Seal Clubbing Essay

Two years ago I went to NAFFEM, a large fur trade show in Montreal. I was invited as a blogger, to check out the beautiful pieces and choose some of my favourite items for sale at the show. I am a huge supporter of the Canadian fur industry (read about my reasons here) but I’ve been less vocal about the seal hunt, primarily because I didn’t have enough information to make an informed opinion about it. Well, now I do, and I would like to share it with you because I think it is important.

1. Seals are a sustainable resource and are in abundance. We live in a world where resources have become an issue, and many of us are choosing to consume products that come from renewable resources. Seal is a great example of this – there are tons of them in Canada and they are not at all at threat of becoming endangered.

Speaking of sustainability, seals are part of the reason why fish stocks are very low (although overfishing is also a big issue) and the seal hunt not only provides jobs and resources for the hunters, but also allows the fish populations to regenerate (a bit.) All major conservation groups will agree that a responsible use of resources (like hunting seals for food and clothing) is a good thing, and is often the central principle of modern conservation.

2. Seals are local. The green topic is a big one right now, and part of the green movement focuses on buying local.

Canada has a lot of great resources, but when it comes to fashion, few are 100% Canadian. Nearly all of our fashion products are in some way sourced from overseas (whether it be raw materials or construction) but seal skin and wild fur are 100% free range, local products.

3. The seal hunt supports Canadian communities. There are two major seal hunts in Canada, one in the Arctic sea (seals hunted by Inuit people) and one on the East Coast (a commercial seal hunt.) Both provide jobs and resources for those people. The meat is eaten, the fat is used for a variety of products, and the skin is sold so that these people can support themselves.

Food, as you may know, is extremely expensive in the Arctic, and there are limited jobs in that area, or in the Maritimes. The seal hunt is a very important Canadian industry for the people who depend on it.

4. The seal hunt is not inhumane. The animal rights activists will have you believe that the seal hunt is inhumane, but this is not the case.

First of all, most seals are killed with rifles (not clubbed to death.)

Secondly, there have been numerous studies done on the seal hunt, and biologists and veterinarians have all agreed that the seal hunt is no less humane than any other hunt.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, UNDEMOCRATIC

5. The media paints an unfair picture. My question, after having learnt all the above, was why does the seal hunt have such a bad reputation? There are two answers to this.

First of all, seals are cute, and people are more likely to be protective of cute animals. If we were all truly concerned about cruelty and sustainability, why aren’t we doing more to save fish? Many species of fish are far more at risk than seals, yet their not-so-cute appearance doesn’t exactly inspire people to campaign for them. (Notice how we care more that our tuna is “dolphin safe” but not so much if that particular tuna is endangered.)

Secondly, the seal hunt is much more visible than other hunts, and the access to it allows for more imagery. The seal hunt happens in certain places at very specific times, and so it is very easy for activists to turn up and take photos of blood on the ice. Those same activists aren’t invited into abattoirs, and therefore we don’t have the same images in our head of cows or sheep. The fact that seals are cute, and that we have access to photos of them being killed, means the seal hunt has been very unfairly portrayed by the media and activist groups.

Many of us are so far removed from nature, farming, and hunting, and it is so easy to forget that our food comes from the land. While I will admit I don’t like seeing photos of any dead animals, I do appreciate the process and am under no illusions about the realities of eating meat and wearing animal products.

For those of us who do choose to consume animals, the best we can do is consume sustainable resources that are treated humanely – and the seal hunt is just that.

by Brian Duignan

This week marks the beginning of the annual Canadian harp seal hunt, by far the largest marine mammal hunt in the world and the only commercial hunt in which the target is the infant of the species. For six to eight weeks each spring, the ice floes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the eastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador turn bloody, as some 300,000 harp seal pups, virtually all between 2 and 12 weeks old, are beaten to death–their skulls crushed with a heavy club called a hakapik–or shot. They are then skinned on the ice or in nearby hunting vessels after being dragged to the ships with boat hooks. The skinned carcasses are usually left on the ice or tossed in the ocean.

Thousands of other wounded pups (estimates range from 15,000 to 150,000 per year) manage to escape the hunters but die later of their injuries or drown after falling off the ice (pups younger than about 5 weeks cannot swim). The seals are hunted chiefly for their pelts, which are exported to Norway, Finland, Hong Kong, Turkey, Russia, and other countries, where they are used to make expensive designer-label coats and accessories. Among the major vendors of these products are the Italian fashion-wear companies Gucci, Prada, and Versace.

