Rhys
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
06-Sep-2011
Rhys' second comment,
The European Courts decision to rule the Inuit case inadmissible, the ruling was that they where not directly concerned with the marketing of seal products in the European Union. Nor where the Canadian and Norwegian Fur Companies, nor the Greek Doctor with the patent on seal heart valves.

However I believe that the Scottish Harp Seal Sporran Makers where involved as well, they most certainly are directly involved in the marketing of seal products in the European Union. If the judges overlooked them then the ruling can be appealed.
Hi Rhys,

Pardon the delay. Politics is politics and its two-faced self-serving nature does not have a geographical boundary, it is what it is. The European ban has been a farce since the onset and probably one of the most hypocritical acts I have seen in my lifetime. By EU example it would be fine if we slaughtered off a few hundred thousand a year if we labeled the animal a pest, nothing used everything wasted. That being said, politicians rarely look at the right or wrong of an act but rather what act garners the most votes, the right and wrong and logic of an issue are secondary consideration. Considering this is a minor issue in the grand scope of international affairs and the fact that the only voice politicians were hearing were anti it was a no-brainer for them. The unfortunate thing is when they finally started getting a pro perspective it was too late, politicians will rarely say they were wrong and back peddle on a decision. In this regard, the Government of Canada was grossly inept.

Your article hit the nail on the head in regards to just about every facet of this issue and really, all animal use issues. The question we must ask ourselves is why is sealing being held to a completely different standard than any other form of animal use? You wrote:

“However the conclusion “given the conditions in which seal hunt­ing occurs, consistent verification and control of hunters’ compliance with animal welfare requirements is not feasible in practice or, at least, is very difficult to achieve in an effective way” is not in the report or any other conclusion on the monitoring of seal hunting. “

Can they honestly say that any form of hunting in the EU is so closely monitored that authorities can guarantee every kill is humane? Of course not, such an assertion is beyond ridiculous. Now where does that leave them/you? With a precedent you could drive a bus through to be used against every form of hunting in the EU.

At the end of the day, if the EU was so concerned about animal welfare as it pertains to the Canadian seal hunt then they should have stayed involved, kept the markets open for seal products and used its weight, its value to affect how the hunt transpires. Instead it effectively removed itself from the process which tells me they couldn’t care less about seals or sealing in Canada, completely contradictory to its stated motivations in the first place. Of course this was nothing more than a catalyst to acquire votes from the only vocal perspective on the issue, no matter how small of a minority it was in relation to the overall voting bloc.

Cheers,
Mike
First | Previous    2 of 2    Next | Last
 
Home | Background | Introduction | Harp Seal Facts | Fast Facts | Sealing History
Regulation History | Rogues Gallery | Audio Visual | Comments | Hate Mail | Links

Copyright © 2006-2011 TheSealFishery.com. Disclaimer