Canada refuses to ban dog and cat fur imports because of seal hunt

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
a lonely worker
Canada refuses to ban dog and cat fur imports because of seal hunt

Just when we thought we couldn't sink any lower as a country:

 

"The federal government won't ban imports of cat and dog fur because doing so might undermine Canada's support for the seal hunt, says a newly released document.

An internal memo shows government officials urged Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz not to follow the United States and Europe in barring cat and dog fur from entering the country.

Officials worried a ban would weaken Canada's argument against other countries closing their borders to its seal products.

"A ban could have implications for the farmed fur industry in Canada and for Canada's position against the banning of Canadian seal products by other countries," the memo says.

The Canadian Press obtained the March 26 document under the Access to Information Act.

The U.S. and the European Union have banned imports of dog and cat fur. But those places aren't home to the world's largest seal hunt."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g0VcHBaKTW2...

This isn't merely an academic exercise as many cat and dog fur products are very likely in Canada already:

"The international trade in cat and dog fur is gaining momentum and the level of cruelty which this industry tolerates is horrendous. Two million dogs and cats are killed in Asia every year to supply the fur trade.

As the slaughter of dogs and cats is viewed as reprehensible in the west, the Asian fur industry attempts to conceal the truth by intentionally mislabeling fur exports. With few exceptions, products from dogs and cats are never labeled as such. Dog fur is sold as “Asian wolf “fur, while cat fur is often labeled as “rabbit” fur. In fact, producers of fur in China revealed to investigators that they were willing to sew any label onto garments made from dogs or cats to facilitate commercial viability. To make matters worse, Canadian laws do not require garment labels to include the origin of the fur, nor which species of animal it comes from.

According to industry Canada, the Canadian fur and retail industry imported $5 million in animal pelts and $28 million in fur trimmed apparel from China in 2004. Despite the distinct possibility that many of these imported furs are from dogs and cats, the government has indicated that it has no intention of prohibiting these imports."

 

Here's the link but warning of a really gross picture:

http://www.gan.ca/campaigns/fur+trade/cat+and+dog+fur.en.html

 

I couldn't think of a clearer example of where our support for the seal "hunt" / massacre and worship at the alter of capitalism is turning us into 21st century barbarians.

In the past when we banned whaling we created an entire new eco-tourism industry. Its time we move forward again before eating hot dogs will take on a whole new meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Just when we thought we couldn't sink any lower as a country

 

At least Canada is trying to show some semblance of consistency. The EU went ahead and banned Canadian seal products, while continuing to enjoy watching bulls get harrassed to death by men in tight pants. Whether you like this move or not, the fact is, we still haven't sunk as low as our Euro-hypocrite friends over in the land of foie gras.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

We have a pet rabbit. They're quite popular these days. Should we ban bunny fur, too, just for consistency?

Or should we perhaps be open to cultural differences, and figure out that there's way bigger issues to spend our time on.

Michelle

I'm not sure why it makes us "barbarians" to allow cat and dog fur into the country.  Unless, of course, we're saying that the choice of animals that "other people" slaughter for food and fur is "barbaric" while the choice of animals that we slaughter for food and fur is just a-okay.

Sineed

Speaking of consistency, when was the last time you saw a picture of Paul McCartney in China, standing next to a pile of skinned cats, and deploring China's animal rights record (many many many many fold more horrific than Canada's by anybody's measure)?

Precisely.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

I am left wondering, who buys this stuff anyway? Mink, kitty, seal or fido... who actually buys it?

a lonely worker

I must say I'm somewhat surprised by the reactions in favour of cat fur slippers and the seal hunt.

To answer some of the posts:

Snert wrote:

At least Canada is trying to show some semblance of consistency. The EU went ahead and banned Canadian seal products, while continuing to enjoy watching bulls get harrassed to death by men in tight pants. Whether you like this move or not, the fact is, we still haven't sunk as low as our Euro-hypocrite friends over in the land of foie gras.

So are we "Cana-hypocrites" for banning bull fighting but not the seal hunt? Why the double standard? Why is their definition of barbaric hypocritical but ours isn't? In the end both animals die for man's vanity (in fact more bulls get eaten after the "fight" than the vast majority of seal pups). To be consistent with your reasoning wouldn't it make sense for us to allow "cultural" activities like bull fighting as well?

You do realise we also have foie gras here too. Does that make us hypocrites for allowing this but not dog fighting?

Lord Tunderin Jeezus - Its pretty hard to practise "cultural differences" when our government won't even require corporations to identify what product they're selling us. Part of respecting one's "cultural difference" is to have proper labels on things to allow people to make choices based on those differences. The Brits tried passing off unlabeled beef fat on gun cartridges in India; the result lead to the Sepoy Rebellion.

I have a "cultural difference" with animals killed strictly for their skin. Because of no label enforcement, am I to refuse buying even products even listed as faux fur to accommodate your "cultural difference"?

Also isn't our ban on selling bear gall bladders violating the "cultural differences" of others? Should we rescind this ban in keeping with others "cultural differences"?

Since you believe so strongly in respecting "cultural differences" does this mean you respect the Europeans "cultural differences" with us in their belief that the wholesale massacre of hundreds of thousands of young seals for their skins is barbaric? Why is your defintion of barbarity superior to theirs?

Michelle - According to most of the world the seal hunt and the killing of dogs and cats for meat or fur is considered a barbaric practise. It appears it is not in Canada but the killing of whales and dolphins is.

Why is our definition of "barbarism" re: the killing of whales and dolphins better than the Japanese or the Europeans? Should we re-open a "sustainable" whale hunt (lol) and start a dolphin hunt too? Why the double standard? As Snert says; shouldn't we be consistent?

Also what's to stop a home grown dog and cat fur industry here? If imports are allowed then why can't we produce as well? Isn't this discrimination? Also why can't we start up a dog and cat food indutry here too? We don't want to appear culturally intolerant or jeopardise the seal massacre now do we?

Finally Sineed of the straw man named McCartney. Whether McCartney has condemned the skinning of cats or not (I imagine he wouldn't be fond of it), its clear that you don't agree with it. I don't either and if you look at the second link provided you'll see our neo-lib government is refusing to enforce guidelines requiring corporations list what their products are made from - apparently it gets in the way of profits and smacks of "socialism". Its utterly disgraceful that we are allowing this (there's much more graphic stuff online).