Recent history. For several decades, but especially since the mid-1990s, the Canadian seal hunt has provoked worldwide outrage and intense protest by animal-rights, environmental, and scientific groups, by national governments, and by some international governmental institutions, such as the European Union, all of which have objected that it is viciously cruel and, in its typical size, a serious threat to the long-term survival of the harp seal species. Both charges have been vehemently rejected by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), which is responsible for setting the maximum number of seals that may be killed each year (the “total allowable catch,” or TAC) and for managing and regulating the hunt. The DFO, for its part, claims that the hunt provides an important source of revenue for Newfoundland’s economy and that seal hunting in Canada is an economically viable (i.e., self-supporting) industry–assertions that have been vigorously challenged by numerous anti-hunting groups.

Since the 1960s, opponents of the hunt have taken photographs and films of hunts in progress to substantiate their claims of cruelty; their activities have sometimes resulted in violent confrontations with hunters and arrest by Canadian authorities (observers of the hunt are prevented by law from coming within 10 meters of any seal hunter). Protest campaigns also have included boycotts of Canadian products–such as the boycott of Canadian seafood sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States–statements of support and other involvement by celebrities such as Bridget Bardot, Martin Sheen, and Paul McCartney; and countless reports and studies drawing on scientific and economic research by affiliated or sympathetic experts.

In 1972 the United States banned the importation of all seal products from Canada, and in 1983 the European Union banned the importation of pelts taken from harp seals less than 2 weeks old, known as “whitecoats.” The ensuing collapse of the market for seal pelts resulted in a dramatic decline in the average number of seals killed each year in the 1980s and early 90s, to about 51,000. Partly in response to worldwide disapproval of the hunt, the Canadian government banned the killing of whitecoats in 1987; regulations in force since then stipulate that seal pups may be killed as soon as they begin to shed their coats, usually when they are 12 to 14 days old. In 1996 the number of seals killed increased to about 240,000, reflecting the Canadian government’s successful marketing of seal fur in the economically emerging countries of East Asia. For the remainder of the decade an average of about 270,000 seals were killed each year.

In 2003 the DFO adopted a three-year plan calling for the killing of 975,000 seals, with a maximum of 350,000 to be killed in any single year. Anti-hunting groups noted that, in fact, well over one million seals were killed, counting those who were “struck and lost–i.e., wounded and not recovered.

This year, the DFO announced a TAC of 270,000, a reduction of about 17 percent from the TAC of 325,000 in 2006 (according to the DFO’s figures, however, the actual number of seals killed in 2006 was 354,000). The lower limit was characterized by the DFO as a “precautionary” response to extremely poor ice conditions in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, a trend observed in nine of the last 11 years. Because ice floes in the southern Gulf are greatly reduced and existing ice is very thin, the vast majority of pups born in the region will drown well before the start of the hunting season; the DFO itself estimated that natural pup mortality in the southern Gulf this year would be 90 percent or higher. Nevertheless, the DFO claimed that the TAC of 270,000 was justified, because ice conditions in the northern Gulf and off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador were good and because the overall size of the herd, which it estimated at 5.5 million, was “healthy.”

Cruelty. The DFO claims that the seal hunt is “humane and professional” and that violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations, which prohibit various forms of cruel treatment of seals and other animals, are relatively rare. The regulations require, for example, that a hunter using a hakapik or other club must strike the seal on the head until its skull is crushed and that he must check the skull or administer a “blinking reflex test” (by pressing his finger against the seal’s eye) to determine that the seal is dead before he strikes another animal. The regulations also forbid a hunter from bleeding or skinning a seal before he has determined that it is dead using one of the prescribed tests.

However, reports by anti-hunting groups and some independent scientific observers since the late 1990s indicate that hunters routinely ignore these regulations. Among the more than 700 apparent violations witnessed (and often filmed) by these groups were: failure to administer a blinking reflex test; allowing wounded but obviously conscious seals to suffer in agony while hunters strike or shoot other seals; dragging obviously conscious seals across the ice with boat hooks; throwing dying seals into stockpiles; killing seals by stabbing them through the head with picks and other illegal weapons; and skinning seals while they were not only alive but conscious. In 2001 a report by an international veterinary panel whose members observed the hunt and examined the carcasses concluded that it was likely that 42 percent of the animals studied had been conscious when they were skinned.

The DFO has disputed this finding, citing a report by five Canadian veterinarians based on observations of the same hunt, which stated that 98 percent of the killings they observed were performed in an “acceptably humane manner.” The DFO does not acknowledge, however, that the observations in the second study were conducted in the presence of hunters, who therefore knew they were being watched, and that the study’s conclusion was based on the number of seals who were observed to be conscious when they were brought to the hunting vessel (3 out of 167), not on the manner in which the remaining seals were killed on the ice or on whether the seals were conscious when they were dragged to the ship. Although anti-hunting groups have submitted the testimonial and photographic evidence they have collected to the DFO, the agency has so far failed to investigate any of the documented cases.

