Animal

Il faudra le publiciser ! J'aimerais bien que ça soit également décrété non halal, car il y a énormément de femmes arabes qui portent des manteaux de fourrure au Québec

10 000 BLANCHONS SERONT CAPTURÉS PUIS PLACÉS DANS UN ENCLOS JUSQU'À CE QU'ILS SOIENT ASSEZ GROS, PUIS ILS SERONT ABATTUS... !! LÀ-BAS, ON CAPTURE LES BLANCHONS À L'AIDE DE FILETS ! JE N'EN PEUX PLUS DE LA MÉCHANCETÉ DE L'HOMME ! --------------------------------------------------------------- Mar 15 2007 6:38PM Protests to accompany baby seal hunt in Russia ARKHANGELSK. March 15 (Interfax) - The seal hunting campaign has been launched in Russia's Arkhangelsk region amid protests by animal advocacy groups. One collective farm alone has a quota to capture 10,000 Greenland seal pups in the White Sea over 10-14 days. A spokesman for the Beloye More farm told Interfax that all the animals will be held in open-air cages until they grow up a bit, after which they will be slaughtered. Quotas are distributed by the international community every year. Animal rights activists are to stage rallies in Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Rostov-on-Don and Barnaul to protest the seal hunt. Greenland seals give birth to their babies in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, off the Newfoundland coast in Canada, and in the White Sea in Russia in late February-early March. http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11693845

Extrait du Journal papier "Actualité Juive" N° 971 du 1er Mars 2007 (page 24) : "Le manteau de fourrure a été décrété non Casher". "Avis aux amatrices de vison, chichilla, zibeline, renard argenté et autres fourrures. Yona Metzgern, l'actuel grand rabbin ashkénaze d'Israël a publié un décret rabbinique interdisant aux Juifs (et par conséquent aux Juives) de revêtir des manteaux de fourrure. Dans ce décret, le Rav Yona Metzger explique que "le peuple juif est un peuple miséricordieux et doit le prouver également envers les animaux" : l'assassinat d'animaux à poils pour en faire des manteaux de fourrure est, selon le grand rabbin, un acte cruel qui n'est pas fidèle à la tradition juive. Léa Griguer. "

Le lundi 19 mars 2007 Le porc retiré des menus de cabanes à sucre Presse Canadienne Montréal La viande de porc, omniprésente dans tout menu du temps des sucres au Québec, a été retirée de la cuisine de l'Érablière Le pain de sucre de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu afin d'accommoder les musulmans à qui il est interdit de manger du porc. Pour fins d'accommodement raisonnable, le chef Constantino a donc enlevé le jambon de sa recette de soupe aux pois. Toutefois, le jambon dans le sirop, les fèves au lard et les oreilles de Christ demeurent au menu pour les non-musulmans. Sur demande des musulmans, le jambon est remplacé par des pépites de poulet. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070319/CPACTUALITES/70319035/1015/CPACTUEL

Le lundi 19 mars 2007 Urgence environnementale dans le nord de la Thaïlande Agence France-Presse Bangkok Le gouvernement thaïlandais a placé lundi deux provinces du nord en situation d'urgence environnementale en raison de la persistance d'un voile de fumées, provoqué par des feux de forêts et de résidus agricoles, qui dégrade la qualité de l'air depuis près de trois semaines. ... « Des villageois continuent de brûler des forêts et le problème de la brume ne s'améliore pas», a-t-il dit, en espérant des pluies dans les prochains jours qui pourraient faire disparaître le voile de fumées. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070319/CPSCIENCES/703190993/1020/CPSCIENCES