Since we both agree that the cat fur "industry" is repugnant (its not just China), why is our government not requiring at the very least that corporations importing products made from cat fur (including kids toys and products marked "faux fur") identify what their products are made from?

Railling at McCartney for being a hypocrite is fun (because in many ways he is) but when you are so focused with anger at him that you allow our government to do something that you strongly disagree with tells me the distractions we've been fed to justify the seal hunt are leading us to accept some  things most of us would find repugnant. Your argument is akin to saying we shouldn't talk about poverty in Canada whilst there's poverty in India. Its a great right wing debating strategy that is used to shut down any internal criticism of our capitalist world order.

This "hunt" is costing us hundreds of millions a year in bad will around the world. That's the mo0netary cost but the real cost is in justifying it, we are losing our soul and opening the floodgates to a neo-lib hell where everything's for sale in order to appease our own "barbarity".

We're on a very slippery slope here.

 

 

 

 

a lonely worker

bagkitty wrote:

I am left wondering, who buys this stuff anyway? Mink, kitty, seal or fido... who actually buys it?

 

Unfortunately its in far more places than you can imagine since we have no labelling requirements; it gets passed off as toys, "faux fur" and a variety of other things you wouldn't even consider to be from real fur. 

 

Check out the second link. There's a lot more online too. Then go to a dollar store and you will see that a lot of soft or stuffed products have no labels.

Who knows; if you have a pet and they have a stuffed toy they might be chewing on a distant cousin.

 

All in the name of capitalism and the rights for a few to bash seals in an "industry" that even the government acknowledges is  worth less than $15 million a year.

Snert Snert's picture

Canada banned bullfighting?  Huh.  Here's a story about [url=http://www.videosilva.com/index-6.html]Canada's only bullfighting ring[/url], but it makes no mention of bullfights being banned.

Anyway, I expect that this is eventually going to conclude with me either having to endorse the banning of any animal products you disagree with, or else endorse legalizing the Draize test, and I don't know how badly I care to get backed into that corner.

Quote:
We're on a very slippery slope here.

You could stop oiling it.

Tommy_Paine

Well, it is cultural.  It's what we're used to, and it also relates to utility.  People don't eat their beasts of burden.  Like cows in India, or horses in North America.

I can't put a an arguement up validating the way we treat animals without ultimately going back to species chauvanism.  And, that's not entirely a bad thing. 

I think seals are species chauvanistic too.  

The term for animals that are not species chauvanistic is "extinct".

But obviously,  we humans are way out of wack with things, and being species chauvanistic means now that we have to adopt some behaviors that appear altruistic to our fellow species.

But, animal rights activists, by concentrating on the emotional, really play into the cultural differences.  

A baby seal, as viscious as they appear, feel terror and pain the same way those cute loveable bulls do in Spain. And cuddly sharks have as much importance as those slimy shit factory bunny wabbits in your back yard.

Seems animal rights activists are selecting what species get help based on cuteness. 

I suppose after a thousand years of this, the environment will resemble an episode of the Care Bears.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I have a lot more sympathy for killing wild animals where we are full participants in the enviromental cycle and make use of as much of the animal as possible.  I see much more to complain about in how we put most of our meat on the table.

a lonely worker

Snert - Bullfighting has been banned in Canada:

Despite a considerable number of states having banned the practice of bullfighting by law – Argentina, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom among them – it still takes place in nine countries around the world. This is nine countries too many. Yet it is encouraging to find that even where bullfighting is legal, certain regions have begun to phase it out, such as the Canary Islands in Spain, and most of France.

http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2008/06/bullfighting-spain-bulls

The link you provided is for a place that no longer operates.

This issue is causing serious debate within Europe and there are growing regions even within Spain making moves for an outright ban (Even Catalonia). 

The difference between Europe and Canada is they are continuing to make progress on animal welfare (one of the reasons why Norway and Iceland had issues with the EU), whereas in Canada we are justifying the importation of cat and dog fur to protect a 19th century "industry" that is costing 99.8% of Canadians in subsidies, trade and tourism. 

Speaking of tourism why is there never any discussion what pissiong off most of the civilised world is costing us in this industry:

"Tourism contributes as much to our country's wealth as agriculture, fisheries and forestry combined.

In 2008, tourism activity generated over $74 billion in revenues, represented 2% of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) and directly employed over 660,000 Canadians."

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/dsib-tour.nsf/eng/home

As far as Tommy's contention that "animal rights activists" only caring about "cuteness", this is nothing but a red herring (and I'm sure if they existed there'd be some animal activists fighting for them too).

Here is a very sobering view of where we stand in the world in terms of animal cruelty:

"Critics repeatedly point to Spanish bullfights or French foie gras production as evidence of Europe's poor animal welfare record. While these practices deserve criticism, the truth is that Europe is light years ahead of Canada in animal welfare policy. In fact, among developed countries, Canada is at the bottom of the league in its treatment of animals.

In 2007, the EU banned veal crates. The crates, so small that the incarcerated calf cannot turn around for most of its 16-week life, have been illegal in Britain since 1990.

Sow stalls, which keep pregnant pigs in such close confinement they are virtually unable to move throughout their 16-week pregnancy, will be banned in the EU in 2013. Tethers, used to further restrict sows' movement, were prohibited in 2006.

The EU has agreed to ban battery cages for laying hens in 2012, stopping a practice that denies the birds virtually all their natural behaviours and keeps them so cramped they cannot even flap a wing.

All these systems and practices remain in use in Canada, where farm animal welfare is governed by an entirely voluntary, unaudited set of "recommended codes of practice."

Moreover, the EU is committed to further advancing animal welfare reform. A protocol in the Treaty of Amsterdam legally recognizes animals as sentient beings and requires member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals." Animal welfare standards are being incorporated in EU trade agreements.

Farm animal welfare is also moving forward elsewhere. California recently banned battery cages, sow stalls and veal crates. Colorado, Florida, Oregon, Arizona and Maine have passed legislation banning intensive confinement systems. Nothing comparable is happening in Canada.