Conservation. The DFO claims that its policies are based on “sound conservation principles” and that the TACs are designed to “ensure the health and abundance” of the seal herds. In response to charges by independent scientific bodies and intergovernmental organizations–such as the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission–that continued hunting on the scale of recent years will result in a long-term decline in the number of seals and possibly even their extinction, the DFO asserts that the size of the current herd is “nearly triple” what it was in the 1970s and that the harp seal is in no way an endangered species. In the 1970s, however, the number of harp seals had been reduced by two-thirds, to about 1.8 million, by two decades of intensive hunting, during which the number seals killed each year was less than or roughly equal to the large TACs set by the DFO since 1996. Indeed, in 1974 Canadian government scientists recommended a ten-year moratorium on seal hunting to give the herd time to recover (the moratorium did not take place). The size of the current herd, therefore, represents a partial recovery made possible by the smaller hunts of the 1980s.

Economic issues. The DFO claims that the seal hunt is economically important and that the industry as a whole does not depend on subsidies from the Canadian government. In fact, however, the revenue earned from the sale of seal pelts and other products, about $16.5 million CDN in 2005, represents only about 2 percent of the value of Newfoundland and Labrador’s fishing industry and less than 1 percent of the provincial economy as a whole. The roughly 4,000 commercial fishermen who take part in the seal hunt each year use it to supplement their incomes during the fishing off-season; it is not a primary livelihood for any of the hunters. Although the DFO states that all subsidies ceased in 2001 (some $20 million CDN had been provided in the 1990s), the seal industry continues to rely on subsidies in various forms, including the provision of Canadian Coast Guard icebreaking and search-and-rescue services; the funding of a seal processing plant in Quebec in 2004; the management of the hunt by DFO officials; the funding of research into the development of new seal products, such as a putative human-health supplement made from seal oil; and the marketing and diplomatic promotion of the industry throughout the world. Seal-hunt opponents also point out the indirect but substantial costs of the hunt in the form of business lost by numerous Canadian firms because of the negative image of Canada in the rest of the world or more directly because of boycotts directed at specific Canadian industries, such as the boycott of Canadian seafood by the HSUS. Although exact figures are difficult to come by, some independent experts believe that, when all of the direct and indirect costs associated with the industry are taken into account, the seal hunt in Canada actually constitutes a net drain on the country’s economy.

To Learn More

Books We Like

Seal Wars: Twenty-five Years on the Front Lines with the Harp Seals
Paul Watson (2003)
Foreword by Martin Sheen

The author of this aptly titled book is not given to compromise. Even some environmentalists regard him as an extremist, and many others outside the movement have denounced him as an “ecoterrorist.”

Born in Toronto in 1950, Watson served in the Canadian Coast Guard and in the merchant marine of Canada, Norway, and Britain in the late 1960s. As a founding member of Greenpeace, he served on Greenpeace ships in the 1970s in direct-action campaigns designed to prevent nuclear testing in the Aleutians, to disrupt Soviet whalers in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and to document the yearly slaughter of harp seals off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. In his voyages to the ice floes he blocked the path of hunting ships by standing directly in front of them on the ice, covered harp seals with his body to prevent them from being clubbed, and sprayed seals with harmless dye to make their coats worthless to the hunters. On his second voyage to the ice floes his passengers included Bridget Bardot, who helped to bring international attention to the slaughter taking place there.

Watson broke with Greenpeace in 1977 because he considered its members insufficiently radical (“the Avon ladies of the environmental movement,” as he characterized them); in the same year he founded his own group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which he dedicated to the protection of the world’s marine wildlife and ecosystems and the enforcement of international conservation laws. As captain of the Sea Shepherd, the first of a series of ships purchased by the organization, he rammed and sank or severely damaged ships engaged in illegal whaling. Arrested and facing forfeiture of the Sea Shepherd as compensation for one such attack, he scuttled his ship rather than allow it to fall into the hands of whalers.

Seal Wars is a vivid, infuriating, and at times humorous account of Watson’s decades-long battle against Canadian authorities on behalf of the lives of harp seals. The book recounts his numerous confrontations with seal hunters and their supporters, including Canadian police, many of which led to violence against Watson and his crews. In 1995, for example, Watson and the actor Martin Sheen were trapped in their hotel in the Magdalen Islands (in eastern Quebec province) by a mob of angry hunters; although police were present, they did little to protect Watson, who was badly beaten before he was finally rescued and airlifted to safety. Watson exposes the hubris, greed, deceit, and sheer stupidity of Canadian officials who defend the clubbing and shooting to death of hundreds of thousands of baby seals every year in order to protect an industry that produces expensive coats and handbags.

In his foreword to the book Martin Sheen describes Paul Watson as “by far the most knowledgeable, dedicated and courageous environmentalist alive today.” Watson’s activism, which has helped to save the lives of countless thousands of whales, seals, dolphins, and other animals, reflects an admirable dedication to the principle of respect for animal life and the natural world.

Save

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *