Talk:Seal hunting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Belgium ban on seal products

Recently Beligum has imposed a ban on all seal products turning to be the first European country to adopt such a ban. I put a line about this with an appropriate reference in media in Demand for Seal products section. But the user named EuroTrash came here and deleted it with comment "Removed entry irrelevant to demand for seal products. Also: No demand means no need to ban. No?", which also-part made my day.

It seems to me EuroTrash is wrong stating its irrelevance. Basically, this ban means there is no demand for seal products in terms of both economics and ethics in Belgium. Or Belgians don't want such demand to exist.

Nevertheless, whether it should be in Demand section or in Protest section (or some special section), I think we should put this info into the article to give new facts to readers over the issue. Being afraid of EuroTrash with his cleaning broom, I put the question for discussion. Ollyn 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the info about Belgian ban in Demand section again with an explicit mention of word "demand" in order to lift preliminary misunderstandings whether it is about demand or not. EuroTrash, if you don't like something in the text that I posted (the section), come here and discuss it rather than deleting factual information.Ollyn 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Eskimo

I think that the use of the term eskimo should be changed to Inuit. This is mostly due to the fact that eskimo is considered an offensive word to the Inuit peoples and is pretty much an out-moded term.

• Not true, see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eskimo QuinnHK 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as i hate it when people label words as "offensive" he is right, no one in canada uses eskimo anymore, and it has pretty much changed to inuit over the past decade. --Dallin Tanjo22 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the use is in Canada, I am teaching in the village of Chefornak, Alaska and the people here are Yupik Eskimos. Eskimo is the preferred term in western Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcbpolish (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it just me, or does this article seem biased? -- Kmsiever 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a few pro and any-sealing people switching the article back and forth a little. Perhaps they can discuss wording on the talk page rather than the article page. FYI I was actually expecting this article to have more on historical sealing operations much like the History of whaling and whaling articles. - SimonLyall 07:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I just took the liberty of marking this article with a NPOV tag. It's filled with unsupported, unattributed POV statements, both overt and subtle. Conclusions are drawn from statements where the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the stated arguments, uses uncited sources, and the coverage seems slanted. And lots of weaselwords too. --Codemonkey 14:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with your NPOV tag. This has the potential to be a very informative article if it were done right. A thorough section on the history of sealing around the world (Canada is not the only country that has a seal hunt, after all), followed by different sections on the arguments for and against might be a better solution. --Crabbyass 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The page has been cleaned up significantly. With a few minor exceptions, all of the facts are referenced. As such, I'm removing the "original research" tag, and changing the "totallydisputed" tag to a "POV" tag. Bueller 007 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that alot of the pro-sealing research was replaced and edited to make the viewpoint seem more geared towards anti-sealing.

I am sorry to say so, but I have to agree with those saying that the sealing article is a mess. The main focus seems to be the sealing debate rather than the sealing as such and too much space has been allocated environmental activist organisations. Lots of abbreviations are used without explanation. The Canadian case, even though I acknowledge its importance, is too dominant. Take for example the section on Ecological feasibility. First it refers to DFO (?) without telling the reader that this is a national Canadian governmental institution. Secondly it refers to the Harp seal population as if the Northwest (mostly Canadian) population covers all Harp seals in the world. It is to inaccurate, biased and too little encyclopaedical. At this stage I think we would be better of scraping the whole article and start it all over on the basis of some main principles:

• It should cover the sealing: History, Distribution, Technology, Management, Market, Importance (society, economy, and policy).
• It should be covering the global story and make it clear when national perspectives are presented.

Who will start the work and who is willing to take the blame from all the POV-happy people preferring the article to be a mess?

---Arnejohs 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

? No, i don't agree with this Quote: At this stage I think we would be better off scraping the whole article and start it all over on the basis of some main principles. You could try to improve the current article instead. You don't remove hours of work because you believe the article is needing a NPOV tag. Bib 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

However i agree with this History, Distribution, Technology, Management, Market, Importance (society, economy, and policy). It should be covering the global story and make it clear when national perspectives are presented. Bring it on, this article needs more basic facts IMO, (neutral point of view facts of course). Bib 14:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes

What a terrible article this is. I've removed the worst of the POV, but there's a still a lot in there, and very few sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I first requested sources in December [1] so if they're not forthcoming soon, I'm going to remove the claims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Can someone list the non-neutrality claims so others can try to address them? Marskell 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week since this was post, and no one has listed any NPOV issues, so I'm deleting the NPOV tag. Bueller 007 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it needs more under the History headline about earlier hunting of whitecoats, bluebacks, considering it used to be legal. Now the history is more of a sunshinestory, because it's not written about earlier hunting of suckling pups, earlier use of regulations, including methods and so on. Cause the "humane" hunt which regulations allow today, is new, and the article needs history on how it was. Bib 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the neutrality tag needs to get back up, since there is new information added and removed, and sources give different information on the hunting, and there is much information which needs to be added before removing the neutrality tag. (Oh, and information on for example the "Harp seal" article, it could also use a neutrality tag, since information about the harp seal is important in issues pro or against sealing. Bib 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the neutrality tag back up. Many paragraphs have a biased tone, and there seem to be a lot of weasel words used.

This is my favourite part (which I will edit later so it may not say this when you read this discussion) "However, there is criticism against the involvement of celebrities. One of them is that their remarks are more easily reported on the media than those by the experts on the issue, although the media is more responsible of this. Also, these celebrities often say the seal hunting industry as unnecessary and small and tell the fishermen to change their jobs to seal watching, however the jobs of the celebrities such as music and fashion jobs can also be seen as unnecessary and nonessential." Lurker 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this article still need the "Neutrality" tag? It seems like it covers both sides of the debate pretty well. --Crabbyass 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section cruelty to animals comes across as POVish to me. It basically consists of a list of objections to the hunt and reasons why they are wrong. Nothing factually incorrect in there, AFAIK, but the tone comes across to me as biased. Lurker 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias against Canada

What about the OTHER countries doing the seal hunt? Greenland and United States? Why the hell is only Canada being listed? - T'Sura

I already answered this question on the harp seal page, but for the benefit of others who may read this page, the US is not a seal hunting nation. Killing marine mammals is against the law in the US, with some minor exceptions for native people. And Canada is the one killing hundreds of thousands of seals, obviously they are going to be a main focus of the article. Its also possible that there are more Canadians editing the english language articles, who will obviously know more about the Canadian hunt than the hunts in Greenland, Norway and Russia. Generic Player 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's find other countries too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

An article in the Canada Free Press from September 2005, states that the seal hunt off Alaska is much larger that the hunt of the East Coast of Canada. Can anyone confirm that a seal hunt does take place in Alaska and if so the number of seals taken in that hunt? HJKeats 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link for you: [2] From the link: The seal hunt in Alaska is a relatively minor aboriginal hunt in the Pribilof Islands that takes less than 1,500 animals each year and can hardly be equated with the slaughter of 350,000 seals each year on the nursery floes of the harp seal by non-aboriginal peoples. Levin in his statement to Congress cited the fact that the U.S.A. ended subsidies on the Alaska seal hunt in 1983. Bueller 007 13:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a bigger section on export to Norway, Russia (also more about hunting in Russia) and China, which are big importers of the peltz. Bib 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask: What the floikunstchilts is going on here? I just read the article and it's like a boxing match. Jab to the government here, jab to the seal hunt advocates there, what is this a tug o war of "facts"? C'mon folks, this is an encyclopaedia! I must agree with the NPOV here, and even though I have a personal view on the issue I wouldn't just blab myself on this page. Grow up, haha. Phil-hong 15:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is true that's why citations would be good and some pictures too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with this article. It was probably created as a result of what little protest celebrities tried to shore up. Someone should just delete this article or clear it into a clean slate so people don't have to see this mess every time they find out about this issue! Phil-hong 06:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

14,000 fishermen?