In 2008, all Canadian animal welfare organizations loudly opposed Bill S-203, the federal government's hopelessly weak animal cruelty legislation. Despite this opposition, the bill passed, leaving Canada's animals without the kind of legal protection they have in other countries. The legislation's predicted ineffectiveness has been borne out, with several horrific animal cruelty cases resulting in little or no penalty for the perpetrators. This included the acquittal of a man who killed five dogs with a hammer and the case of man who threw a kitten off a balcony and then ran over it with his car – the charges were dropped. The CFHS says Michael Vick, the American football player charged for involvement in a dogfighting ring, would not have been convicted had his crimes taken place in Canada.

Less than one-quarter of one per cent of charges under the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code result in convictions. An International Fund for Animal Welfare survey of animal cruelty laws in 14 countries ranked Canada last in a comparison of effective animal protection legislation.

Despite all this, defenders of Canada's commercial seal hunt continue to point at Europe's bullfighting and foie gras. Yet a closer look reveals that there is considerable European opposition to both practices. Fifteen European states, including Germany, Norway, Denmark and Austria, have banned the production of foie gras. Bullfighting is banned in a number of EU countries, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. Polls show most Europeans abhor bullfighting. Even within Spain there is opposition – Barcelona banned the practice in 2004."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/645184

Unfortunately its only a matter of time before the bullfighting ban is overturned too.

I am by no means an "animal activist" and I'm not even a vegetarian. But I believe if we are going to move into a sustainable 21st century we're going to have to abandon 19th century practises of killing animals only for their skin, fin or trophy (sorry couldn't think of a way to rhyme that with "in").

We also must abandon 20th century practises of corporatising our food chain and turning our "eating" animals into nothing more than a cruel experiment in Frankenfoods and "feedlots". Aside from being unethical, its entirely unsustainable.

This can't happen as long as we keep criticising what others are doing (even when they're improving) in an attempt to justify why we're going backwards.

Think about it: 10 years ago could you imagine a Canadian government would decide to allow the importation of dog and cat fur????

How about seeing dog and cat meat in our stores in another 10 years time? Anyone want to bet against it if this trend continues?

The arguments against taking action on animal cruelty are the same arguments that the right are using against any action on climate change. Focusing on China's environmental record might make us feel morally superior but it definitely doesn't improve our planet one bit.

We all live on the same planet and how we maintain it and interract all its aspects will be the difference between the survival or extinct of our animal species.

 

So I guess that makes us all "animal activists"!

Wink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Tommy_Paine wrote:

I suppose after a thousand years of this, the environment will resemble an episode of the Care Bears.

Laughing

a lonely worker

Pogo wrote:

I have a lot more sympathy for killing wild animals where we are full participants in the enviromental cycle and make use of as much of the animal as possible.  I see much more to complain about in how we put most of our meat on the table.

 

So does this mean you're opposed to the seal hunt where only the skins are taken off animals less than 3 months old and the rest left to rot at the bottom of the ocean floor?

Obviously I agree that we have a lot to tackle on our McFood industry, but as long as we're doing pirouettes to refuse any basic animal cruelty laws to justify our seal "hunt" and refuse to take on the commercialisation of our planet then we will never see progress toward a sustainable planet (with or without "care bears")

 

triciamarie

Is there any physiological or philosophical reason why cruelty to cats and dogs should be seen as worse than cruelty to any other domestic or wild animal? Because that's sort of the feeling that I'm getting from the opening premise. Maybe there is a good reason and I'm missing it.

ETA: Or I might be wrong about the premise.

a lonely worker

triciamarie wrote:

Is there any physiological or philosophical reason why cruelty to cats and dogs should be seen as worse than cruelty to any other domestic or wild animal? Because that's sort of the feeling that I'm getting from the opening premise. Maybe there is a good reason and I'm missing it.

ETA: Or I might be wrong about the premise.

 

This isn't a question of "cuteness" but it would be hypocritical of me to deny that there is a psychological repulsion about comsidering a dog or cat as a "resource".

To me the real issue is this:

In the past we used to take the lead in banning products that came from inhumane or unsustainable sources. Such as the banning of ivory (which lead to elephants being killed just for their tusks). Unlike today, we were actually considered a somewhat progressive country in terms of animal welfare.

Our support for the banning of the whale hunt is another example.

All of this changed when we dug our heals in the seals. In order to protect this "hunt" we have moved in the opposite direction and are now opening up new markets for animals that were never considered part of OUR "resource" chain before. Once you start adding to this list; where do you draw the line????

You will also notice there is no requirement that the dog and cat fur come from cruelty free sources (again this would interfere with the "hunt").

The fact is we will never make any progress on animal cruelty laws, (both wild and domestic / agricultural) as long as we have our number one consideration its impact on the  seal hunt. 

As long as we use excuses to dismiss any thoughts of ethical treatment of animals as "animal activist" talk instead of viewing it as a cover to continue the commercialisation of all beings on our planet, we will continue to keep turning into being an environmental embarassment forced to argue that at "least we're not China or Spain" (and even the Spanish argument is running out of time).  

The choice is simple: either we start respecting all parts of this planet and finding sustainable ways to co-exist within it or else we keep addding to our "can kill" list and then complain when ecosystems crash or when a species you care about suddenly becomes the next species on the fashion catwalk.

 

Sineed

a lonely worker wrote:

The choice is simple: either we start respecting all parts of this planet and finding sustainable ways to co-exist within it or else we keep addding to our "can kill" list and then complain when ecosystems crash or when a species you care about suddenly becomes the next species on the fashion catwalk.

 

Where your argument falls down is comparing the seal hunt with whale hunting or elephant hunting.  Those were species in serious danger of becoming extinct.  But...correct me if I'm wrong: seals aren't an endangered species.  Are they being hunted in a way that is environmentally unsustainable?

Personally, I'm fairly neutral on the topic; neither pro nor anti seal hunt.  My objections lie in the singling out of a small, (the way I understand it) environmentally sustainable hunt in a world where there is massive environmental crime and horrendous animal abuse going on.  But you get all these professional activists singling out the seal hunt for international censure so that foie-gras-devouring, mad-cow-creating-by-feeding-diseased-sheep-to-cattle Europeans will weep at the sight of those huge eyes blinking their last before their brains are bashed in, and then opening their wallets to donate to PETA, or whatever agency Paul McCartney, or married-to-a-fascist former beauty Brigitte Bardot advocate for.