Chasse: le Canada se dotera de normes «historiques» PC Édition du lundi 19 mars 2007 Mots clés : chasse aux phoques, Gouvernement, Canada (Pays) Toronto -- Dans la foulée d'un plan européen visant à déterminer si la chasse aux phoques est pratiquée sans cruauté, le Canada prépare sa réponse aux pressions internationales dans un autre dossier relatif aux droits des animaux, sous la forme d'un plan qu'un groupe parrainé par le gouvernement qualifie de «modèle pour le monde». Même des militants pour les droits des animaux appuient cet accord sur des normes internationales pour le piégeage sans cruauté, que des législateurs provinciaux espèrent faire adopter dans tout le pays dès cette année. Ces normes, qualifiées d'«historiques» et «uniques» par Rob Cahill, le directeur exécutif de l'Institut de la fourrure du Canada, ont été élaborées en réaction aux protestations qui ont débuté dans les années 1980 à propos de la chasse et de la trappe d'animaux sauvages au Canada et dans d'autres pays. «Il n'existe aucun autre traité international, où que ce soit, qui réglemente la pratique de la chasse sans cruauté», a déclaré M. Cahill, dont l'organisation sans but lucratif a été mise sur pied par le gouvernement fédéral en 1983, pour effectuer des recherches et faire des recommandations au sujet de l'industrie de la fourrure. Il y a presque 20 ans, des pays européens avaient appuyé une déclaration bannissant le recours aux pièges à mâchoires, et prévenu les autres pays qu'ils interdiraient l'importation de fourrure de tout pays qui utiliserait cette méthode. Soucieux de pouvoir exporter ses fourrures en Europe, le Canada a alors commencé à négocier des règlements couvrant plusieurs types de piégeage et toute une série d'animaux sauvages. En 1997, le Canada, la Russie, les États-Unis et l'Union européenne ont convenu de développer les nouvelles normes et deux ans plus tard, le Canada et l'UE ont décidé de fixer à huit ans le délai pour leur entrée en vigueur. Selon M. Cahill, les pays européens qui ont blâmé le Canada auparavant ont eux-mêmes du mal à respecter les délais d'application des nouvelles normes. L'Europe ne compte pas pouvoir les mettre en oeuvre avant 2012, a-t-il souligné. À son avis, le Canada a fait beaucoup plus que n'importe quel autre pays dans ce dossier, tandis que l'Europe n'a à peu près rien fait. Des groupes de défense des droits des animaux considèrent l'entente comme insuffisante, mais l'Association canadienne du piégeage sans cruauté l'appuie, a indiqué son porte-parole Jim Bandow. http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/03/19/135622.html

Vaut mieux en rire qu'en pleurer !

Et comment Valou !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ça n'éclaire pas à 100 là-d'dans, mais ça dépeint malheureusement très bien, une grande partie de la population du Québec

Elle devrait peut-être revoir ses notes avant de passer à la télé !

moi non plus !

Pour revenir à ce Jomphe... lors de cette émission d'hier soir, il disait que les « animalistes » (un mot qui selon lui a été inventé par le journaliste Francoeur du journal Le Devoir), faisaient exprès d'appeler les jeunes phoques, des bébés phoques afin de manipuler l'opinion public, mais que le véritable mot pour décrire un jeune phoque est un CHIOT !!!!!!!!!! Personnellement, je ne crois pas que le fait d'appeler un bébé phoque un CHIOT change quoi que ce soit, car dans les deux cas, il s'agit bel et bien d'un bébé !

Jomphe devrait d'abord expliquer comment il se fait que des phoques sont blessés chaque année durant cette chasse soit disant «humaine». En fait, plus de 50,000 phoques sont blessés chaque année par des chasseurs, et ce nombre n'est même pas compté dans les statistiques. De plus, si Rebecca Aldworth avait tenté de sauver cet animal, elle aurait probablement été accusée de «nuire à la chasse» ... Jomphe peut bien tenter par tous les moyens de manipuler l'opinion public- Tout l'monde n'est pas dupe !

J,ai vu cette femme avec ses animaux, dimanche soir à l'émission "30 millions d'amis " . Effroyable tout ce que ces pauvres bêtes ont subi comme sévices !

Incroyable ! Il peut se passer 15 mois, sans qu'aucune inspection ne soit faite dans ces élevages soit-disant «éthiques» ! Heureusement que des défenseurs des animaux peuvent arriver à s'introduire dans ces «camps de détention» et dénoncer ce qui s'y passe réellement à l'intérieur

je ne sais vraiment pas Cé ! C'est comme si le Québec était effacé de la carte quand ils parlent de défense animale. Comme je te le mentionnais plus tôt, ça arrive très souvent qu'on oublie totalement le Québec quand on parle chasse au phoque

Ce n'est pas la première fois que j'entends parler des anti-chasse au phoque qui oublient de mentionner le Québec ! C'est enrageant quand même !