Do we have a cite on 14,000 fishermen? These two references give the annual amount at "$16.5 million in 2004" which is just a dozen seals and $1000 odd on average, which seems a little low. Are there really several thousand fishermen who catch just half a dozen seals for beer money? Cite needed. - SimonLyall 19:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems kinda silly having citations for every tiny little fact that is easily verified with google, but none the less I'll put one in there. Yes, the average income per sealer in the Canadian hunt is $1000. They aren't seal hunters as a profession, they are fishermen. The seal hunt doesn't last long enough to support people as their sole income. And to be fair, $1000 for a few hours of work is pretty good money, even if the work is pretty horrible, its more than just beer money. Generic Player 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not silly to cite facts to an encyclopedia even if the facts are easily verified. If someone wanted a site full of unbacked unbiased information, they wouldn't come to an encyclopedia. --Kirkoconnell 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

on articles such as this, where there a VERY strong and differing opinions everythin must be cited. Sure in some articles it isn't priority to cite certain information (it should still be done though), but whenever it is a highly opinionated article it is necessary.

Greenpeace and WWF

While Greenpeace is not an "animal protection organization", they do in fact speak out against the Canadian Seal hunt at least. And why is the WWF supporting the hunt an "interesting fact"? They are pro-hunting in general. Perhaps these two organizations should be mentioned as conservation organizations that oppose and support the hunt respectively?

Basically, WWF does not support seal hunting. It says it is not opposed to "sustainable harvesting of renewable bio resources" in general, but that doesn't mean they support the hunt. Statement that they are pro-hunting is wrong as well. They are not opposed - it is not in their interests, since they are a conservation group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.176.2.12 (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Complete Re-edit of this page

This page is appalling. The seal hunt in Canada is big news now, and surely this page has received a lot of hits recently.

It MUST be cleaned up, ASAP.

I recommend that the sealing page take the same format as the whaling page, which I recently edited. Whaling

First, the history, and the manner of the hunt. Then outline the sealing policies of the different countries who still conduct the practice. (Needless to say, Canada will receive a substantial amount of cover.) Then, outline both sides of the sealing debate.

I have edited the article to follow this format. At first, it will appear somewhat empty. I hope someone steps up to help fill in some more info. I have provided a few links researchers can follow to get data.

I tried not to delete any info that was in the pre-existing article when I reformatted it. If you think I deleted something that you wrote, just check the code for the page and you will probably see that I just commented it out because I thought it was irrelevant or I couldn't figure out where to put it in the new article.

Cheers,

Bueller 007 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regulations

Which are the regulations for sealhunting? Those should be in the article. Bib 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are no international regulations. If I'm incorrect, I would recommend that we put this in the "Modern Sealing" section. I would suggest that national regulations just go under the individual countries' entries in "Sealing Nations".

Bueller 007 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, since regulations are not the same for every country. Bib 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity involvement

Many of the celebrities claimed to be in opposition of the hunt, namely the Dali Lama, have been reported to have no official stance. So please, don't post names of supporters without a credible reference.

Please sign your inputs in the discussion. Well a credible reference, several articles mention him, such as this bbc article news.bbc.co.uk, and the source i already wrote. Where is the report you mention, claiming this is false? Bib 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

next thing you know, PETA will tell us Hitler will be supporting the hunt. lol, just a piece of humour on my part poking fun at them dumb hippies. As Ted Nugent says "the cuter the critter, the tastier the meat"

--216.46.128.94 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(The former statement is just not in the spirit of this site. Please read the guidelines)

A statement is made that "The song is based upon a poem of Rolf's writing that graphically depicts the nature of seal hunting and his highly controversial opinion of the seal hunters themselves." What poem? No citation for the alleged opinion of the seal hunters, yet alone a controversial one. It should have citation. SeanyJoshua 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"ragged-jacket" "raggedy-jacket"

So is it "ragged-jacket" or "raggedy-jacket"? Anyone have a good source with the correct term? Bib 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google for '"ragged-jacket" seal' turns up 459 hits. '"raggedy-jacket" seal' turns up 59 hits. This is despite the fact that "ragged jacket" and "raggedy jacket" by themselves turn up approximately the same number of hits (817 and 767 respectively). I think we have our answer -- the term is extremely rare, but it appears as if ragged-jacket is the preferred form. Bueller 007 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See Dictionary of Newfoundland English URL: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/dictionary/default.html . Both terms have been used in Newfoundland pretty much synonymously..

Yes, both appear there, which is why I recommend the use of "ragged-jacket" for the reasons stated above. We have to have some kind of uniformity. Also, please sign your name when you post here. Use four titles. Bueller 007 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hunting of whitecoats

Hmm, so apparently there is a stage between whitecoats & ragged-jackets, namely a "greycoat". Greycoats are very similar looking to whitecoats, i wonder if anyone can search for information whether hunting of greycoats is prohibited. Bib 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is stated in the Wiki article in numerous places and referenced in many of the links at the bottom of the page. When they begin to change color, they are open game, so long as their mother is gone. Also, please sign your name when you post here. Use four titles. Bueller 007 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, is hunting of whitecoats actually prohibited in Canada? Quote, "In December 1987, a government decision prohibited the commercial harvest of whitecoats or bluebacks and hunting from large vessels." [3] Quote, "The hunting of whitecoats has been banned in Canada since 1987, but it is still permitted for personal use." Bib 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"The hunting of whitecoats has been banned in Canada since 1987, but it is still permitted for personal use." -- This line appears nowhere in the article that you provided. The first quote is correct. It is 100% illegal to hunt whitecoats in Canada. Also, please sign your name when you post here. Use four titles. Bueller 007 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Russia, on the other hand, is another story, here is a quote, "Russia, sealers usually only kill whitecoats." [4]Bib 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bueller 007, trying to correct the errors you point out in my writing. Since i wrote those questions under the headline "whitecoats" at the same time, i signed at the bottom. Now i have added my signature two more places. There were 2 sources, you may find the quote "The hunting of whitecoats has been banned in Canada since 1987, but it is still permitted for personal use." in source 2 (http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-seal-whitecoat.htm). Bib 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a second, reputable, source on that, then go ahead and write something about it. But at the moment, nearly every single article cited in the article states that the hunting of whitecoats has been banned. The webpage cites no resources, merely "environmentalists" or something. Further, the webpage is pretty weak. It looks like something some kid doodled up in his bathtub. I wouldn't trust anything from that site. Bueller 007 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents worth here - As far as the hunting of whitecoats in Canada goes, there is no mention of anything in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) website nor in the Marine Mammal Regulations about the taking of whitecoats for personal use (or at least nothing that I can find). Any reference to the hunting of whitecoats states that it's illegal - I've yet to find an exemption to this. Furthermore, DFO is the Canadian federal government division that regulates the seal hunt, between DFO and the Department of Justice they are the definitive source for what is legal and illegal in Canada with regards to the seal hunt. This may be redundant, but just as a rule of thumb, any domain that ends with ".gc.ca" is a Government of Canada website, basically like ".gov" in the US. -- AntiPropaganda 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, everything cited states that the commercial hunting of whitecoats is banned. People in certain coastal areas are allowed to kill 6 seals a year, and people above 53 degrees are allowed to kill as many as they want. There is no license required, and no age requirements. This is even clear from the DFO site linked above. Generic Player 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Pictures

I'm not sure it's appropriate to use pictures in this article.

1. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, pictures of sealing are offensive to most and inflammatory to many.
2. Pictures like the one just posted are chosen carefully by anti-sealing advocates to evoke pathos. (For example, if the cameraman had looked the other way, he may have seen nothing but white ice and baby seals for miles.) Photos are SELECTIVE by nature and therefore not appropriate for a sensitive issue such as this one.
3. Regardless of the article content, images stand out, and too many people who support the hunt will feel that use of images such as these makes the article biased. I don't think this article will EVER pass the NPOV test if there are pictures in it.
4. Yes, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but if you start using pictures, this article is going to start overflowing with them as anti-sealing advocates and pro-sealing advocates add more and more to prove their point.

I would like to suggest a no-picture policy for this article. Except, perhaps for the "History section". A picture of an old sealing ship, or some other neutral thing like that.

I would recommend that if you find a good website with lots of seal hunt images, you add it to the lists of links in the bottom with a name like "Seal Hunt Images" or something. Bueller 007 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i vote no for the suggested no-picture policy for this article.

i vote yes.

Quote, Bueller 007, (06:38, 4 April 2006): 2. Pictures like the one just posted are chosen carefully by anti-sealing advocates to evoke pathos. (For example, if the cameraman had looked the other way, he may have seen nothing but white ice and baby seals for miles.)

Answer: Even if so, it is an accurate image of the hunt. But maybe we could find one image taken by pro-sealing advocates, and use two images.

Here is a previous discussion about images, [5] and they have kept controvercial images. Blood and hunted dead seal on the ice is not enough to keep a picture from a sealing article. Bib 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument. "Pictures shouldn't be used because they may cause bias to one side." Bleagh! We're NPOV, the readers aren't. We strive to present the most information possible. In almost entirely all circumstances, articles with pictures are better than articles without pictures. The pictures add to this article, and therefore, they are staying. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

People take offense at lots of things. That has never been considered a reason to censor wikipedia. Its been pretty consistant that images is better than no images, and not to remove "offensive" or "graphic" images if they are relevant. Generic Player 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think pictures should be used, but why don't we just use the picture of a whitecoat being beaten? its about as NPOV as the one that is there - the canadian government gives incentives to use the entire seal, not just the pelts (at least i think i remember reading this in the paper). Anyway, my opinion: yes to pictures, but preferably more NPOV ones. SECProto 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the seal which are being hunted are "beaters". Canadian government gives incentives to use the meat or the pelts, not both. Regulations 8.33.1 "Every person who fishes for seals for personal or commercial use shall land the pelt or the carcass of the seal." [6] Bib 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the pictures themselves aren't NPOV. This reminds me of Jon Stewart doing an impression of George W. Bush, saying, "It's not fair, the facts are biased against me." Those are real and accurate photographs of a seal hunt; there's nothing POV about them. And I don't know what other photo you're talking about, so could you post it here so the rest of us know what it is? --Cyde Weys 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The other photo is not a specific photo - sorry for confusion. I was just referring to the fact that seal hunt protesters often have pictures of whitecoats being killed - even though it has been illegal since 1987 or whatever. I now see that the picture itself is not POV- but it doesnt show the whole picture (eg, the other living seals that could be surrounding one patch of blood/carcasses). The article on slaughterhouse doesnt show a picture of cattle with their in a bucket and blood everywhere - it shows the animals being led in and the meat at the end. anyway, i don't really care much. SECProto 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The slaughterhouse article shows a picture of pig carcasses with entrails hanging out being inspected. How is that (dead pigs) different from this case (dead seals)? Generic Player 18:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because there isn't blood all around, and there is no sad looking living pig looking at the camera with the dead ones in the background. SECProto 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if I'm outvoted, I'm outvoted. Although I still think it's inappropriate, I will agree to the use of images so long as they are of the post-reform seal hunt. No pictures of clubbed whitecoats. But just so you know, the image that is currently being used was taken by Jonathan Hayward, and licensed to Associated Press Photo/Canada Press, who are not in the habit of providing their images for free on the Internet. See: [7], [8] A perfunctory Google image search would have indicated this. There are lots of freely available seal hunt photos out there. The link I just posted includes some that I would assume are freely available, as they were taken by HSUS and IFAW. By the way, Cyde, I don't really care for your response to my post. I would expect an "administrator" to be a little more civil. I have listed this picture as a copyright infringement for deletion. Cheers. Bueller 007 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

However the picture is not taken from a copyrighted website, but from a website where it is free for non-commercial reuse [9], reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Because otherwise is not stated by the author. Bib 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So considering wikipedia allows animated gif images, and screencaptures, it is easy to acces pictures which are not copyrighted. When we now are considering having this [10] picture of a "beater" sitting beside dead "beaters", it is ugly, but then again it is not a radical picture in comparison to which images we can use. Even if someone made a gif image of a hunter chasing, clubbing, and poking a "beater" in the eye, it would be representative for legal hunting. When we have a picture of hunting which regulations allow, we add the picture with fitting information. However, if we were to show some picture of illegal hunting, we must write "illegal hunting", and write about the extent of it, and whichever accurate information we have access to. A picture of someone killing a whitecoat, can be fitting in the history section, if we write "commercial hunting of whitecoats is not permitted since 1987", and represent facts in the description of the image. Bib 01:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against a no-pictures policy on any article. I do, however, think that a picture should be carefully chosen. Given the contentious nature of the debate, I would avoid a picture of bloodstained ice and heaps of carcasses. This is an example of the kind of image I'd use (but this specific image is copyrighted do no-one post it): http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/pics21/sealer.jpg

It clearly shows what is involved in seal hunting (a "neutral" image of a ship doesn't) but isn't full of blood and gore which would lead to a debate on POV. It shows a club being swung at a seal, leaving no doubt about what is happening, but, at the same time, it isn't graphic. If someone could find a non-copyrighted image like the above, I'm sure those of us who have strong views on either side of the deabte could live with it Lurker 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

References need to be cleaned up

The references definitely need to be cleaned up! Right now they're just a list of external links without even any link text. Please see the citation templates for some ideas on how to properly reference other resources. {{cite news}} is probably your best bet. --Cyde Weys 02:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of them. If I could get some help with the rest of them, that'd be great. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Links

Have a question about links: Can we have 3 headlines under Links? Such as one neutral, one pro-hunting, and one against hunting? Bib 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is thesealfishery.com a one man personal website? Bib 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not whitecoats

Is there any real reason for why whitecoats can't be hunted or is it just a political reason.--Mrebus 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Whitecoats are not hunted because there pelts are not valued on the world market. So be a little suspicious when you see all the pictures of the former beatle petting an adorable little furry white creature with beady eyes, as they are not hunted, and are not valued at all. As the PETA says, their strategy is 90% sensationalism and celebrity, less then 10% fact. This information I am giving you here came from the latest edition of Maclean's Magazine, a well-respected magazine that has top-notch reporting.