Protesting the seal hunt isn't about ecology - it's about politics.  Canada doesn't have a lot of power in the world, so we get picked on so that animal rights' organizations can raise funds.  That's the A to Z.

Tommy_Paine

So does this mean you're opposed to the seal hunt where only the skins are taken off animals less than 3 months old and the rest left to rot at the bottom of the ocean floor?

Hey, lobsters gotta eat.  Will no one think of the wee lobsters?

Like Sineed, I'm ambivolent on the seal hunt.  I guess untill European countries wade in on the issue, in which case I just want to pour them a nice warm mug of shutthefuckup.

I understand that to grab media attention and promote public concern, it really helps to have something colourfull like a Puffin, or something with big dark eyes like a baby seal to be the poster animal.

But really.

REALLY.  If people really cared about seals and puffins and the whole shebang, we'd be more upset about draggermen that have disrupted the sediments, and all the ugly creepy crawly things that once called it home, and were once the food of the food of cod, seals, and whales.

 

And who, if we let them, would be  back in droves to  drag the Grand Banks, even if there's hardly anything left?

Oh yes, our self righteous sanctimonious European bullshit artists.

Seals?

We should be more concerned with worms.   But  we won't be because they aren't as cute as baby seals.

That's ultimately to the detriment of the poor baby seals, and us incidentally.

remind remind's picture

Meanwhile Harper is going to try to impose a new prison system that ignores human rights.

Tommy_Paine

 

We have to get bigger, sadder eyes.

 

a lonely worker

Sineed wrote:

... Where your argument falls down is comparing the seal hunt with whale hunting or elephant hunting.  Those were species in serious danger of becoming extinct.

Personally, I'm fairly neutral on the topic; neither pro nor anti seal hunt.  My objections lie in the singling out of a small, (the way I understand it) environmentally sustainable hunt in a world where there is massive environmental crime and horrendous animal abuse going on.  But you get all these professional activists singling out the seal hunt for international censure so that foie-gras-devouring, mad-cow-creating-by-feeding-diseased-sheep-to-cattle Europeans will weep at the sight of those huge eyes blinking their last before their brains are bashed in, and then opening their wallets to donate to PETA, or whatever agency Paul McCartney, or married-to-a-fascist former beauty Brigitte Bardot advocate for.

Protesting the seal hunt isn't about ecology - it's about politics.  Canada doesn't have a lot of power in the world, so we get picked on so that animal rights' organizations can raise funds.  That's the A to Z.

 

Actually Sineed, many species of whales are no longer considered endangered and African elephants weren't either. It was the killing of them for tusks and unnecessary meat / blubber for whales that was making them endangered. Should the bans be lifted now this is no longer the case?

You keep coming back to McCartney and the Europeans love of foie gras and feeding animal by-products as feed. Using McCartney's UK as an example;

- The production of foie gras is banned in the UK and there are only two high end stores still selling imports. Many city councils have banned it entirely with demands for a complete import ban:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579992/Foie-gras-is-banished-fro...

No such ban exists in Canada

- After the insanity of feeding animal products as feed led to mad cow, the EU banned the usage of ALL meat and bonemeal products in ALL usages of feed. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-ministers-broaden-ban-...

All what Canada did was ban the feeding of the same species to each other. (In other words its ok for a chicken to be fed to a cow which is then to another cow).

Also their testing for BSE is light years ahead of us.

I was in Britain during the BSE scare and saw first hand mountains of burning cows when entire herds were wiped out to ensure a fresh start.

When I was back in Canada and BSE occurred here, all we heard was bland assurances and pleadings to keep our markets open. Very little meaningful was done in the way of regulation. This refusal to interfer in "business" (i.e. regulate and strictly test / enforce) is a large reason why a large part of the world continued banning our produce. For instance Japan tests every cow, whereas we only do random checks or those that appear sick.

 

As well one just has to see our Genetically Modified food industry that our government subsidises and lobbies for versus the EU's ongoing fight against GM to make me say I would feel much more comfortable eating "weepy" European food than Canadian McFood anyday. 

 

BTW did you know that Canadian supermarkets refuse to sell products with "GM Free" as part of a package's label?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/canadalabels.cfm

 

The argument of the sustainability of the Seal hunt comes from the same people who policed the "sustainability" of the cod fishery where every year ever larger quotas where announced until the whole fishery collapsed.

Although the last full survey was done in 2004 the quota continues to be large (in the 300k range) and they continue to claim a large population (just like the cod). Considering the growing list of countries now banning seal pelts one can only wonder where all these pelts will go and how much we as taxpayers will have to subsidise them (as well as market them, lobby and legal bills).

Your argument about the world ganging on "poor" Canada is interesting considering public enemy number one to the animal activist group is Japan (the second largest economy in the world) because of their whale hunt. Taiwan and China are also moving into their radar because of their shark fin massacres.

Unfortunately I do agree with you it is political because defending this "tradition" by accusing others of worst practises is the same strategy the oil barons use to justify our pariah position on climate change. It has everything to do with economics and maintaining their capitalist system; free of regulation or any consideration for more sustainable and ethical planet.

Using hypoctrites like Al Gore and Paul McCartney as their strawman is just part of the fun to keep the profits flowing.

 

I can't believe I just defended McCartney and Gore .... ugghh ... I feel so dirty.

 

While I go wash, maybe you should think about what we can do to make our food and treatment of animals more ethical instead of complaining about Europeans who are at least making improvements.

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

Meanwhile Blue Fin Tuna is being pushed to the brink of extinction by the EU Mediterranian countries, who drift net for them, taking 10's of thousands more than the International fishing treaty allows for..

Machjo

As a vegan myself, I don't see the point in banning products from one animal but not of another. What's the moral rationale of banning  one animal product but not another?

a lonely worker

remind wrote:

Meanwhile Blue Fin Tuna is being pushed to the brink of extinction by the EU Mediterranian countries, who drift net for them, taking 10's of thousands more than the International fishing treaty allows for..

 

The EU's acting on that too:

 

"European Union countries adopted new rules Monday to help restore endangered bluefin tuna stocks in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, bringing the bloc into line with international standards.