Ça me déçoit beaucoup qu'elle n'ait pas mentionné la chasse au phoque du Québec et que ça soit Duffy qui ai rajouté cette info ! ---------------------------------------------- Seal Hunt Debate CTV News and Current Affairs Thu 15 Mar 2007 Time: 17:00:00 ET Network: CTV NEWSNET MIKE DUFFY: Welcome back in to the Thursday edition of "Mike Duffy Live". Well, some good news for Canadian sealers. News out of Strasbourg, France, the seat of the European parliament today, says further studies are needed before the European Union can decide whether to ban seal fur. Information relating to animal welfare must be studied, says the European environment commissioner, Stavos Dimas, saying that he's not prepared to go ahead with an immediate ban on seal fur in the European Union. Mark Small is a Newfoundland seal hunter from Wild Cove, Newfoundland, he's with us here in the studio; and in Toronto, Melissa Tkachyc, who is with the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Melissa, great to have you back. You were with us last year. MELISSA TKACHYC (World Society for the Protection of Animals): I was. DUFFY: Today they had a demonstration or an information picket on Parliament Hill with a group of sealers who were both Inuit and Newfoundlanders explaining their position on this. Do I understand your position correctly, that you're in favour of the Inui t seal hunt but not the Newfoundland seal hunt? TKACHYC: Our protests today that are happening across the country from the east to west coast with countries around the world is denouncing the large-scale commercial slaughter of seals that happens almost exclusively by commercial fishers in Newfoundland . DUFFY: So what about the Inuit? Is a seal a seal? TKACHYC: We are not opposed to the subsistence hunting by aboriginal peoples. It's a very different hunt. We are against the commercial slaughter of seals by people in Newfoundland. I know that the Canadian government has put considerable effort in trying to blur that distinction, but there is a significant distinction when you're killing a few animals for personal subsistence use versus a large scale, industrial commercial slaughter. MARK SMALL (Commercial Seal Hunter): Well, Melissa, I understand where you're coming from, but coastal people on the Newfoundland coast and in Labrador Straits area and the Quebec north shore and the Magdalene Islands, they have always used seal as subsis tence living. We are on a high land in the North Atlantic and we harvest fish, we harvest seals, to basically provide a living for our families. It's no sport. It's a very harsh environment, and we do it under strict Canadian laws, and we're professional at our job and the seals that we're harvesting are mature seals, and it's supported by the Veterinarian Association as a humane hunt. Justice Maloof, in his report, declared the Canada seal hunt is a humane hunt, and we're very proud of the new sealing in dustry that we have developed in eastern Canada for people all across Canada. This has been a great day because we have stood shoulder to soldier from sea to sea with the people in the north, the native people, and we are on a move forward in this new sea l hunt that we have, and we're going to stand side by side. TKACHYC: I have to take objection DUFFY: Melissa, they call it new seal hunt, what about that? TKACHYC: I have to take objection to referring to this seal hunt as a subsistence hunt. We're talking about a million seals that have been killed over the past three years. That's not subsistence hunting, that's a large-scale, industrial, commercial slaug hter. The seals are primarily less than three months old. They're killed for their prime condition pelts. This is a hunt of baby seals for their pelts to supply the fur fashion industry. There's nothing subsistence or sustainable about that. DUFFY: I suspect Mark would say that subsistence is a paycheque so that people in these small communities have something to subsist on, i.e. money. TKACHYC: Well, from Department of Fisheries and Oceans statistics, you can find out that the majority of people that are involved in sealing, it's an off-season activity for them. It's a secondary source of income to supplement their prime source of incom e which is through the commercial fisheries. So... SMALL: Melissa, you have to understand what has taken place on the east coast of Canada with our fishery. We've been under a moratorium since 1982. I have a million dollar enterprise and seven or eight crew members, plus I supply people with jobs in the p lant, truckers, people in the gas stations, and I tell you now that the hunt that we have developed is not just for fur. We have developed omega three from seal oil, and it's taking on all across this world today, and people are very health conscience, an d we have developed a whole new seal hunt, and it's going forward, and we're here today to be proactive with both governments in the provinces on the... DUFFY: That's got to be it, Mark, I'm afraid we're out of time. Melissa, thank you in Toronto. TKACHYC: My pleasure. DUFFY: Mark Small here from Wild Cove, Newfoundland, with me in Ottawa. We've got a lot more "Mike Duffy Live" coming right up right after the headlines. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) 2007 CTV Television Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/3914831p-4525912c.html Canada must prove it can manage herd responsibly Sun Mar 18 2007 By Donald Barry PROTEST groups have again made Europe the focus of their efforts to block the seal hunt in Canada. Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are moving to close their markets to seal products, which could put them at odds with trade obligations. Last September, more than 400 members of the European Parliament signed a non-binding declaration calling on the EU to prohibit all trade in seal items. The EU's Commission has replied that such a ban is not needed for conservation reasons, but that it will study the humaneness of the hunt and propose legislation if warranted. Britain and Germany say they will press the EU to adopt a prohibition. The Canadian government's response is low-key, emphasizing the hunt's sustainability, humaneness and economic importance. It needs to do more to keep the anti-sealing campaign from gaining momentum. The issue of humaneness has long been at the heart of the controversy that pits modern urban publics concerned with preserving nature against their rural counterparts whose livelihood depends on an ability to exploit nature's resources. Urbanites' interest in protecting the environment makes them vulnerable to images of "baby" whitecoat seal pups of astonishing beauty being killed for their skins. Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in 1969 to lead the anti-sealing campaign, recognized that people were not against the hunt because it was inhumane or unsustainable, but because it was repugnant. He used shocking images of sealers bludgeoning baby seals to build public support to end commercial sealing and to attract crucial donations to the campaign. The Canadian government's attempts to defend the enterprise on scientific and economic grounds were no match for the anti-sealing campaign's powerful emotional appeal. Banished from the hunt in 1977, Davies decided to launch an import- ban campaign in Western Europe, where most seal products were sold. In 1983, IFAW and its allies persuaded the European Union to prohibit the import of seal pup skins and products. The ban effectively terminated the whitecoat seal hunt. After the IFAW launched a boycott of Canadian fish products in Britain and the United States, Ottawa brought the seal-pup hunt to a close in 1987, reducing the hunt to more mature seals. In the mid-1990s, improved market prospects and a dramatic increase in the seal population led to a major expansion of the hunt. IFAW revived its anti-sealing campaign, although with the pup hunt ended, it was unable to easily exploit images of baby seals. The Canadian government, however, raised the quota to 975,000 seals between 2003 and 2005 (an increase of 150,000 over the previous three- year total). The new quota posed no threat to the abundant seal population. Nevertheless, it was more than the sustainable yield level and close enough to one million to give protest groups a new platform from which they could promote their cause. Lately, the Humane Society of the United States has taken the lead, reviving IFAW's earlier fish boycott strategy in the United States. The humane society's appeal is much the same as IFAW's: graphic images of baby seals juxtaposed against gory pictures of the sealers at work and endorsements from celebrities such as former Beatle Paul McCartney. The humane society's campaign has not hurt the market for Canadian fish products in the U.S., and sales of pelts have been strong. But Canada should not assume the campaign will fail. It should take steps to ensure it doesn't gain momentum. First, Ottawa should reduce the quota to pre-2003 levels. This would reinforce its reputation as a responsible manager of the herds, while allowing the protesters to claim victory. Second, Ottawa should increase efforts to ensure the hunt is humane. It should create an observer group of veterinarians and other experts to make recommendations on the animal welfare aspects of sealing. Third, Ottawa should impose stricter conditions on observer permits, including widening the existing 10-metre buffer zone between sealers and observers. This would help assure the safety of the hunt and reduce the likelihood of confrontations between sealers and protesters that have marred recent sealing seasons. Fourth, Ottawa should make it clear to the EU that Canada would contest any ban on the import of seal products in violation of the EU's trade commitments. The government's willingness to launch a challenge at the World Trade Organization forced the EU to rescind a 1991 regulation banning fur from wild species caught in leg-hold traps. This resulted in an agreement that gave fur products continued access to the European market. For their part, sealers and their supporters need to show restraint in their dealings with the protesters. It is not surprising that the Swedish Green Party member who co-sponsored the European Parliament's recent written declaration on seal products was part of a group blockaded by irate residents of Blanc Sablon last spring. The same applies to politicians. In an interview on CNN's Larry King Live last year, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams appeared to link IFAW to FBI terrorist investigations. His comments brought a threat of legal action from IFAW and helped propel the group back into the forefront of the protests. It has re-emerged as a key player in mobilizing Europeans. The sealing issue will not go away. The protest groups have a huge investment in the hunt. It is simply a matter of economics. Groups seeking to overturn established policies need to dramatize issues in ways that attract public attention and support. They, too, are a permanent part of the hunt. Donald Barry is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and author of Icy Battleground: Canada, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Seal Hunt.

