|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 25, 2009 19:40:57 GMT -5
Personally I think if seals are going to be hunted they should at least target adult rather than baby seals. that way they get more fur per animal, reducing the amount they need to hunt for the same amount of fur and there's at least a chance that the seals have been able to reproduce before they're hunted, which reduces the effect hunting has on the population. Adult seals have no fur. Only adolescent seals have fur, that's why they're the targets of the hunt. headache: Examples or GTFO.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Mar 25, 2009 19:49:51 GMT -5
Personally I think if seals are going to be hunted they should at least target adult rather than baby seals. that way they get more fur per animal, reducing the amount they need to hunt for the same amount of fur and there's at least a chance that the seals have been able to reproduce before they're hunted, which reduces the effect hunting has on the population. Adult seals have no fur. Only adolescent seals have fur, that's why they're the targets of the hunt. Bugger, forget I said anything in that case. Although I could've sworn at least some species of seal have fur for their entire lives.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Mar 25, 2009 19:56:44 GMT -5
As far as the conservation issue goes, I believe the seal species involved are Least Concern and the quotas are to ensure they remain so. At least this way the Canadian and Norwegian governments can regulate the hunt and better monitor the seal population. Without the quotas it'd be far harder to keep track of seal numbers, which would make an ecological disaster (either overpopulation or collapse) more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Mar 25, 2009 20:15:21 GMT -5
I have a question, how can you be sure they don't accidentally kill a segment of the population who have an immunity to a particular disease? It'd be great* if it turned out they wiped out the best candidates for survival and then some disease kills off the other seals.
* Wait, I mean stupid as hell
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Mar 25, 2009 20:25:04 GMT -5
Statistics. Given the numbers involved, it's unlikely that the proportion of seals with the immunity killed will be much different from the proportion of the total seal population killed, which by design isn't large. If there's only a small number of seals that are immune then the population won't be much more fucked with the hunt than without it should there be an epidemic.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 25, 2009 20:31:18 GMT -5
Roppel, A.Y. & Davey, S.P. (1965) Roff, D.A. & Bowen, W.D. (1983) Cooke, J.G., A.W. Trites & Larkin, P.A. (1985) Winters, G. & Miller, D. (1998) Stenson, G. & Healey (1999) Conrad, J. & Bjørndal, T. (1991) I personally see the wisdom in caution, but these aren't exactly Atlantic Cod here.
|
|
POSW
Full Member
Still metal, no longer Jewish
Posts: 217
|
Post by POSW on Mar 25, 2009 21:15:10 GMT -5
I have no idea why seals ignite such emotions, it's just a fricking animal for crying out loud, treat them decently but don't go Rapture Ready insane just because they are cute. They're not just cute, they're extremely cute. And cute animals are one of the few things that can make me irrational.
|
|
|
Post by headache on Mar 25, 2009 21:16:50 GMT -5
As far as the conservation issue goes, I believe the seal species involved are Least Concern and the quotas are to ensure they remain so. At least this way the Canadian and Norwegian governments can regulate the hunt and better monitor the seal population. Without the quotas it'd be far harder to keep track of seal numbers, which would make an ecological disaster (either overpopulation or collapse) more likely. Exactly. As long as a balance is kept and a careful harvest done in way that will not exterminate the seals but allow the seal population to be sized properly for the resources available to them, I see no problems. I see I took a karma hit for not being swayed by emotional pictures of cute big eyed seal babies, oh well. Reason always pays a price.
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Mar 25, 2009 21:49:53 GMT -5
Jeez, that shit still goes on? And for what? Human vanity? Gawd I hate people.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Mar 25, 2009 21:53:01 GMT -5
On a more serious note, I agree with Armand here. This is going to have severe impact on the Arctic ecology, when it's already having a lot of strain on it. That isn't taking the "cuteness factor" into account either. I would like to agree with you, Oriet, but I haven't seen too many articles about the seal population being in trouble. It has been going on for decades, and I don't see where the seals are being in danger of extinction. If anything, I'd be more worried about the North Atlantic fish stocks. They're being ravaged daily. Aqualung, the seals are known to carry parasites that can cause significant damage to the fish population, although allowing foreign vessels to trawl with impunity is a greater danger.
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Mar 25, 2009 21:55:09 GMT -5
I don't get the appeal of fur at all. It might've been a good thing to wear in earlier times, but humans in the countries where this is going on don't even *need* it anymore. And I don't understand how anyone could so directly kill a baby or adolescent animal, either. I suppose it's more honest than, say, eating veal and acting like it started out wrapped in styrofoam and plastic. And I still wear leather and occasionally answer the siren call of shrimp. But it'll take a long time to convince me that this is okay. I know my reaction's, like, 99.99 percent emotion. I'm fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 25, 2009 22:36:18 GMT -5
Jeez, that shit still goes on? And for what? Human vanity? Gawd I hate people. Then join me in my newest project: Clubbing humans. It's quick and painless and quite practical, and humans have many uses. Plus, most of them are nowhere near as cute as baby seals.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 26, 2009 1:11:23 GMT -5
Jeez, that shit still goes on? And for what? Human vanity? Gawd I hate people. Then join me in my newest project: Clubbing humans. It's quick and painless and quite practical, and humans have many uses. Plus, most of them are nowhere near as cute as baby seals. And from where I stand, over-harvesting is not going to be a problem. I could go for a pair of bill o'reilly snowshoes right about now. Or a toilet seat warmer.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 26, 2009 1:19:08 GMT -5
Remember kids, use every part of the animal.
Ironbite-or I'll hurt you.
|
|
|
Post by askold on Mar 26, 2009 2:31:46 GMT -5
I don't think this is different from any other form of hunting. As long as the hunting is regulated so that the amount of animals killed does not threaten the species then it's OK.
On the other hand since I don't know the exact situation I'm not sure wether 500'000 is too much or not.
As a hunter myself I know that most hunters care about enviroment and the animals, on the other hand I also know that poaching is an serious threat in cases like this where the main reason for hunting is to sell the furs.
I'm not going to argue about hunting methods because some of the methods, that might seem horrible to people who don't hunt, actually have good reasons behind them. It is quite hard to ensure a "painless" death to the animal, but ensuring a quick end is much easier.
|
|