Ken Gargett Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 Don't ya just love how Kenny actually edu-ma-cates himself on a subject to get all the info BEFORE he draws his conclusions???!! Seems to me that Ken has a habit of stating his opinion on something, "...but I don't quite understand it all...", blah, blah, blah, and then asks others to fill him in on information that then would make his point of view valid. Bravo, Sir Ken - a true neutral start! LOL. there seems to have been an extremely convenient to fudge what was origainally said here. baby seals? the sealbashers were going around slaughtering seal pups. who hasn't seen the films of them walking past adult seals on the snow to smash the skulls of the pups? so only seal pups are causing overfishing? what a load of convenient crap. dress it up in whatever personal insults you like. it does not change what is/was happening. all that does is completely diminish any respect i may have once held.
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Playing the ball and not the man definitely apllies here. On a side note, punishing ocean dwellers for raping the ocean is well - ridiculous... Sorry Ross. Meant to intend that, with the plethora of winkies in there. I hope Ken understands me enough to know it was just a playful jab. If any slight taken, fully apologetic on that count.
BrotherBear Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 who hasn't seen the films of them walking past adult seals on the snow to smash the skulls of the pups? No different the oiling eggs for troublesome bird species... It's not perfect (in the context that no one likes to see cute animals get harvested), but as far as a commercial harvest goes this one works. (sorry for taking your thread so far off the original topic)
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 there seems to have been an extremely convenient to fudge what was origainally said here. baby seals? the sealbashers were going around slaughtering seal pups. who hasn't seen the films of them walking past adult seals on the snow to smash the skulls of the pups? so only seal pups are causing overfishing? what a load of convenient crap. dress it up in whatever personal insults you like. it does not change what is/was happening. all that does is completely diminish any respect i may have once held. Ken, I'm in no way in 100% agreeance with what goes on in these culls. I'm a hunter and a fisher, and I don't completely understand or agree with it either. And I hate the whaling thing just as much as the next guy - that is indeed pure profit now for those that do it. But, the history of these seal culls are quite historic (dumb word use, I know), and traditional. The seals are absolutely decimating the fish levels in the Grand Banks basin of the upper Atlantic Ocean. No, it's not just the seals that are causing the fish levels to drop - fully understood there. There's been fishing moratoriums and whatnot in place to try to cure the other cause of the fish population drop - over fishing. But, in international waters, the European and Japanese/asian fishing fleets are throwing that all out the window, completely ignoring it and our Coast Guard ships, and continuing to overfish off of Canadian shores (thereby affecting the fish stocks for Canadian fisheries, which are internally monitored by the government, and thereby held to a higher account for any overfishing issues). The inuit (native, eskimo, etc.) people have hunted seals for ages. They do sell some seal products to the European markets, so there is some economic for them. But, they use the seal products for their own uses and their own communities first - any extra is sold afterwards. That's the way that native communities have always done things with their "crops" (as much as I don't like to refer to the seals as a "crop" for the inuit, that's a way of looking at it). They do it how they always have, with clubs (yes, I know, I know). And yes, they ignore the adults. This is due to modern wildlife research and whatnot, and the fishing management tools in place, etc, due to the below reason. It's all due to the AMOUNT of fish that these seals eat. Adults are already grown. The baby seal pups eat, if I remember correctly, something like THREE OR FOUR TIMES the volume of fish in a day/week than what an adult could/would eat, regardless of the size difference. So, taking out a baby seal pup, inhumane as it is (I do agree with this), is the equivalent of killing three or four adult seals, and thus better effect the fish stock levels. With all of this in place though, seal population levels are going up exponentially, and the fish levels are accordingly still dropping (and the European and Japanese/asian fishing fleets still continuing to ignore Canadian requests, and overfish just off of our waters, and quite frequently from within it nonetheless). Could more humane methods be used? Hell yes! But unfortunately, with these gawdawful clubs, it's what's more economic and simplified for these people that seems to go with how they do it. We don't have to agree with it, but there is a huge traditional aspect to it, as well as a community needs aspect to it for those inuit communities. It isn't purely economic, as you seem to believe. Also, on a side note, nothing here was "dress[ed] up in whatever personal insults". You have a long-standing history of referring to Canadians as a whole as "seal bashers", and none of us have overtly called you on it; all have rolled with the fun and comraderie in it. You've now earlier in this thread referred to the history of the inuit that do these hunts, and call them stupid and simple women and whatnot. Like it or not, that's a part of someone's country and heritage; you need to at least respect that, same as you've asked others to do for cockfighting essentially. One would have to presume you would (or at least your countrymen would) take a similar level of slight if people took a similar level of disregard and slander towards the history of your aboriginal people.