The hypocrisy of DFO/L'hypocrisie du Département des Pêches et Océans Canada THE DOG’S FRANTIC barking told George Garneau and Rebecca Baker that there was something strange in their front yard in Thorburn one Sunday morning in early March. It was a baby seal — and it was five kilometres from the nearest salt water. "He must have dragged himself along his belly through fields," Garneau told The Canadian Press. "He had to pass through forest and roads." What do you do with a baby seal in your front yard? Garneau and Baker called the SPCA and other animal-welfare agencies but couldn’t reach anyone. So they herded him into a portable dog kennel, drove him to the nearest beach and set him free. "He seemed fine," said Garneau. "He was snarling and growling at us." When they released him, the seal hotfooted it across the ice toward the open water. This couple did everything right. They tried to find expert help — but failed, because it was Sunday. They devised their own plan to help the seal and carried it out successfully. The next sound should be general applause. But no. The next sound was scolding and threats from Peter Taylor, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ "area chief of conservation and protection" — an amazing title in an organization whose approach to conservation and protection amounts to criminal negligence. Taylor said that the couple should have let DFO take over. "Seals are protected under marine mammal regulations and so they are not to be harassed or harmed," Taylor said ominously. "Fishery officers have laid charges in the past." Got that? Assisting a stranded seal is harassment under the marine mammal regulations. For their compassion, Garneau and Baker are threatened with charges. The minor outrage is the bureaucratic idiocy of that reaction. The far deeper outrage is that DFO officials have the barefaced effrontery to talk as though their regulations served the welfare of wildlife. This is Orwellian double-speak. The objective of the Seal Protection Regulations has always been to ensure the efficient slaughter of large numbers of seals. Look it up on DFO’s website. The regulations govern how many seals may be killed and by what means — not more than 245,000 baby harp seals in 1971, for instance, and not with gaffs or small clubs, but with the wicked spiked clubs known as "hakapiks." To call this "protection" is to sin against the English language, but the regulations moved on to sin against democracy and civil rights in 1977, when, as the DFO site coyly puts it, "In an effort to keep order and good management on the ice, observer permits (were first) required by all who wish to view the hunt." This innocent-sounding requirement was enacted primarily to ban Greenpeace and Brigitte Bardot from the ice floes. Under these regulations, DFO can require permits for anyone approaching seals on the ice, but it grants those permits to sealers and not to protesters. DFO’s true objective was to stifle legitimate democratic protest. Earlier, Greenpeace had sprayed whitecoat seals with non-toxic green dye, making their pelts worthless, and Bardot had drawn the world’s media to the ice, where they had filmed the whole gory horror that is the seal hunt — infant seals with their heads bashed in, blood spouting from their mouths and eyes; seals skinned alive; adult seals watching from breathing holes while their young were clubbed to death; streaks of blood like red driveways across the white ice where heaps of pelts had been dragged to the sealing ships. I watched the carnage at The Front one spring myself, on the ice floes north of Newfoundland. It was the most nauseating thing I ever saw. And the result of all that vivid media coverage was an international outcry that ultimately ended the seal hunt, at least for a few years. But the hunt resumed in the 1990s and the regulations have become ever more draconian. In 2005, Paul Watson’s Sea Shepherd Society took a dozen observers to the ice. When they attempted to film the slaughter, they were attacked by the sealers, arrested by the RCMP, charged under the Seal Protection Regulations and fined $1,000 each. Those who were not Canadian were barred from re-entering the country. Watson himself was fined $3,000 and banned from the seal hunt for two years. If he flouts the ban, he can be charged with criminal contempt, which allows the judge to throw the book at him. And that’s because Watson and his ilk genuinely want to protect seals. DFO is the Ministry of Death. Its despotic, fork-tongued regulations exist to ensure that seals can be freely slaughtered without interference from protesters who are legitimately appalled that this country should host the world’s largest slaughter of marine wildlife. That the regulations should be brandished at people like Garneau and Baker is contemptible. The very existence of those regulations stains the democratic credentials of this nation. Visit Silver Donald Cameron’s blog at sailingawayfromwinter.com http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/565356.html