--216.46.128.94 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The whitecoats suckle their mothers, and the hunt is only allowed for non-suckling pups. They only suckle for 12 days or so, before their mothers leave them on the ice and the pups start to lose the white fur.Bib 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

connection to new health food craze

At this current moment I cannot find the Maclean's article that I would like to cite, but the seal blubber is a humongous source of Omega3 fatty acids, which is what all them health nuts are goin crazy over rite now. The article states that in a few years it could even overtake the pelts in the value gained from the seals. Does anyone else have a sunscription or can find another source that says similar, so that it cna be included in the article, as that is a very valuable piece of information.

--216.46.128.94 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources of Omega 3. Cod liver oil is the most well-known and widely sold in health-food shops. It is also present in land animals and vegetable sources. Seal oil doesn't seem to be a particularly common source of Omega 3. Lurker 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect issue

Whyyyyy does seal clubbing redirect here?

If no one has any objections, I'm going to cap that and start redoing the seal-clubbing page. Blast-san | Talk 09:01, 08.01.06

Why shouldn't it redirect here? They are the same thing, surely? Lurker ^talk 12:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

seal massacre

read the following article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fishermen-charged-over-seal-colony-slaughter/2006/09/04/1157222070836.html

these *#!C%#'s need to be shamed. please use the power of wiki and the net to put the spotlight on them. Paul Goodwin and Damien Hislop should have their names and photos spread all over the net.Anon-o-man 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe this would be in line with Wikipedia's mandate. QuinnHK 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

neutrality (again)

I'm removing the neutrality tag. This article is well sourced, and I think, for the most part, well balanced and well written.

If you restore the tag, please state your reasons here. Bueller 007 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article... one day it's NPOV, the other day it's not. At least it's constantly a controversial topic, with strong interests both ways. Bib 04:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased Encyclopedia Article?

I am a Newfoundlander, born a bred. I know “sealers”. I just have a few ideas to pass to those who lack information in this area.

Whitecoats have not been killed in the fishery since 1986. It is against regulation so any pictures of whitecoats are bias.

The numbers in this article seem rather odd and I can’t pinpoint a reference.

Canada (mostly Newfoundland AND LABRADOR) is not the only country who has a seal fishery.

A article in Wikipedia is a resource, not a discussion page.

What about modern techniques for sealing? Clubs are not used only rifles. This was a source of income for thousands of people who wouldn’t survive the winter without it.

Also can someone who understands how block editing this page from ALL users. Intelligent Wikipedins have opinions too.

Mr. Prohibition 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Bismark36

The article does not have any pictures of whitecoats, and it's written that it's illegal in Canada to hunt them. As for the numbers, you're right, if they seem odd, we should definitly put references up for every number. An article is not a discussion page, but this discussion page is a discussion page. As for the modern techniques, yes I agree we should absolutely have a section for it. I started a headline in 2006 on this, but since i only added a stub, it got removed for some reason. Why do you want to block this page from all users? Bib 11:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous tag

Why does this have an unencyclopaedic tag? It clearly needs cleanup, but that the subject is inherently unencyclopaedic is frankly laughable. I think the tag should be romoved. Thoughts, anyone? Lurker 10:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the content of the article needs to be deleted then re-submitted. The entirety of the article is based upon the controversy, whereas I believe it should be based upon the history and menthod/practice of seal hunting. There is a defenite bias.

What other tag would you suggest? I'm open to suggestions, if you find a more appropriate one please replace the current one. Dave8904 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It already has a TotallyDisputed tag, what else does it need? Lurker 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed

I just removed the following from the cruelty to animals heading:

"While hunters sometimes begin the process of bleeding out seals prior to skinning, video evidence shows sealers do not often allow any time to pass between cutting the seals open and skinning them - thus it is unlikely seals are bled out properly prior to skinning. It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed. Video evidence exists that shows seals moving as if alive at the time of skinning; the CVMA and Malouf Commission studies, while conceding that some incidents of live skinning may occur, have stated that seals have a swimming reflex that causes muscle contraction to continue even after death."

There are no verifiable sources to support this excerpt and it also includes several weasel words. This should be left out until some verifiable sources are found. Edmoil 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

re: pro-sealing views

Is there any way to prevent people from tampering with the pro-sealing links? I just had to change them because someone had edited them to access incorrect pages.

yours, x6-4-6x —Preceding unsigned comment added by X6-4-6x (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of seals

Although the article states that the number of seals declined to 1.5 million in 1970 and also lists a larger figure for the present, it does not state how many there were originally -- before all the hunting began. I've read many times that most researchers agree on a certain high number. For example, historians often remarked the shores of the Americas had hundreds of thousands of seals. I thought I read some number like 36 million seals thrived before all the commercial hunting began, but only 7 million alive today. I believe this is relevant to the article. I'm sure one can easily find the statistic on Google.

     Given the 300 year history of the commercial hunt, I think a fair estimate of the population beforehand may be difficult to attain and highly suspect.68.151.225.191 (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the following text to the introduction. "The Canadian seal slaughter has routinely qualified as the largest slaughter of marine mammals on the plant. (Source: M.O. HAMMILL & G. STENSON, ABUNDANCE OF NORTHWEST ATLANTIC HARP SEALS (1960 – 2005 1 (2005))" I--74.166.134.114 XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Split article

Would it be reasonable to create a separate Harp Sea Hunt (Canada) or Canadian Seal Hunt article? The harp seal hunt and attendant debates absolutely dominate this page - presumably because of its high profile and controversial nature. Almost all the references, links and lists are related to the harp seal. On the other hand information about (a) current subsistence hunts by Arctic peoples - extent, mechanisms, uses and (b) the history of sealing, both as an industry and for it's impact on wild populations is patchy and swamped in this article. There is a whole section devoted to listing off Hollywood celebrities, but there is no mention of Aleuts, Ainu, Chukchi, Koryak, Nivkh - entire ethnicities that subsist (or subsisted) on seals. Nor is there mention of walrus and Northern fur seal (which were severely depleted but which continue to be harvested for subsistence purposes), nor of Japanese sea lion (which were driven extinct), nor of Japan at all, for that matter, where many pinnipeds have been extirpated. In fact, there is no distinction made between "seals" (phocids), "fur seals" and "sea lions" (otariids) and "walruses". I'm not sure how to "formally" propose a split, but it seems that a better organized Seal Hunting page with more global, ecological, historical coverage of the topic and a separate one focussed on the history and controversy regarding the harp seal hunt in Canada would be serve this topic well. Thoughts? - Eliezg (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question WHO WROTE THIS???!!!!