Colt45 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 .....Meant to intend that, with the plethora of winkies in there..... Keith, no worries here. I've had my share of disagreements / arguments with our man KG - often over similar topics. I might not always agree, but he has my utmost respect. For me your follow up in the discussion is apropos - whether I agree with all points or not - cheers!
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Keith, no worries here. I've had my share of disagreements / arguments with our man KG - often over similar topics. I might not always agree, but he has my utmost respect. For me your follow up in the discussion is apropos - whether I agree with all points or not - cheers! Noted, thanks. Now can I get mod powers, so I can help block/lock any of these crazy threads that Ken starts?!?!
Colt45 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Now can I get mod powers.... Be careful what you wish for.....
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Be careful what you wish for..... LOL. I'm already starting to understand that sentiment, as it relates to my new/current work!
HydroRaven Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 there seems to have been an extremely convenient to fudge what was origainally said here. baby seals? the sealbashers were going around slaughtering seal pups. who hasn't seen the films of them walking past adult seals on the snow to smash the skulls of the pups? so only seal pups are causing overfishing? what a load of convenient crap. dress it up in whatever personal insults you like. it does not change what is/was happening. all that does is completely diminish any respect i may have once held. What's the difference between killing a mature seal and a pup? Unless they're an endangered species, why do people care what animals others kill?
Ryan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 On the baby seal killing thing, I see the argument about killing them because they eat too much fish. I'm not Canadian nor am I too much up to date on the situation but I presume there hasn't been a recent population explosion of the seals? (unlike say deer in some parts due to no predators or rabbits in others) I presume that the seals are also native to the regions they're in. If that's the case, don't the seals have a right to eat? Should there not be more debate as to why suddenly the seals have to be killed in order to provide a profit/living for the fishermen? (I say "suddenly" as I'm guessing within the last 100 years, which is "suddenly" compared to how long there have been seals there) Is there not an underlying problem there? If we're being truly honest, nobody other than the seals, needs that fish to survive. We, unlike the seals, can eat other fish. The fishermen, unlike the seals, while it may be difficult, can retrain/change culture. Is there not something philosophically, morally and environmentally wrong to simply kill the competition because we want (and want is all it is) more of the stuff that they need to survive?
HydroRaven Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 On the baby seal killing thing, I see the argument about killing them because they eat too much fish. I'm not Canadian nor am I too much up to date on the situation but I presume there hasn't been a recent population explosion of the seals? (unlike say deer in some parts due to no predators or rabbits in others) I presume that the seals are also native to the regions they're in. If that's the case, don't the seals have a right to eat? Should there not be more debate as to why suddenly the seals have to be killed in order to provide a profit/living for the fishermen? (I say "suddenly" as I'm guessing within the last 100 years, which is "suddenly" compared to how long there have been seals there) Is there not an underlying problem there? If we're being truly honest, nobody other than the seals, needs that fish to survive. We, unlike the seals, can eat other fish. The fishermen, unlike the seals, while it may be difficult, can retrain/change culture. Is there not something philosophically, morally and environmentally wrong to simply kill the competition because we want (and want is all it is) more of the stuff that they need to survive? Why is it wrong to kill animals? As long as we do it in a responsible manner (and by that I mean not exterminating them), then why do people have an issue with hunting and killing animals? I agree killing someone is morally wrong, but an animal? Why is it wrong? A predator (in this case, humans) killing a prey (seal) is one of the most natural things. Why is wanting more of the stuff a bad thing? As long as we don't mess up the ecosystem (and that would be a bad thing for us, whatever other reasons people might give you, the survival of the human race is the real reason why species are put on these conservancy programs), why do people worry?