Jevais continuer de chercher demain Cé ! Mais il est également possible que cette info ait été retirée ... Ça fait bien 10 ans maintenant

c'est possible Cé ! Nous en apprendrons sûrement plus s'il te répond !! Mais je trouve quand même ça très bizarre !

Je lui avais écrit ce mot Cé, croyant qu'elle en saurait + que nous concernant les Inuits et la chasse commerciale... To: Sinikka Crosland Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 1:12 PM Subject: Hello Sinikka Hello Sinikka, As I posted it before on the list, on the show Tout le Monde en parle, Sunday night on Radio-Canada, the maker of the movie « Phoques, le film » «Seals, the film» Raoul Jomphe will be talking about his movie. Last year, around the same time, it was the Senator Hervieux-Payette who was invited on that show. Unfortunately, there is nobody to speak out the truth on the other side. Can you explain to me, why the canadian government is using the Inuits to stand up for the canadian commercial seal hunt ? Is the governement trying to tell us that the Inuits are also doing business ? That they are also part of the commercial seal hunt ? Aren't they suppose to kill seals for their own subsistence ? I remember reading an article some years ago about the Inuits that would have have signed a contract with China to sell them pelts (probably seals penises), but unfortunately, I am unable to tract down this article anymore. Have you heard anything about it ? Thank you very much vegiedo = (do at Aequo Animo) ---------------------------------------------- Voici sa réponse: Greetings, The Canadian govt., out of nothing but desperation, is using the Inuit people to further their agenda. The Inuit traditionally have killed seals for subsistence, and they have been allotted a certain quota, but far less than the commercial seal hunt, which is a mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of seals every year. This year, the govt. has spent over $30,000 to launch a propaganda campaign that includes flying Inuit families overseas to try to lobby against bans on the importation of Canadian seal products. Countries like Germany and Belgium have remained staunch in their belief that the seal slaughter is inhumane, and they will not support it. We are waiting for the European Union to do their observation of the hunt before they decide whether or not to proceed with a ban. It is possible that the Inuit have signed such a contract (I haven't seen any documentation of this). That could explain the willingness of the Inuit to take sides with the Canadian federal govt. Either that, or the govt. has given them a financial motive for speaking out against a ban on the killings, i.e. a bribe. For the seals, Sinikka --------------------- Oui Cé, cette entente se trouvait sur un site du gouvernement...

Gardons ce numéro Cé et nous vérifierons si elle revient dans notre forum. Mais comme je te disais plus tôt, elle peut aussi avoir posté son message ailleurs que sur son ordinateur personnel, donc le IP pourrait différer... et même si elle a envoyé son message à IFAW et à againstsealshunt, ça ne change rien, car encore là, le nom de ce groupe était annoncé sur plusieurs sites avant même que les manifs prennent forme ! Je suis certaine que ce n'est pas juste un "Monsieur n'importe qui" , qui nous aurait envoyé une telle missive- Il est trop bien renseigné le monsieur pour rester caché dans son coin !