03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)--71.48.44.65 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)EIPY

71.48.44.65, what do you mean, who wrote what? Eliezg, great suggestions about what to expand the article with. If there's a splitting of the article: Instead of calling the separate article Canadian seal hunt I'd suggest calling it Commercial seal hunting, since the Canadian hunt is closely linked to the other contries, and Norway for example is the lead buyer of the Canadian pelts, and there is the same type of commercial hunting other places but in lesser degree. Besides, a ban on pelts, would be a ban on buying pelts from every country's hunt, every country's commercial hunt that is, the exception would be from the inuit (Canadian) hunt, which would still be legal. So if the articles are divided, both articles would in huge degree be about the Canadian hunt, one about the Commercial hunt, and the other one about the traditional hunt and methods and inuits and history. Therefor better to name the other article Commercial hunt, instead of Canadian. Bib (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a split would be nice. I recently began teaching in a Yupik Eskimo community (Chefornak, Alaska) that still practices subsistence hunting. I have even went along on a seal hunt, even though I am forbidden by law to participate in the killing of marine mammals. This article says nothing about the way subsistence seal hunting is practiced by the natives in Alaska, or about the value of seal in the Yupik way of life. Wcbpolish (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seal Hunt Name

Has it already been suggested that the name be changed to sealing? We dont call fishing the "fish hunt". I dislike the name personally. Obviously, it would be redirectedthuglas^T|C 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there is deer hunting and it usually involves guns, but i still think it makes it seem like an annual celebration or something "the seal hunt"... Ideas? thuglas^T|C 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes made by SLimVirgin

Is it possible to have all the changes made by SlimVirgin in the last 12 hours reverted? SlimVirgin is an administrator at wikipedia and with the 20+ changes they made they basically gutted the article and turned it into a soapbox for their own anti-sealing views.

SlimVirgin has removed much material that does not support his/her own anti-sealing bias as well as rearranged material to change it's context and support their bias. He/she has added material that is completely out of context to support their bias. I believe this totally flies in the face of the spirit of wikipedia.

I believe the article should be reverted to what it was before SlimVirgin made todays changes. The article may have needed to be tidied up but that's no excuse to gut it and remove all neutrality. At least SlimVirgin should be required to backtrack and separate the tidying up from the heavily biased content changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattedcalf (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You've e-mailed me saying the same thing, but you haven't said what you object to exactly. Most of what I did was move material. Anything that I removed was because it was hard to understand (a few sentences were almost incoherent), and that was on both sides. Please say exactly which material I removed that you think should be restored. If you have a point, I'll restore it myself for you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If the text now seem to be very anti sealing to you, Fattedcalf, it's nice if you help edit the article. The SlimVirgin edits are neutral point of view edits, mostly moving around text, headlines, and other wikifying edits. Good work in my opinion. Bib (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fattedcalf would contribute but the wikipedia police have now blocked Fattedcalf's IP address. I know because I am Fattedcalf (obviously writing from a different IP) I guess you're not supposed to challenge the mighty admins edits? The thought of adding new edits to the article is somewhat discouraging as I had previous solidly referenced contributions deleted yesterday by SlimVirgin while "tidying". It must be discouraging to other contributors as well to see their work removed or altered without explanation. SlimVirgin didn't offer any of their changes for discussion here in the talk section and attempted to conceal many of them in edits that were summarized as "tidying" or similar. In a short e-mail conversation with SlimVirgin last night I pointed out one of the problems with the edits and SlimVirgin agreed to make a change. Hours later the change has not been made, but Fattedcalfs IP has been blocked??? Wikipedia is a great idea. It shouldn't be allowed to be hi-jacked by animal rights extremists. When Fattedcalfs IP is unblocked and I have time I will attempt to return my own and other contributions to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.70.22 (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Sealiing Bias

This whole article has an anti-sealing feel to it.

Compare the images used here to other hunting pages such as fox hunting, deer hunting, bear hunting, waterfowl hunting, or fishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.168.216 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I see it the opposite way around. Not a thing is mentioned about the inhumanity of this hunt being one of the only government sanctioned hunts in the word that actually targets neonatal animals. Not one of the studies listed quantifies the relative age as a factor of the inhumanity only kill technique. Even crab fishing regulations prohibit the harvest of juveniles. - XB70Valkyrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 05:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At least in Canada, the hunting of harp seal pups has been banned since 1987.

Who ever said that above, Whoa! That's just a lie. The European Food Safety Authority report Q-2007-118 states that 95 or 97% of the seals killed that year were between the ages of 1 month to 3.5 months old. Ohhhhh, I know. You think that just because they banned the killing of "Whitecoats" (seal pups up to the age of 14 days old) they "don't kill babies anymore", is that right? In fact, the EFSA report even researched other documents, which they cite in their study, which investigate the humanity of killing "neonatal" animals with thin craniums with hakapicks. Not only does this peer reviewed report confirm that indeed the hunt kills seal pups, but actually targets them. It's no wonder whoever left this little lie didn't cite themselves. - XB70Valyrie (22 December, 2008, 0530 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 05:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. The apparent actual subject of the article is the struggle against seal hunting. I find it interesting because there are many other kinds of animals that are hunted much more heavily and ruthlessly. But the one difference is that these other animals are not so damned cute. Hardly anybody bats an eye at the wholesale slaughter of reptiles. They're not cute, so who cares. It says something about the nature of humans. 24.6.118.13 (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because baby harp seals are cute, doesn't mean they don't deserve a defense. What's more most baby animals are cute. But, you don't see the carcasses of baby pigs or baby cows scattered all over the farm fields of Iowa and Nebraska after being skinned for their fur. It's a carnage of baby animals and 96% of the edible biomass created by the hunt remains on the ice to rot (source: DFO/EFSA). That is why the seal slaughter is by far more appalling than any other. By the way, I have once again had to go in to the article and edit out more blatantly misinforming claims of "We don't kill baby seals anymore". I will continue to do this until someone can counter the EFSA evidence to the contrary. - XB70Valyrie (July 24, 2009 (0445Z)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.134.114 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, how does one define a "baby" animal? Are they still a baby after they have been weened and are no longer cared for by the mother? Because that coincides with the moulting of the white or blue fur - they are independent animals from that point on. 142.163.50.202 (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than argue about which seals are "babies" and which aren't, the neutral thing to do would be to say "seals at X stage are no longer hunted, seals as Y stage are huntable." That way the article can stick to the facts and not tick off either side. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

The footnotes near the end of the article seem to be broken; for example, note 56 points to note 36 according to the preview, but doesn't actually take you to the note. It's hard to tell which source goes with which note. I don't know how to fix this, although I am prepared to learn. 70.171.53.10 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Elle (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elle, I'm not seeing that myself. Can you say more about what you see — not in preview, but when you look at the page as a whole? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV / Fringe Sources