Ryan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I have absolutely no moral issue with killing animals we need to eat or wear, no problem at all. That wasn't my point. My point was, killing the competition because we want more of the stuff they need and have always needed, is wrong. There's an underlying problem there that won't go away even if every last seal disappeared.
HydroRaven Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I have absolutely no moral issue with killing animals we need to eat or wear, no problem at all. That wasn't my point. My point was, killing the competition because we want more of the stuff they need and have always needed, is wrong. There's an underlying problem there that won't go away even if every last seal disappeared. Why is killing the competition wrong? Other animals do it when they migrate or are displaced from their traditional habitats. Why is it wrong when humans do it?
Ryan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Humans aren't doing it for survival. There's a fundamental difference.
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 On the baby seal killing thing, I see the argument about killing them because they eat too much fish. I'm not Canadian nor am I too much up to date on the situation but I presume there hasn't been a recent population explosion of the seals? (unlike say deer in some parts due to no predators or rabbits in others) I presume that the seals are also native to the regions they're in. If that's the case, don't the seals have a right to eat? Should there not be more debate as to why suddenly the seals have to be killed in order to provide a profit/living for the fishermen? (I say "suddenly" as I'm guessing within the last 100 years, which is "suddenly" compared to how long there have been seals there) Is there not an underlying problem there? If we're being truly honest, nobody other than the seals, needs that fish to survive. We, unlike the seals, can eat other fish. The fishermen, unlike the seals, while it may be difficult, can retrain/change culture. Is there not something philosophically, morally and environmentally wrong to simply kill the competition because we want (and want is all it is) more of the stuff that they need to survive? From Wiki about seal hunting in Canada.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_hunting "The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) regulates the seal hunt in Canada. It sets quotas (total allowable catch-TAC), monitors the hunt, studies the seal population, works with the Canadian Sealers' Association to train sealers on new regulations, and promotes sealing through its website and spokespeople. The DFO set kill quotas of over 90,000 seals in 2007, 275,000 in 2008, 280,000 in 2009, and 330,000 in 2010.[2] The actual kills in recent years have been less than the quotas: 82,800 in 2007, 217,800 in 2008, 72,400 in 2009, and 67,000 in 2010." Also.... "Harp seal populations in the northwest Atlantic declined to approximately 2 million in the late 1960s as a result of Canada's annual kill rates that averaged over 291,000 from 1952 to 1970.[4] Conservationists demanded reduced rates of killing and stronger regulations to avert the extinction of the harp seals. In response, in 1971, the Canadian government instituted a quota system. The system was competitive, with each boat catching as many seals as it could before the hunt closed, which the Department of Fisheries did when they knew that years quota had been reached. Because it was thought that the competitive element might cause sealers to cut corners, new regulations where introduced that limited the catch to 400 seals per day, and 2000 per boat total." I can't readily find it on Wiki right now, but I know that their population is indeed skyrocketing, and the fish stocks are dropping. Something about the fish trying to evacuate from the Grand Banks areas, schools of them trying to get away from international fishing fleets the scientists think, and thereby swimming into more coastal waters and becoming a doorstep buffet for the seals.
Ryan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 None of that is the seals' fault. I suppose the point I was trying to make is does anybody really think the problem of over-fishing is going to go away even if every seal is killed? At very best, and I doubt even this very much, it's a very temporary 'solution'. Has anybody worked out what Is the tonnage of fish seals take compared to trawlers?
canadianbeaver Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Comparing the seal hunt to cockfighting is ridiculous. There is a legitimate reason to hate both. Folks sit around and bet/laugh and enjoy and exploit roosters. Throw in killing elephants for tusks and other animal atrocities too. Question is, is this what you want to read about here?
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I'm sure there's those statistics out there, but I have no idea. I don't support any of this, as I've said before. But attacking an ethnic/aboriginal people's activity, just because we don't like it, isn't something that I enjoy seeing. No, their hunt percentage is not much of the overall hunt, I get that. But in relation to cock fighting, how much of those roosters are ate, used for food or fuel oil, skins made into leathers and commercial items, etc., etc. Like it or not, those seals aren't just killed for enjoyment - there's an actual purpose and market behind it. But, if it's not animal cruelty (just because it's not pretty doesn't mean it's animal cruelty), who are we to talk? I'm sure those living in India are constantly aghast at what we in the West do with our cattle farms (cows are sacred to them). And, how many cows are killed annually for our red meat purposes, compared to seals? Cows have their throats slit and bled out, and die after a number of minutes; the seal hunters club the seals in the head, generally killing them instantly, but sometimes needing another bludgeon, with the seals dying in seconds. What, just because seals are cuter, we get upset about it? Nah, that ain't kosher with me. Again, I dislike the sealhunt, and even as a hunter and a fisherman, let alone a Canadian. I'd love to see it gone, and the inuit/ethnic peoples have other opportunities; and likewise, more stringent application of the maritime laws to those that overfish (hell, I'd love to see their boats get shot out of the water, not just chased away). But, if it's not true animal cruelty, and if there's a history/cultural past in it, and there's a legitimate use/market for the end products from the deceased animal (ie - not just killed for entertainment, and the carcass thrown away), I consider it to be sanctionable, as much as I may like it or not personally. But, I just compare a lot of this to my thoughts with many of those in the various rights-groups and anti-whatever lobbies. How facts and figures are distorted or outright ignored to suit one's own personal viewpoint or opinion, and to force that opinion on others. Not aimed at anyone here, not at all; it's just more or less similar to my thoughts of how the anti-tobacco lobby are infringing upon everything that we do just because something isn't appeasing to them personally. Anywho, like Lisa said, back to cigars.... Cheers.
Colt45 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 But, if it's not true animal cruelty, and if there's a history/cultural past in it, and there's a legitimate use/market for the end products from the deceased animal (ie - not just killed for entertainment, and the carcass thrown away), I consider it to be sanctionable, as much as I may like it or not personally. Purely for conversation - I'm not sure anyone is arguing against native peoples taking animals to provide food for, clothe, and shelter themselves. But when the core problem is human encroachment (as it often is in these cases), I don't quite understand, in this instance, taking seals because they eat fish. As for getting back to cigars, does anyone else ever notice that these type of discussions have more life than those which are cigar related...
canadianbeaver Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Folks do not take seals because they eat fish. They kill them for their fur. Let's be honest about it. And I am not saying we have to talk just about cigars. But if you do not like subjects like cock fighting, hit the report button and have the thread removed. This is reasonable don't you think? But get ready to have a topic you write about sometime removed as well.
Colt45 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 But if you do not like subjects like cock fighting, hit the report button and have the thread removed. This is reasonable don't you think? Sometimes it's that simple, sometimes it's not so cut and dried. I didn't see the piece, but imagine it was more of a cultural article? Obviously, things "Cuba" get discussed here. In such a case as this, we can comment or not - keeping it civil. We can voice our displeasure at it being posted at all - keeping it civil. If one is not keen on being referred to as a seal clubber, they are free to bring it up - keeping it civil. Some might say if you don't like it, you don't have to read it, but I look at it a little differently - I look at FOH as if we were all sitting together having discussions, so hearing (reading) these topics is unavoidable.
CanuckSARTech Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 ....As for getting back to cigars, does anyone else ever notice that these type of discussions have more life than those which are cigar related... LOL. So true. Unless of course it comes to the annual deletions lists....
Habanos2000 Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Great back and forth on a very volatile subject and think it's fine that not every single topic here be cigar related. As far as my point of view is concerned, I don't like cockfighting so I don't participate. I don't like baby seals being killed so I don't purchase the fur. I don't like bullfighting so I don't attend the fights. If there's enough lack of support I suppose just about any activity will go away, eventually. Since none of these activities take place where I live I don't feel I have the right to impose my opinion on those that do take part. One of my, and our, favorite activities is cigar smoking, and there are plenty others that want it done away with because they don't like it. I don't want someone that doesn't participate in what I do regulating my activities. I say as long as it's legal, then people should be free to do it. If you want change, do it legally.
NJP Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Look at what you've done Kenny. Won't they take your call at Telstra any more or did the Prez ask you for more input on the forum. A pot cooks best when stirred slowly. I like your work.
CaptainQuintero Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Mr Ayala. Allow me to introduce myself. I am Kenny Gargett. They told me you were assassinated in Hong Kong.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now