The rules introduce "significant cuts" in bluefin tun quotas by 2011 and shortens the period in which the species can be fished by four months. The season begins on April 15.

They impose a freeze on fishing capacity to 2007-2008 levels and tighten laws on sport and recreational fishing. Imports and exports of fish caught outside the quota system will also be banned.

Controls and inspections will be beefed up."

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOz3SrQ-u5KkJRaStIhN8...

 

At least in Europe they admit there are problems and taking some action on them.

 

Meanwhile in Canada we spend more time criticising other's pollution standards, environmental practises, treatment of animals and farming practises whilst we continue to drop behind everyone else, adopt even lower standards and turn into a dumping ground for the world.

No offense but the arguments here against taking action against the fur industry sounds a lot like those against taking action against climate change: a whole lot of red herrings, blaming of others and defensiveness about our failings.

 

Whilst everyone else is moving ahead, we're debating why cats and dogs should be added to our fur list.We should be debating what unethical practises should be taken off that list instead.

And Machjo, the banning of one species over another isn't the issue. The issue is because of our insistance on continuing marketing an item the world finds repugnant due to "cultural differences", we have dug in our heals and are refusing to ban any product for fear of its impact on our beloved 13 Million dollar industry.

This fighting all bans have gone to such ridiculous levels that we have taken the EU to court over their ban of genetically modified foods.

We have to start somewhere but as long as we're afraid to take any animal welfare, food / product regulation issue seriously to protect the clubbing of seals we're going to never see progress.

The arguments used against the seal hunt were the same ones used against the ban on whaling (some species were not endangered in Canada). Instead we played ball and created a whale watching / tourism industry worth millions and is entirely sustainable. Going back to whaling now would be considered barbaric by most Canadians. If we took a similar tack on seals we'd also create a new thriving toruism industry at a time of year most people wouldn't dream of visiting the Atlantic.

As many have complained; they are cute so why not use that "cuteness" to create a new industry for rich "weepy" Europeans that you can laugh at and make money off of.

Its called thinking forward.

To not give any wrong impressions I am not a vegan and ate beef today. But where I draw the line is that when we kill animals we do it in respect and use every last bit of it. Killing any animal just for its skin for vanity is something our first nations never did and shows how far we've strayed from our natural world. So you could say I have  a First Nations perspective of animal rights (which is why their seal hunt is completely different from the settlers' massacre).

 

As for the Europeans; they're also putting their money where their mouth is on this issue as the Dutch Socialist Party has just introduced legislation to ban all mink fur products by 2018. This will significantly hurt their own industry but its moving ahead and already has the support of the Labour Party, Green Left, D66 and The Animal Rights Party (yes that's their name). Its interesting to note the main issue appears to be the compensation to be paid to the mink farmers as opposed to distracting debates about rabbits or other such cuddly animals. Progress is made one step at a time.

In Latin America Socialist parties are also moving to enforce animal cruelty laws and sustainable practises. Ecuador's recent moves to ban shark fishing is one example. Evo Morales is famous for his speeches talking about respecting Mother Earth and integrating this respect into Bolivia's socialist policies. Cuba has several positive examples.

And in Venezuela Chavez is taking aggressive action on animal welfare (including bans on bull fighting).

Chavez' solgan is "Human Freedom / Animal Rights. One struggle / One fight"  

I guess this makes him "weepy" too.

This is the part that really surprises me. Around the world socialist movements are seeing the connection between a just world and the ethical treatment of all its creatures and ecosystems (even ugly worms).

 

As long as we keep moving our so-called "progressive" movement further away from this whole world approach we will continue to appear as out of synch with the world's movements for change as a sealer holding a bloody hakipik at a French bistro.

 

a lonely worker

Lard Tunderin - to the best of my abilities I did deal with the issues placed by many before me with links as opposed to statements about "weepy" Europeans taking action against foie gras, bullfighting, tuna fishing and an article outlining our ranking at the bottom of the animal welfare scale.

Regarding your "cultural differnces" remark there is obviously a major cultural difference between what Europeans view as humane regarding seal products (the ban did not include First Nations harvest) and Canadians.

 

In many ways we agree about issues like GMO's, habitat and biodiversity but were I think we part ways is by insisting Europeans accept our "culture" we are sacrificing our ability to regulate our own food  / "resource" requirements.

 

To use the issue of refusing to ban importing cat and dog fur to protect our complaint against  the EU: it would be equally difficult to protect our complaint if we then banned GMO's in Canada. Therefore any meaningful action on GMOs gets watered down or dropped.

 

This refusal to ban anything in case we look like Paul McCartney is the Pandora's Box this hunt has opened.

I guess the only compromise between these two positions would be to accept that Europeans have a different culture than us and if they want to ban big brown eyed seal pups then shouldn't we respect their cultural choice to say no??

Also how come no one complains about the "weepy" Americans for their ban of our seal products? If we accepted their ban why are we so anti-European when they do the same?

This might be the best solution because then we can finally start debating REAL issues of merit such as: why does Canada not require proper labelling of fur products, why can we not have products listed as GMO free if consumers want it and what practises we should ban or regulate to improve our biodiversity without fears of the Europeans going "eh voila!"

In the meantime I find it incredibly sad that what should be progressive ways of looking at re-inventing our economy into more sustainable methods (such as leveraging Europeans love of seals into a far more profitable venture) has to be severely curtailed because we consider it our cultural right to protect this dying industry.

Our track record of managing things ourselves looks absolutely dreadful when one looks at how we've managed our fisheries to ruin. Depending on the same assurances from the same politicos about the strength of the seal herd at Fisheries Canada is insanity.

To your issue about fluffy bunny. I have no real problem with rabbit fur as long as the rest of the rabbit is used for meat (which most are). The seal "hunt" is an entirely different matter were very little meat is taken as this is essentially a hunt for the purpose of fashion as opposed to necessity.

Finally on the issue of dogs and cats. I guess using my analogy of fluffy bunny then if hot dogs really start reflecting their name then that would solve that dilemna (no matter how distasteful to me personally).

But here's the problem: over 660,000 Canadians depend on tourism for their livlihood. If you think the seals create a negative impact on that industry imagine the uproar if we add to our wall of shame with tar sands, GMOs and seal clubbers the new title cat and dog eaters?

How many financial hits and how many weakening of our own standards do we have to endure to keep propping up this $13 million embarassment? When will it get into our thick heads no one wants our shitty seals?

In many ways, our political and economic appeasement of this very small group looks as ridiculous as the moral knots the Americans work themselves in to appease their Miami gusanos.

There are so many more beneficial ways we can build sustainable economies for the Atlantic region that clearly needs our support. We did it for the whalers with amazing results. We can do it here too.  To depend on viewing all wildlife as a "harvestable" respurce has proven to be a disaster. Why not build on a model that works?

As long as we have blind obedience to one position we will continue to see nothing but anti-Canada campaigns, countless tourism jobs in peril and an ever widening of what's permittable to be viewed as a resource in our cash is king capitalist utopia.

 

As mentioned in my last post; REAL left forces have taken a stand that includes respect for all creatures. Unless we take off our blinders we will be increasingly viewed as northern Texans who are more interested in drillin an killin things than building a new sustainable economy and world.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

I believe in defending animal habitat, not individual creatures based on their resemblance to Care Bears™™™™™. I believe in defending biodiversity, not domesticated animals in no danger of extinction. Are you beginning to understand where we part ways?

well said

George Victor

Don't start him on an environmental theme, LTJ.Wink

Caissa

I support the seal hunt. It is ecologically and economically sound.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

And no one avoids Canada as a tourist destination because of the seal hunt. Do you know anyone in Canada that refuses to go to France because it is the home of fois gras, or Spain or Mexico because of the bull fights? 

 

remind remind's picture

Oh you are too cute by far a lonely worker on the blue fin tuna front.

A absolute ban was called for but;

Quote:
The "Club Med" of southern European Union countries came under attack from environmentalists today for defying the campaign to ban trade in bluefin tuna, Japan's highly prized sushi fish, whose stocks are dwindling dangerously low.

A fortnight ago the European commission agreed, after weeks of argument, to back a proposal from Monaco to ban trade in bluefin tuna. If the EU had voted for the ban at an international forum next March, fishing for bluefin tuna would have been effectively outlawed, at least temporarily.

Despite optimism that the ban, supported by 21 EU governments, would go ahead, the move was blocked at a Brussels meeting late yesterday by Malta, Cyprus, Spain, Italy, France, and Greece.

"Deplorable," said Xavier Pastor, head of the Oceana fisheries conservation lobby group in Europe. "They are pushing tuna to the point of no return."

"Enough is enough," said Aaron McLoughlin, head of the WWF European marine programme. "It is once again large-scale Mediterranean fishing interests trying to gang up against the long-term survival of Atlantic bluefin tuna."

Lowering amounts to 2007/08 levels means sfa, given those levels were obsene too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/22/eu-bluefin-tuna-ban-bl...

And one would ask why are you not on about the Pacific salmon collapse which is being desperately actioned?

Dog and cats are not in danger of extinction. Nor are seals.

 

Jingles

I have the perfect solution:

Soylent Green.

Not only would we tap into a inexhaustibly vast food supply, we would also eliminate an invasive species that is highly destructive to native environments.

North Americans and Europeans are particularly succulent, although they are high in cholesterol and fat, so should be considered a junk food.

Caissa

I love Harrison's Make Room! Make Room!

remind remind's picture

Fair enough that you did not know,  and you're welcome for the update that happened 2 days ago, as indeed I was speaking from the position of that which happened 2 days.

And yes, Canada should ban fish farms.

Or maybe the next thing ya know is we will have "fish flu" :D ;)

a lonely worker

Remind thanks for the update. I'm not "too cute", I didn't know this happened two days ago. Just shows how fast things can change after years of struggle.

This is wrong and checking other links it appears Malta was the main catalyst for this as they are what appears to be the worst offender; another example of the tail wagging the dog. I understand that there is a pushback underway and Monaco has already announced a ban of all bluefin products in their restaurants. A small start but a start nonetheless. Also there are elections in Greece which might explain their reversal.

 

You ask about why I don't talk about salmon. Ok let's talk. 

In the past decade there has been rapid growth of fish farms in BC especially after 202 when the ban on new farms was lifted. This led to international condemnation even in Alaska which bans the practise. There is growing demands to ban salmon from farms due to the ecological effects they are having on native wild populations.

 

Its impossible to talk about the collapse of what was called the "sustainable" and "well managed" wild fishery without the effects of seal lice, pollution and other side effects of this disaster.

 

Should we demand that Canada ban all Atlantic Salmon farms in BC?

 

What other measures should we take to return the stocks to normal?

 

As for the Europeans refusal to fish responsibly; should we not demand that all Bluefin tuna imports from the EU be banned in Canada?

 

Oh and jingles; I wouldn't talk too loudly about Soylent Green, I'm sure there's some capitalist out there trying to spin it into an "ecologically and environmental sound" product. Undecided

 

 

Will Hiscock

Doesn't surprise me much that you are such a "lonely" worker.  Look at the sustainability of the herd and the income levels of the people involved in the hunt.  And to say that it is all for the skins is nonsense - or so many Newfoundlanders wouldn't enjoy as many meals of seal pie a year as we do.  (and the "flippers" is the part sold in town, the rest still gets used, just usually by the harvesters families).

 

Now we can stop killing animals altogether - a position I disagree with, but a legit moral argument - or we come up with sensible ways to regulate it - like sustainability of natural stocks and herds.  I find it repugnent that in a country that kills as many animals living in horrid conditions every year we go after these people for a couple thousand killngs. 

 

It's because it's close and personal and not industrial killing.  It's like saying bombing is ok because you don't see you victim, while a stabing is terrible.  Either they both are, or they both aren't.  And picking on sealers because of some outdated pictures of a white coat is the lowest of the low.  How about the "save the rats" in Alberta - it's a crime that they shoot those cute little guys trying to come into the province!

 

As for cats and dogs - well they don't seem to be in much threat of being wiped-out.  I'd also hazzard a guess that they are treated better then the chickens in this country.  This is mushy logic and plays on an image of "savage" Newfoundlanders which if used towards natives would rightly be deemed racist

Will Hiscock

As to fish farms I agree with you both.  But of course we can't get a government to look after or invest in the natural stocks, so soon it will be farm fish or nothing.  Not that fishermen haven't been warning about that since forever.  The failure of the atlantic cod fishery became the major issue of the Newfoundland government in 1880. 130 years later - were still considering our options - maybe next year...