I just wanted to address the issue that Wiki whilst reflecting neutrality does not put weight on either side of the argument. The fact that a lot of the wording of this article makes it sound like the majority of people in the world support sealing is farcical. It's a very, very small minority who support it or even allow it in any way shape or form. Words like 'the protestors' and 'animal rights groups' makes it sound like a fringe culture against these barbaric acts, whereas reality puts a different weight on the situation whereby the vocal minority are in fact the hunters and the even more minor minority of the consumers. 122.107.65.2 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we're in a difficult situation on Wikipedia. We have a large number of editors who are aggressively opposed to any animal-advocacy position. We therefore have to bend over backwards, and more, to present animal-related issues from both points of view. This does mean that articles end up slanted to the anti-advocacy POV, even though, as you say, there are very few newspaper articles, books, or papers that defend the pro-sealing position, and we are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone who agrees with the wikipedia policies could agree with what 122.107.65.2 wrote. In the 1930's a majority of Germans elected Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. By the reasoning of SlimVirgin and 122.107.65.2, if Wikipedia had been around in Germany then, it's articles should have all been based on Nazi propaganda rather than NPOV and verifiable facts. Anyone reading Wikipedia would have thought that the Holocaust, and other Nazi atrocities, were the right thing to do. If SlimVirgin agrees with 122.107.65.2 then SlimVirgin should be blocked from making any further edits to this article, and should probably be barred as a Wikipedia administrator. 122.107.65.2 should be blocked from editing this article also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.101.40 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources on facts that benefit the anti sealing views, and there are reliable sources on facts that benefit the pro sealing views. 76.70.101.40, I'm not sure who it is you are referring to as propaganda, is it the volunteer organizations you refer to? To those who know: Can we use volunteer organizations as reliable sources, what's the wikipedia policy on this? Government sources, even though they are pro sealing, are considered reliable sources. (Right?) Bib (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This should answer your question: these sources can only be used as sources about themselves, not as sources about what a third party said or did. Governmental sources have are considered more reliable because they are accountable for fact checking. Generally speaking, organizations with an avowed anti-sealing goal may not be considered reliable, while larger animal conservation organizations without a reputation for being activists (such as the WWF) would be considered more reliable. News sources reporting on sealing-related events, however, would in all likelihood be considered fairly reliable.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It does not mention volunteer organizations in specific, good to know. People have to read up on a organization before possibly using it as a reference then.Bib (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ramdrake here, because I don't see why a volunteer organization should in and of itself be regarded as a questionable source. If it's a self-published website, then yes (self-published means by one person, as a rule). But if it's an established organization, then it counts as a reliable source, whether staffed by volunteers or not. We can't define the sources in terms of their POV, which this would end up doing, because the only people who support seal-hunting are those who are making money out of it and the governments who defend them. You can't define in advance that these are the sources you will regard as most reliable, or you end up with an NPOV violation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement "...the only people who support seal-hunting are those who are making money out of it and the governments who defend them" is blatantly false. You only have to look at the pro-sealing views section of the article to find at least four that don't fit either category. I have defended the seal hunt and I do not fall in either category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.84 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to sources. The only sources who defend the hunt tend to be financial beneficiares of it, so it's important not to prioritize them in any way, because then we'd be prioritizing one POV over another, and in this case it's probably the minority POV. We're supposed to reflect the views of the sources, not side with any of them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain how the CVMA is a financial beneficiary of the seal hunt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.84 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this statement: The only sources who defend the hunt tend to be financial beneficiares (sic) of it. I believe you are painting the picture with a much gtoo simplistic view. Reliable sources can emit positive comments on the hunt or one of its aspects (such as the CMVA report) without supporting the hunt per se, or being a beneficiary of it in any way, shape or form. Besides, there used to be a section in the article about how the hunt acutally cost the Canadian government much more than it gained from it; if this were true, then the Canadian government is not benefiting from the hunt, but is still defending it. Like I said, the picture you're painting is much too simplistic.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The CMVA did not support the hunt. It said simply that, in the opinion of a small number of vets, most of the killing was humane. And the report specifically states that it does not represent the opinion of the CMVA. The Canadian government benefits very much from the hunt, even it does have to subsidize it. I don't mean to paint a simplistic black and white picture. I'm in fact arguing against doing that, by painting activist groups as necessarily less reliable. Some are and some aren't. We have to judge each source on its individual merits. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement: I didn't say the CMVA supported the hunt; I said they made some positive comments (about the humaneness of some of the hunting tools and techniques). And again, I'm not arguing about setting aside all activist groups; I'm just saying we need to be critical about them, and we can't (most of them) accept what they say at face value unless we've already looked into the reliability of what they say.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Slimvirgin, I'm not saying that all volunteer organizations should in and of themselves be regarded as questionable sources. Some would pass the reliability criterion (mostly the larger ones). But one needs to be careful: an organization that bills itself as having a goal "to end seal hunting" (such as IFAW) would be questionable, IMHO, and for exactly the same reasons that we wouldn't accept a statement about PETA coming from a site like "Petakillsanimals.com" (something I believe you're very vocal about over at the PETA article). Some volunteer organizations, such as WWF (to name just one) aren't activists, and therefore have more credibility. But even a report from a volunteer organization, if echoed by a reliable newspaper, would be acceptable. I'm not saying that government sources are more reliable because they support seal hunting; I'm saying they tend to be more reliable because most government have a reputation for fact-checking prior to issuing a statement; that's very different. That some governments also support seal hunting is not really relevant to their credibility, one way or the other.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, that's not how the policies work. Even if a group says its aim is to end seal-hunting, that in no way means it's not reliable. All sources have their biases. The Canadian government has said it strongly supports seal-hunting. Are you saying that means we ought to stop using it as a source? The governments emphasize the facts that support their position and ignore the others; the organizations do the same in reverse. That's why we have to treat both equally. There is no comparison between IFAW, WWF, and a hate site called Petakillsanimals, which is run by a commercial lobby group that's being paid to do it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's exactly how policy works. An activist group, which doesn't have any reputation for fact checking, and declares it exists for the sole purpose of ending an activity, cannot be considered a reliable source about this activity, as their information may be tainted by their views. This is the exact same reasoning we're using to exclude petakillsanimals.com from the PETA page, and it should work both ways. Now, if a large organization that's not only about ending seal hunting (again, my example of the WWF) were to say something about seal hunting, I'd consider them a reliable source. However, that's not the case for every two-bit organization that hasn't established its own reputation for fact-checking. We need to be able to tell reliable info from mere propaganda, whether for or against.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your second sentence is only partly correct. An activist group that openly declares it is in favor of something may be a perfectly reliable source. What matters is whether they appear to fact check, who relies on their information, where does it get published, do good newspapers use them as sources. If yes, then so do we. The IFAW is not a two-bit organization by any standard. It's a highly respected animal welfare group, and yet that was what you used as an example of an unreliable source.

