and things like that. Now one could argue that ok you can eat the meat.

So to extend that argument to the seals, if the meat of the seals was used in some manner, even as pet food, I don't know if that is viable, but using it as an example for arguments sake only, could you justify the killing of the seals to protect the fishing beds?

Is it the manner in which the seals are killed that bothers you the most?

Or just the thought of them being killed?

Sarapva

Mar 27, 2007, 09:16

That's a good question, Obeika - for me, it's the way they're killed that bothers me. I don't really have a problem with death or killing if it's done with consideration to the animal, which might sound like a contradiction in terms, but I don't think it is. I think it's possible to kill without having negative feelings toward what you're killing (like I guess people who kill for meat don't necessarily "hate" the animals they're killing - the opposite is probably true). It seems to me that if a person has true respect for something that's alive and fully capable of feeling pain (and in this modern age I don't think there are many left who still don't know animals feel pain), if they happen to have the job of killing it, they should do it as quickly as possible to minimize terror and pain. I've heard that some seals are shot instead of clubbed to death - this seems like a more humane way of doing this because, from what I've read, the baby seals don't know enough to run away from people so they could be shot in a way that kills them instantly instead of clubbed to death.

I don't really have an opinion on whether animals should be killed or not for economic reasons. If this has to be done, my argument would be that it should be done with intelligence and compassion. I don't like the idea of killing animals just for their fur, which is so completely unnecessary unless you're living in the arctic and can't buy clothes. For fashion, the idea of ripping off an animal's skin and putting it on the back of someone going to parties or social gatherings is just repulsive and disgusting, not to mention a huge waste. I think that if animals have to be culled for whatever reason, their meat and skins should be used intelligently, ideally to help people who really need it.

I'm glad that you and made of stone are on "speaking" terms again, Obeika. Let's have some good, fist-pounding (but not punching) arguments!

KirinMan

Mar 27, 2007, 09:47

for me, it's the way they're killed that bothers me. I don't really have a problem with death or killing if it's done with consideration to the animal, which might sound like a contradiction in terms, but I don't think it is.
I don't think that is a contradiction in terms at all. Even the manner in which the death penalty is carried out in the US is a hot topic of conversation to many. I only use that as an example.
I agree with you that with the knowledge and technology available today a more humane method is available. I would also bet that the reason that the seals are clubbed is due to economic factors, nothing else.

For fashion, the idea of ripping off an animal's skin and putting it on the back of someone going to parties or social gatherings is just repulsive and disgusting, not to mention a huge waste. I think that if animals have to be culled for whatever reason, their meat and skins should be used intelligently, ideally to help people who really need it.

That's part of the problem I think. We humans have been using animal skins for covering our bodies for thousands of years and there is to some an allure of having that "rare" animal skin for a coat. I think it is partially due to the prestige or affluency that isome/many (?) people usually think of when a person sees another wearing such an article of clothing.

However we humans also like our leather shoes, yet usually don't give a second thought to the cow, pig, or other animal that provided that leather for us that is also because we eat the meat that those animal's provided for us. I understand your point about the waste, taking the skins purely for their value.

Would you feel better about it if there was an acutal use for the carcass after the seal was killed?

I'm glad that you and made of stone are on "speaking" terms again, Obeika. Let's have some good, fist-pounding (but not punching) arguments!

:wave: :-) Ok...me too!

Sarapva

Mar 28, 2007, 07:03

I would feel better about it if the seals were at least killed in a humane manner for their skins and, yes, if the rest of the carcass was used instead of just thrown away. But overall I don't feel good at all about killing animals purely for their fur that people who already have enough will buy. I know fur has been a sign of prestige and affluence, but I think that's changing now. When I see old movies with actresses wearing fur coats, it's a little surprising because you don't see many fur coats in movies anymore (at least in American movies, since fur has become so controversial). I think the attitude toward what used to be a sign of prestige is changing to a more realistic one: that the fur is actually just the skin of a dead animal. I saw an old movie recently (I don't remember the name) where an actress had a fox stole, which was actually the whole fox, head and tail. It looked so funny to me that she'd be wearing this fox around her neck! But 50 years ago that probably looked fashionable.

The death penalty is a good example of "humane" or "inhumane" killing. I think the same thing should apply there: that if a person has to be killed, it should be done as painlessly for the person as possible. After all, it's their life taken that's the punishment, not the pain caused during their death.

Leather is another thing that's losing popularity in the U.S. (leather stores have been closing down like fur stores) because of the animal rights movement. The argument is that even though leather is a "by-product" of animals killed for their meat, not supporting the leather industry sends a message that people don't want anything to do with the cruelty of the meat industry.

I used to think that PETA was extreme in some of its stands against leather and wool, but now I see that they take these stands because of the "whole picture": buying leather supports the meat industry, and buying wool supports what has been found to be cruelty in the wool industry (live exports of sheep to other countries, and other abuses on sheep farms). PETA's stand is that animals "shouldn't be used for food, clothing, experiments or entertainment". The more I think about this, the more it makes sense. Animals are feeling, thinking beings that have their own lives until we disrupt that and enslave them for our own purposes (which I know also happens to people sometimes).