Will Hiscock

I shoud be more fair.  Many who oppose the hunt are ligitimately concerned for the welfare of all animals - but it's use as poster child rightly upsets alot of people who know what the hunt looks like and are interested in maintaing at least some semblance of a rural way of life in Canada.  We can't all live in big cities, and that means using the environment surrounding you to make a living.  In Newfoundland that means hunting and fishing to a large degree.  Not ever going to be a lot of farming communities, as you can't grow much in a lot of the "rock'.  It's called that for a reason

KeyStone

As I have stated many times previously, the seal hunt differs from other forms of animal cruelty in many ways other than the patronizing claim that seals are cute:

1) Very little of the meat is used. Many carcasses are left to rot on the ice.
2) A significant portion of a wild animal herd is killed within a few days.
3) The main targets are baby seals (yes, I consider between 2 weeks and 3 months to be a baby)

Lonely Worker, you are doing a very good job of debating.But you need to identify the crackpots, and not waste your time. Sooner or later they will make the argument that carrots should be treated the same as animals.

I find it all quite sad how Canadians have swallowed the Liberal and Conservative propaganda over the years. The same people that think the whale hunt, bullfighting and dog pit fighting should be outlawed see no problem with the seal hunt, because our politicians have succesfully associated as part of the Canadian identity and have managed to link the poor Atlantic Canadians with the practice.

The obfuscation is also quite amusing, as if the existence of other (and perhaps greater) cruelties, somehow makes the cruelty that we perpetrate acceptable.

Let's just be glad that the First Nations and Atlantic Canadians don't have a history of slave-trading, or the politicians would likely have convinced most Canadians that it is a perfectly acceptable practice as well.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Don't forget that the people involved in the hunt are some of the lowest income communities.  Also note that no one is arguing that the hunt isn't sustainable, just that it is aesthetically unpleasant.

Will Hiscock

Keystone

1) some may be.  Some are also lost as they become impossible to retrieve as conditions change.  There is waste in every industry, but I take your point, and I agree that all the meat should be kept, though the fatty outter layer is not really of much use, so I don't know what else they are supposed to do with it...

2) Yes - this is because the hunt only goes on for a few days - because it is being sustainably managed

3) This is very debatable.  Certainly there are no "white coats" being killed, and many go after larger animals for more meat and skin - but perhaps, in which case an economic incentive/disincentive might work better.

 

As far as recognizing the "crackpots" it seems ironic to me that even the vast majority of Newfoundland's progressives support the right of a sustainable seal hunt.  Seems like when you see what the reality is you become a "crackpot" - strange that.

 

pogo - that is basically my problem, and many Newfoundlanders are more than a little warry outsiders moralizing over an industry which just happens to have no bearing on their families.  Too much trouble to look in your own back yard? 

There is a saying amongst ex-pat Newfoundlanders - "we're here because we got all the work done at home" - so maybe that's the case - no factory farming industrial killing centres in your town hey?  No the seals are different

Will Hiscock

Also Keystone - I think your talk of the "poor Atlantic Canadians" should be enough to get you kicked off a progressive board like this.  Not only is it region bashing - but yes - it is poor bashing.  And it suggests a lack of concern for your fellow human beings who are hard working but in hard times nontheless which should not ever be found here on babble.

remind remind's picture

I have already made a complaint about that post but it is being ignored by the mods.

a lonely worker

Sorry for not responding sooner but have been busy.

 

First the personal: Will, the reason that I have admitedly the lamest name ever on babble is that it was a typo as it was supposed to be "a lowly worker" as "a worker" was taken. It was late at night and I just came back from leafleting a plant by myself . It obviously was a Freudian slip and I'm not a very good typist. Still as a union organiser it is pretty lonely when you've got management in your face at midnight and you're alone trying to talk to workers to tell them they don't have to put up with these thugs. I would love to change the handle and I refuse to post under a different name because I have a thing against people who do this, so I guess I'm stuck with it.

 

To the substance of your posts. I agree Newfoundlanders have had a horribly rough ride and much of their natural respurces have been plundered by wreckless greed from big industry and short sighted politicians who will sell their mothers or raise quotas to keep them in office for another year.

 

The cod fishery is a good example and I'd love to follow the money to see who's profiting from allowing the world to plunder our fish stocks. Are you aware the government just lifted the ban on cod fisheries and has approved international fleets to "harvest" thousands of cod again for the first time in 10 years?

 

http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=290104&sc=79

 

Province says NAFO ignored scientific advice - Says further proof of need for custodial management

"The 3M cod stock has been under moratorium since 1999. The NAFO Scientific Council recommended a TAC of 4,125 metric tonnes. Despite this, a TAC of 5,500 tonnes has been established for 2010. NAFO members voted in favour of this, including Canada.
The TAC for 3M redfish will increase from 8,500 tonnes to 10,000 tonnes. Again, this is against the advice of the NAFO Scientific Council, which recommended keeping the quota at current levels for 2010."

These are the bright lights that declare our seals and salmon sustainable too and they have mismanaged every "sustainable" resource they have touched. It seems their faux anger at Europe disappears the moment big money interests are at stake (a trade off for "free" trade with the EU nperhaps?).

Now onto your main point, decisions like these clearly demonstrate that we have a Federal government with priorities completely removed from the people.  When things like this happen, people in the Atlantic realise they've been sold out.

However every spring these feelings disappear when our government wraps itself in seal skins and leads anti-EU / "treehugger" hysteria to show how they are "protecting" Canadian interests. Its a sham; as the seal industry is only worth $13 million but its pricelees for blind boosterism and making people forget boneheaded decisions like this.

Just look at the horribly anti-European comments on this thread to see how it works and yet our government is quietly and secretly giving away the real wealth of the region to big industry (I find it interesting that the quotas are meant for big factory ships and not small scale fishers).

With our government selling us out like this how do we re-build a devastated region?

In an earlier post I mentioned that when commercial whaling was banned in 1972, many people thought this was the end of a culture and would bring further economic ruin to the region. Instead the opposite happened and thousands of new tourism jobs have been created making  whale watching a truly sustainable economic activity. It would be impossible to imagine all those whale pictures that always appear in tourism pamphlets if whaling was still practised.

 

Now let's say the same was done with seals. What if it was transformed into a toursit industry with the same hype as whales? How much would Europeans pay to see those big brown eyed "care bears"?

Its a very valid question and there would be very few who would venture below $13 million considering the millions in whale tours. The international goodwill alone would generate worldwide attention and we would also save millions in "security", lawyers and lobbyists hired to keep the world away. This money could easily be spent in community support and retraining as was done with the whalers.

Its clear this is a product very few want around the world and is increasingly being banned. Now their reasons might be hypocritical but that is the fact.

 

So here's the question: if it could be proven that there would be more jobs, more money and more economic spinoffs would you support converting the seal industry into a tourism based one as opposed to a fur / small meat one?

 

It worked for whales and "weepy" Europeans are even bigger suckers for big eyes (I bet McCartney alone would pay a fortune). 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

alw - those whales are close to viable centres of tourism. Those seals are not.

KeyStone

Remind,

Please quit stalking me in the forums.
You don't need to have a personal retort to each and every post that I make.

Stargazer

Once again I find myself amongst the few on this entire board who are totally against the seal hunt and before any body starts on this "it is because seals are cute bullshit", really listen to yourselves and do NOT try to put words in my mouth or attribute to me what you use to smear everyone who is against it. I am a vegetarian. Full stop. I believe all cruelty towards animals needs to stop.

 

I guess lonely worker, after being attacked in this thread, has an supporter in me. And shame of those of you who jumped down his throat and took to personally attacking him. If anyone's post was offensive, it was yours. You know who you are.

KeyStone

"Also Keystone - I think your talk of the "poor Atlantic Canadians" should be enough to get you kicked off a progressive board like this.  Not only is it region bashing - but yes - it is poor bashing.  And it suggests a lack of concern for your fellow human beings who are hard working but in hard times nontheless which should not ever be found here on babble."

I think you seem to be misunderstanding my post. It was meant to read more along the lines of 'lower income Atlantic Canadians', but I used the word poor instead, which could be read as if I am meaning it in a condescending way. I am simply suggesting that because the practice is associated with Atlantic Canadians with low incomes, we are defending it. If it was rich Torontonians making money from it, I think Canadians would have no problem with shutting it down.

The sad part is that we probably spend more money supporting it, fighting for it, and marketing it, than they actually make off of the seal hunt, and that doesn't even include the damage to our reputation and trading relations. All this is done so that the sealers can have the illusion of an independent income, when in fact - handing them a cheque for the amount we spend protecting this practice would probably help them a lot more.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The sad part is that we probably spend more money supporting it, fighting for it...

 

Not to mention fighting against it.

 

Quote:
handing them a cheque for the amount we spend protecting this practice would probably help them a lot more.

 

Or the amount spent battling it.

 

So... ya gonna?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

alw, you are mixing and confusing many issues without ever dealing with the problems placed before you.

I agree that GMOs are of concern when released uncontrolled into the biosphere. That has nothing to do with dogs or cats or big brown-eyed seal pups or fluffy bunnies unless they are being genetically modified to develop skunk glands and cobra fangs.

I believe in defending animal habitat, not individual creatures based on their resemblance to Care Bears. I believe in defending biodiversity, not domesticated animals in no danger of extinction. Are you beginning to understand where we part ways?

Will Hiscock

lonely worker - your point is well taken with regards to the cod fishery.  But this is my problem with the seal hunt as well.  If the stocks are ok, and the eco system is in some sense of balance, then why not have a hunt?  Not everyone is vegetarian, and where would you rather they get there meat?

 

This is better than the super store.  From either an ethical or ecological perspective.  Or from a health perspective as well unless you can afford or are lucky enough to know someone with orgamic beef.  So I say hunt the seals unless the heard is in danger (which it doesn't seem to be), hunt your moose, sneer a few rabbits and grow a decent garden.  For a progressive to protest such a lifestyle, unless they see eating any meat as murder, is nonesense.

 

Finally, even if someone was willing to pay these people to stop working, is that the point?  Should they not be able to go out and work and feal proud of it without accepting charity?  Have you ever read any Marx?  Do you even know what work is supposed to mean?  Capitulating because a bunch of rich mainladers decided to pick an environmental fad which they know nothing about doesn't strike me as fair game.  No.  When someone tells me that the seals are in danger I'll be ready to act, but until then you'll have to wait.

 

As to the cod.  Yes - this is a resource which could mean alot to the world in terms of protein in years to come, but if it recieved even half the attention the blessed seals do maybe something would be done to save the fish basket of the atlantic.  It is sad how people grasp at these little sidelines while the weight of the shift in the oceans takes whole industries and species away - leaving communities hopeless.  NAFO has never done its job.  Much like DFO.  These clowns are simply industry pawns, and are used as bartering chips in the game of international negociations and trade.  Never mind that we'll lose a fish stock which was able to feed most of Europe's armies for 500 years.  The Canadian Navy should have been put on the nose and tail of the Grand Bank decacdes ago.  A moratorium declared, the research and science done, and a fishery developed that not only maintained the stocks, but allowed them to recuperate, while still providing a limited commercial fishery to Newfoundlanders, Canadians, and select others.

But we'll end up protecting the bloody north pole before I see that I imagine.

a lonely worker

Will Hiscock wrote:

 

Finally, even if someone was willing to pay these people to stop working, is that the point?  Should they not be able to go out and work and feal proud of it without accepting charity?  Have you ever read any Marx?

 

 

Yes I have read Marx but it appears you unfortunately didn't read my main question, so I'll ask it again:

 

If more jobs and more money can be made from seal tourism than from seal hunting would it not be better for the region to have more people WORKING in the seal tourism industry than in the dying seal pup fur industry?

 

If this is about economic development and it can be proven that seal tourism will have better economic benefits, then would you still be opposed to converting sealers into seal tour operators?

 

When whaling was converted to whale watching people still worked and made money as whale boat tour guides and more people are today employed in this industry than ever imagined (us "mainlanders" are an easy mark for cute animals).

 

BTW, at least we agree on the cod. I hope people in Newfoundland are going after Ottawa on this.

 

 

Pages