It's odd that you would distrust a group dedicated to the subject, but trust one that likely knows less about it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

An activist group that expresses a criticism about an activity and declare in their goal statement that they want this activity stopped, should see this criticism double-checked for accuracy, as there always is the obivous possibility of their goal imparting a bias on their criticism. I'm aware that the IFAW is a large organization, and that worries me less than their stated goal. That they wrote a paper out of their research and that that paper got accepted by what looks like a peer-reviewed publication talks to its reliability, and means I have no objection to the inclusion of this particular research in the article (it's been presumably already checked by an expert third party). However, I'd still be cautious about the stuff they write, as there is the obvious possibility of bias due to their stated goal.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe the Research Defence Society (a lobby group dedicated to defending the use of animals in research) should not be used as a source without being double-checked for accuracy, because of its stated goal? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The main reason for being suspicious of any SIG is their goal imparting a bias on their statement.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bib:I wasn't actually talking directly about sources. I was talking about the implication made by 122.107.65.2 that Wikipedia should reflect the views of a majority, regardless of whether those views are supported by quality sources. But on the topic of sources - on Feb. 29 SlimVirgin made a large number of changes to the article that were supposedly NPOV but in my opinion were meant to taint the article with SlimVirgins anti-sealing bias. One of those references added by SlimVirgin was over 10 years old, yet SlimVirgin used the information as if it was current. Another source added by SlimVirgin was an unlinkable reference to another encyclopedia article. Are those quality sources? I think not. I am the wikipedian formerly known as 76.70.101.40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.84 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To Ramdrake, Okay. Let's take all the Department of Fisheries and Oceans data out of this article. The complete and utter failure of it's Cod Stock program, wherein it allowed one of Canada's most valuable assets to be decimated by over fishing whilst (I hate that word) assuring their species model was accurate to project sustainability is a shining example of the fact that the DFO is indeed an unreliable source. Not just is it a failure of the DFO's ability to manage a harvest, but also a sign of moral corruption inside the bureau. What's more, the DFO falls directly under the listed guidelines you pointed out as an unreliable source. Read them again. Now, think DFO when you do. - XB70Valkyrie

Find me a reliable source (not eco-activists, but preferably an article from a perr-reviewed journal) which states that the DFO is not a reliable source and we can consider it an unreliable source. Until then, it's simply your POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to pull any of the DFO data, but you can honestly see that you can throw the credibility of such a state run bureau into the boat with the rest of what you call interest motivated groups. My main reason for being suspicious of any DFO is their goal imparting a bias on their data. If you don't think that governments lie to keep lobbyist happy, citizens pacified and votes coming their way, we need to have a talk. I wouldn't like having stats from nonpeer-reviewed studies from HSUS, SSCS or IFAW riddling this article either, but the DFO is far from bipartisan. --XB70Valkyrie (User talk:XB70Valkyrietalk) 05:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.134.114 (talk)

Sorry if I don't know how to work on this discussion section very well yet. I know how to program some HTML, but it appears I need to take some classes to get to the level everyone is at here. Anyway, here's the article pointing out how poorly the DFO is at estimating and projecting species populations, "FISHERIES DATA = FLYING BLIND" RUSSELL WANGERSKY The Western Star Updated at 11:14 PM on 03/10/08. And the link, http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=177477&sc=27 It's just a columnists in Newfoundland's research perspective, but it puts some weight behind my argument that the DFO is also not to be trusted. (XB70Valkyrie 22, December 2008, 0650 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Partial revert

I've reverted some changes reporting on studies regarding the efficiency of the hakapik to properly kill seals. As it stood after modifications, the article said the hakapik had been found an efficient tool by the 2001 IFAW study; they did no such thing: the CVMA study came to that conclusion. Furthermore, it put the conclusions of the IFAW study (that the hakapik is sometime not used properly) in front of several other studies which concluded just the opposite. Since the IFAW sutdy is the minority conclusion, putting it in front is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and thus I have reverted the paragraph to resolve both these issues.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

After your revert, it still says the hakapik has been found an efficient tool by the 2001 IFAW study. (It now says: A study of the 2001 Canadian seal hunt conducted by five independent veterinarians, commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), [2] concluded that, although the hakapik is a humane means of hunting, many hunters were not using it properly.) Secondly, the other studies does not conclude the opposite. They have another percentage. There are three different studies, of which two are conducted at the same time and same place. There is no mentioning that the 100 animals the one group tested, were the same animals the other group tested. Both reports may be accurate. Bib (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I misstated myself. The CMVA study did find that the hakapik was a proper hunting tool, when used efficiently. The IFAW study stated that, "although the hakapik is a proper hunting tool, some hunters misuse it". They are using the CMVA study conclusion. Also, the IFAW study found that 17% of the seals killed with the hakapik did not have their skulls properly crushed (complete unilateral or bilateral crushing is required); the CMVA study found that 86% of the seals had their skulls completely crushed; only 2% (if you read the study) did not show appropriate crushing of either side of the skull (as opposed to 17% for the IFAW study). This is why there is such a contrast between both studies. Several other studies had findings similar to those of the CMVA study. I'm not aware of another study which replicated the findingd of the IFAW study. Hope this makes things clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian regulation on whitecoats

So I can't find where it says in the regulations that there is a ban on hunting whitecoats. I only find No person other than a beneficiary shall sell, trade or barter a whitecoat or blueback. So the rule is on the trading, which makes it unprofitable to hunt them? Bib (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bib, DFO has it stated on their Myths and Realities page.

Myth #1: The Canadian government allows sealers to kill whitecoat seals.

Reality: The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable whitecoat pups are targeted by sealers during the commercial hunt.

The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal – and has been since 1987. The Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. The seals that are hunted are self-reliant, independent animals.

--MoralAnarchist (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, MoralAnarchist. Since asking the question, I have found it in the Marine Mammal Regulations too. It says 27. No person other than a beneficiary shall sell, trade or barter a whitecoat or blueback.[11] Though it says Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions, and that the official ones should be at the Part II of the Canada Gazette. I don't quite know how to find them there, cause I've searched, but haven't found them. If anyone find them at the Canada Gazette, please write a link. Bib (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are "not the official versions" is a technicality. They are perfectly acceptable sources for WP to cite. <eleland/talkedits> 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fur seal hunting unbiased introduction needed

The introduction is anything but neutral. Alex (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your changes to it made it biased. The introduction is neutral, as it simply mentions that the hunt occurs and gives some figures. Your change adds a link that is unnecessary and not related to anything else in the lead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also take issue with the introduction. Why are we putting comments in the very introduction which seek to mitigate the impact of the seal hunt by comparing it to other furring industries with higher body counts. The only industry it is comparable to is other baby seal slaughters like Russia (60,000 killed in 2007, EFSA) and the USA (5000 killed in 2007, EFSA). And just because I mention those statistics doesn't mean I want them in the introduction, unless of course we decide to keep the Euro fur farms data. Then I insist. (XB70Valkyrie 22, December 2008, 0630 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay it's over a week later and I see no opposition. Here are the official 2007 figures. Harp Seals only. Norway: 28,800, Greenland: 90,351, Russia: 5,476, Canada: 234,000. (All figures uncorrected for "struck and lost") Source: EFSA http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178671319178.htm . With approval from the body here, I think the text should read, "Conversely, when compared to other seal hunts the Canadian harp seal hunt is by far the most voluminous seal hunt and qualifies as the largest slaughter of marine mammal wild life on the planet. The 2007 total kill count was 234,000 seals. This is down from 354,000 the year before. According to data gathered by the European Food Safety Authority, Norway claimed only 29,000 with Russia and Greenland landing 29,000 and 90,000 respectively." —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that someone added this to the introduction. "Canadian officials said it is no longer legal for hunters to slay the youngest baby seals, known as whitecoats. Nor is it legal to slay harp seal pups or hooded seals." I deleted "harp seal pups" so the sentence simply reads "Nor is it legal to slay hooded seals." The EFSA report documented that 97% of all the seals killed are between the ages of 1 month to 3.5 months old. Clearly still "pups". Additionally, whoever "penned" this needs to check their grammar. Sentences should never start with a conjunction. Case in point "...hooded seals. But slightly older seals that have just lost...". I've erased the "But" at the beginning of that sentence. - XB70Valkyrie Feb 22nd, '09 0845 UTC

