Chasse phoques/Les journalistes anglophones voient clair

[Animal 0]

By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Sun Media
The Toronto Sun


Apr 17, 2008

Why do they call it the seal "hunt?" There is absolutely no "hunting" involved. It is seal "killing" or slaughter, with nothing resembling a hunt or chase.



Calling the annual slaughter a "hunt" implies the possibility of failure, of not bringing a prey to bay, where it is killed. "Hunt" implies some talent, or skill in divining the movements or location of whatever it is being hunted.


No real hunter is a killer.


Those who participate in what is euphemistically called the seal hunt get their kicks from the killing, not the hunting.


The image of the annual seal harvest engraved on most minds is of a man with a raised pole with a spike on its end -- called a hakapik -- about to strike a helpless seal pup on an ice flow.


Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams (every province should be lucky enough to have such an ardent advocate as premier) and Nunavut Premier Paul Okalik, urge that the hakapik be banned -- not because it is not effective for killing seals, but because it looks cruel and barbaric.


The premiers feel banning the hakapik would neutralize much of the negative criticism from Europe, of men clubbing baby seals on the head.


While it looks bad, killing a baby seal with a blow to the head is both effective and humane. By definition, a quick death is a humane death, albeit unaesthetic.


We are told that 90% of seals are killed by a rifle shot, not a club, so Williams and Okalik feel banning this "humane but barbaric" instrument of massacre will ease the pressure on Canada and persuade Europe not to boycott, but to continue importing seal products.


The pair are probably right. It doesn't justify the annual slaughter, but it'll ease the pressure.


I'm afraid I agree with Farley Mowat in his distaste for the annual slaughter of a couple hundred thousand seals, in essence subsidized by the Canadian government with meagre commercial value.


In a Globe and Mail article, Mowat recounts impressions when he visited the killing flows: "These sealers weren't like fishermen, they were butchers ... they didn't much care if the seals were killed or not. They'd hit them over the head, cut off their flippers and skin them alive. The authorities say this is a canard, that it doesn't happen this way. But it does."


That may be Farley-speak, but it's how many feel.


My view is that the annual "hunt" is a chance for the boys to get together on the ice flows, to escape the rigours of winter and have a break by killing seals, and make extra pocket money.


The money isn't great, but the comradeship and adventure is worth it.


DEMEANS HUMANS


Most of all, the seal slaughter demeans humans. In a way it's reminiscent of those who execute people in large numbers and dump them in mass graves. The Germans did it at Babi Yar and Katyn Forest and elsewhere. Some soldiers who participated couldn't take it and committed suicide.


Saddam Hussein did it, and filled some 300-plus mass graves -- with new ones being periodically discovered.


It was done at Srebrenica, and in countless incidents in Cambodia.


True, the sealing season can't be compared with the above. But in a lesser way it is demeaning to kill animals in mass numbers for little reason. That's part of why Farley Mowat says he is "more at home with the non-human animals of this world ... because we have seen how abominably the human species treats other species."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2008/04/17/5312246-sun.html

[animo-aequoanimo 0]

YES ! Déjà la première ligne interpèle !

Why do they call it the seal "hunt?" There is absolutely no "hunting" involved. It is seal "killing" or slaughter, with nothing resembling a hunt or chase.

[Animal 0]

C'est un journaliste réputé. Il est très connu, non seulement au Canada anglais mais aussi en Europe

[animo-aequoanimo 0]

Alors, c'est encore mieux !