Canada's annual seal hunt

[South]

I don't know how long a young seal has dependency on the mother, but when shooting deer I'll always kill one of the young if it's between them and the mother. It's a quick death that leaves nothing orphaned.

[Atom]

South, where I'm from up in yankee land, the fawns are old enough to survive without the mother by hunting season.

I'm going to be frank here and state my true feelings on this matter.

I don't care.


I think the world is doomed anyway.

Ok we don't love you any more Atom.

Ok I'll lie next time.

[phlegm]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about with killing seals? They're essentially sea vermin... like rats. *smirk*

[viswablr]

There is something common in all the above posts - That human assumes that he is the master of the earth and he decides which animals need to be killed, which ones need to be protected, etc.

Let us think this way. What is human's contribution to earth? Earth would have been more greener, more natural and most healthy without humans.

[South]

Originally Posted by viswablr

That human assumes that he is the master of the earth and he decides which animals need to be killed, which ones need to be protected, etc.

That's about right. Humans have to live here. To do that we have to use resources. That effects animal habitat. As earth's most intelligent beings we are in fact masters of living things. It's our responsibility to observe animals, kill what needs to be killed to keep existing populations healthy and stifle killing when in effects the animal population negatively. That's how conservation works.

Originally Posted by viswablr

Earth would have been more greener, more natural and most healthy without humans.

Such a typical "green" person suggestion. Let's get rid of the humans so the animals can do better.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by viswablr

There is something common in all the above posts

Common sense, perhaps?

Originally Posted by viswablr

That human assumes that he is the master of the earth

Of course he does! Humans have evolved naturally under the rules that nature has imposed. We played by those rules, and now we rightfully dominate.

Be serious now, do you honestly believe that dinosaurs wouldn't be doing exactly as we are if they hadn't been wiped out before they had evolved as far as we have?

Originally Posted by viswablr

and he decides which animals need to be killed

It's survival of the fittest. This is merely mother nature at work, and humans should definitely not be faulted just because other substandard or inferior species are unable to keep up with progress.

Originally Posted by viswablr

which ones need to be protected, etc.

Well, that would be none of them. Do Lions think twice before they eat people they come across? NO! Did that stingray have second thoughts about stabbing Steve Irwin through the heart?

Originally Posted by viswablr

Let us think this way.

I'd rather not.

Originally Posted by viswablr

What is human's contribution to earth?

What are ants' contribution to earth? NOTHING! Did camels invent television? NO! And, ironically, are there koala bears that moonlight as veterinary surgeons taking care of injured animals like we do? Please, think twice before you answer this question.

Originally Posted by viswablr

Earth would have been more greener, more natural and most healthy without humans.

This is just ignorant. Obviously technology will overcome all of these so-called issues, questionable as they are.

*smirk*

[viswablr]

Animals have predictable characters. A lion always kills, A tiger always kills, a deer never kills, a cow never kills.

But human? Who knows? Even another human can not predict. Some people worship cows, for others cow meat is a staple food. Some love deers, others hunt them for hobby.

If a human kills an animal to eat, it is probably natural. If he kills thousands of them so that he can strip away the skin and sell in the market, it is arrogant.

[South]

Originally Posted by viswablr

If a human kills an animal to eat, it is probably natural. If he kills thousands of them so that he can strip away the skin and sell in the market, it is arrogant.

I'm no supporter of poachers, but your logic isn't sound. Humans don't live by the same code as animals. We require / desire better shelter, cooked food, comforts, medicine, education, ect. ect. A lion kills to get what it needs by eating the carcass. A human killing an animal for products he can sell for is doing the same. Maybe he doesn't eat the animal, but he gets money for it to buy the food he wants.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by South

I'm no supporter of poachers, but your logic isn't sound. Humans don't live by the same code as animals. We require / desire better shelter, cooked food, comforts, medicine, education, ect. ect. A lion kills to get what it needs by eating the carcass. A human killing an animal for products he can sell for is doing the same. Maybe he doesn't eat the animal, but he gets money for it to buy the food he wants.

Your statement suggests that animals only kill to eat. They don't. Animals kill sometimes seemingly randomly. For sport? Because they felt threatened?

And "animals"? Last I checked, humans were animals. If humans evolved from fish and apes, then I don't see any logic in applying a different standard to humans. Whatever animals do is "natural"; humans are animals; ergo, whatever humans do - including killing other animals for clothing - is natural.

I'd like to see an argument against killing seals that is logically sound.

[South]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Your statement suggests that animals only kill to eat. They don't. Animals kill sometimes seemingly randomly. For sport? Because they felt threatened?

I only implied that because it was the context of what I was replying to. I've seen dogs and cats kill for pleasure (or so it seems. After the kill the carcass would be left alone and the animal leave as if its work was done). These are animals the predator made no attempt to eat and often animals the predator couldn't have possibly been threatened by.