Harp Seal Population

There seems to be misinformation regarding the world population of harp seals. In the article it states that the world harp seal population has declined to 1.5 million, but in the very same paragraph it states Harp seals have never been considered endangered and the Marine Animal Response Society, per March 2007, estimates the harp seal population in the world at 9.5 million. Which is it? - 79.70.28.197 (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. The Marine Animal Response Society gets only 316 hits on Google. Their homepage is http://www.marineanimals.ca. They have a page called "Our Supporters" where they write that "The Marine Animal Response Society would not be able to operate without the kind and generous support of the following organizations and people:" and mention three groups including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Bib (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We may need to start a new section on this on the discussion page. Regarding the ubiquitous Jacques Cousteau quote on the whitecoat hunt, I'd like to put forward a counter-quote. First, I added the date (to the year) of the original quote; 1978. Further, I'd like to open discussion on the following text. I'd like to add it below the Jacques Quote. "In a monologue recorded shortly before his dying Jacques delivered his own video epitaph by saying, 'The invention of the aqualung and my passion for moving pictures have allowed me to reveal to the word the fragile symphony of inner space. Out of curiosity, I listened and understood the many forms of water. I listened to the bubbling of lochs and brooks and to the deafening embrace of rivers meeting with oceans. I witnessed the last throws of dying shoals. And finally, I pricked up my ears to the water people, my brothers. I understood that water and life were inexorably bound, and that I must spend my own career fighting to protect that life and to safeguard future generations. Tomorrow I will demand that the rights of future generations be written in the duties of the living ones. If by such enterprises that make it possible for our children, and our children not yet born to live with dignity in a world symphony I will have fulfilled my mission." It's a rather long quote. I wish I could paraphrase it. It's taken from a video produced by Jacques himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQiW62WW0jM Does anyone have any problems with it? I think it goes to show that as he became more mature he learned that all marine wildlife needs to be protected to guarantee a "world symphony". In this quote he evokes duty upon the people of the world to become protectors of (marine) wild life , regardless of the fact that one animal's "plight" might be similar to that of the pig's. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.134.114 (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) - XB70Valyrie

Seeing as there have been no objections over the course of a month and a half, I will be adding the entire quote.--74.166.134.114 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) XB70Valyrie

I see that someone has a problem with this addition or else it would not have been missing when I returned a few days after having added it. It's been here for over a month and a half. If anyone had a problem with the addition they were asked to step forward.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no statute of limitations on reverting edits to Wikipedia articles, so your argument makes no sense.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To state that the long quote from Cousteau which a couple of users want to include is somehow related to the seal hunt, or that it indicates that his mind had changed, is certainly OR and SYNTH. It does not belong in this article. Period.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Begin new paragraph. I never said there was a statute of limitations, however, the reason I put the 1997 quote up here for discussion was for those people who were interested enough about contributing to the seal hunt article to discus it before putting it up. You were obviously not interested enough to discus it before putting it up, but you're interested in taking it down since it casts impeach-ability on the original quote from a much more inexperienced Cousteau (1978). The 1997 quote has everything to do with the Canadian harp seal hunt since it's a complete reversal of Cousteau's position on the grounds which he used to formulate his 1978 quote from. That being that only endangered sea life deserve attention first. The quote makes it clear that in the end Cousteau believed all sea life is precious enough to be concerned about. He didn't say, "...to live with dignity in a world symphony, oh but without harp seals..." did he? That would be like saying "...to live in a world symphony, oh but without oboes..." Was he supposed to list every animal by genus and subspecies for it to be protected? Was he supposed to list every instrument in the symphony?

You brought up Cousteau's antiquated, 1978 quote about the Whitecoat seal hunt which I don't think belongs in a contemporary seal hunt article either. How about if I say it has nothing to do with the seal hunt today since whitecoats are not hunted anymore? Don't think it went unnoticed that you also erased my attempts to place a date on the 1978 quote. Or even mention that it was in regards to the whitecoat slaughter which hasn't happened in over 20 years.

If Jacques 1997 quote doesn't apply to harp seals, then it doesn't apply to any ocean life at all. After all, no animals are mentioned specifically by name in it, are they. Only the ones called "water people" are. But, I just wiki'ed "water people" and I don't find any such animal. In your opinion it all just amounts to dysfunctional poetry and rhetoric; the exact opposite of Jacques intentions. Quoting Cousteau on the seal hunt is like quoting Einstein on God. Both men are dead and fools will do what they will with their words. In my opinion, if the 1997 quote comes out, so does the 1978 quote. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption that Cousteau was specifically reversing his EXPLICIT position on the seal hunt is OR. That's all there is to it. The simple fact is that Cousteau was not opposed to the seal hunt, _even when it was whitecoats being hunted_. If you think there is some alternate interpretation of his original words that "fools" will use, please let us all know. Otherwise, the first quote stays.99.245.37.46 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First, don't think that when I made the quote about "fools" quoting dead people it was intended as in insult. It was a generalization that would have applied to me as well, of course. I'll no longer contest your quote if you add to it when it was said and that it was issued during the outrage of the whitecoat seal hunt protest. Something you and I both know should be there. The first part just to create a properly cited quote. It's simply good grammar. Then, I'll drop the 1997 quote demand. BTW, the quote was/is not OR. It was cited properly. I don't know how much more authentic you want to get than a video produced by Jacques wherein the man himself speaks the words.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not presume to know what I know. If the quote were reasonable, the date of the quote would be sufficient - adding perceived, subjective context to the date when it was issued is OR. Grammar has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that you want to add another quote to an article it is not EXPLICITLY about is what is OR. That's really all there is to it.99.245.37.46 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's nothing but some pretty, yet vague, rhetoric that can't at all be compared to a clear and concise statement against the anti-sealing protest. Even if you wanted to make the giant leap and assume he is also referring to sealing, the statements are still not contradictory. Cousteau's concern is with conservation - I think it's pretty obvious he would not want to see seals hunted to extinction but he clearly had no problem with the hunt if it were sustainable and the species was not threatened.

Additionally, XB70Valyrie's attempt to have the 1978 quote removed because it refers to a "different" hunt, when white coats were still killed, is simply non-sensical. If Cousteau had no problem with the hunt even when white coats were being killed, how could anyone reasonably say that his attitude would change from acceptance to opposition when white coats were not being killed? Are we supposed to believe that Cousteau only accepted the hunt because white coats were being killed, and when that ceased the hunt would have fallen out of favour with him? That only makes sense if Cousteau hated white coats for some bizarre reason. 142.163.50.202 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ALASKA???

I just have to mention that Alaska natives are still harvesting harbor, ring, fur, bearded, and ribbon seals. And yes, Alaska is still part of the U.S.. We can't export to another country without paperwork. But we can harvest the hide or the meat to use for food or regalia. Just thought it needed to be mentioned.65.74.65.232 (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1