I can't say I'm Sorry

[sparks19]

Thank you Blue Frog.... that was very well put. I guess it is just hard for those on the outside looking in to see beyond their view point. I'm sure not many have spent time with or talking to a true hunter about what they do. They have their opinion and that is fine..... but IMO it is nothing but stereotypical dribble about what they THINK really happens and how they think those hunters are in life and how things work in their mind.

Like your step father ... my husband is one of the most respectful, caring, kind and helpful men I know.

[Miss Z]

Just on the religion front:

I always am a little vexed when religious quotes are brought into an arguement too. I agree with Denise for the most part. What always springs to mind that whilst people's opinions may be based on faith, that faith is by no means the same for all involved. What about someone who is Muslim, or Jewish? Bible quotes mean nothing to them. That's why I always believe faith and debate should keep apart. But then, that's just my view. I'm sure plenty disagree.

I've also been a little surprised as to some attitudes here. I've raised an eyebrow a couple of times on these last few pages, it seems some people may be getting a little big for their boots. Can we not just let this be by now? Sure, not all people here are fact storage facilities, nor are we emotionless robots who fire information at each other constantly until the other runs out of ammo. Some of us get our ideas and opinions from a little thing called gut feeling. Maybe even conscience or morals. Of course this is nothing unless backed up by at least a few facts, but nonetheless it is a strong arguement in any case. If you saw bullies beating a kid in the street, would you not act upon morals instead of weighing up pros and cons of all possible outcomes? I sincerely hope that would be so.

My opinions will not change by any facts. I live by my morals. For anyone else, well whatever floats your boat is fine by me.

Thanks. I'll get off my soapbox now.

[lizbud]

Just on the religion front:

I always am a little vexed when religious quotes are brought into an arguement too. I agree with Denise for the most part. What always springs to mind that whilst people's opinions may be based on faith, that faith is by no means the same for all involved. What about someone who is Muslim, or Jewish? Bible quotes mean nothing to them. That's why I always believe faith and debate should keep apart. But then, that's just my view. I'm sure plenty disagree.

I've also been a little surprised as to some attitudes here. I've raised an eyebrow a couple of times on these last few pages, it seems some people may be getting a little big for their boots. Can we not just let this be by now? Sure, not all people here are fact storage facilities, nor are we emotionless robots who fire information at each other constantly until the other runs out of ammo. Some of us get our ideas and opinions from a little
thing called gut feeling. Maybe even conscience or morals. Of course this is nothing unless backed up by at least a few facts, but nonetheless it is a strong arguement in any case. If you saw bullies beating a kid in the street, would you not act upon morals instead of weighing up pros and cons of all possible outcomes? I sincerely hope that would be so.

My opinions will not change by any facts. I live by my morals. For anyone else, well whatever floats your boat is fine by me.

Thanks. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Thank you very much for your imput. You make great points. I almost
asked Karen to lock this thread because some people don't seem to be
able to accept anothers opinions for what they are. Their opinions, no more
no less.People should be able to express a thought without be attacked and
insulted because of it. Geeze, it just a discussion, everyone's thoughts are
worth hearing even if you don't agree with them.Chill already.

[Blue_Frog]

I'm one of the guilty parties for dragging this topic, well... off topic. Sorry bout that.

So, back on track ...

---

After doing some more research, this has me rather concerned about that area in general, for the seals and other creatures living there (outside of the hunting aspect) -- the link below has graphs and stuff in it for anyone interested.

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/cus...ming_seals.pdf

If warm years with reduced ice coverage become the norm
– as appears to be the case – there will likely be additional effects
on ice-breeding seals, including both harp and hooded seals
(Johnston et al. 2005, Lavigne 2006). These include possible
effects on timing of reproduction (Lavigne and Kovacs 1988)
and the loss of critical breeding habitat. They also include
potential effects on fish and invertebrates, leading to changes in
availability of prey for seals, potential effects on seal predators,
e.g. killer whales, Orcinus orca, and concomitant effects on seal
condition, growth, reproductive success, and survival. A recent
examination of the potential effects of global warming on
marine mammals included harp and hooded seals among the
species expected to experience a reduction in the size of their
ranges if global warming continues (Learmonth et al. 2006).

Additional new research related links --

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...i?artid=339547
(originally publised by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association)

http://canadianveterinarians.net/Sho...ResourceID=378

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/App/WsvPa...?ID=1&Lang=eng
General interest, Ice Flow Data (Canadian Ice Service)

[sparks19]

Thank you very much for your imput. You make great points. I almost
asked Karen to lock this thread because some people don't seem to be
able to accept anothers opinions for what they are. Their opinions, no more
no less.People should be able to express a thought without be attacked and
insulted because of it. Geeze, it just a discussion, everyone's thoughts are
worth hearing even if you don't agree with them.Chill already.

You mean kind of like How Dr goodnow was attacked for her view point earlier in the thread? or is it only uncalled for when it is the other opinion? I honestly don't see anything like you describe above except for where someone was called a crazy lady for not sharing the same opinion... and that was quickly put to rest from both sides... which is nice. But that is neither here nor there now.

Blue Frog..... Very interesting links. Lots of good information in there..... a good read and lots of info to mull over.

this is totally off topic but we watched a special the other night about caribou and Wolves and how the wolves depend on the migration pattern of the Caribou to feed their young. if that migration pattern changes they are left to starve to death because there is literally not much else to prey on in the tundra for the Wolves. I would have thought there would be at least something else for them to prey on but there really isn't and it was very interesting to see how much they depend on ONE species to survive.... they sometimes don't eat for months. It makes me wonder what the true predator/prey ratio is for seals and the like.

[lizbud]

Thanks for the info Blue Frog. I had read reports similar to the info in the first link & wonder if government gives it the thought that it deserves.

The article by the Canadian Vets. Assn. is very enlighning.

"Background

Young harp seals, approximately 3-4 weeks old, account for 90% or more of the commercial catch in Canadian waters. These seals are weaned at about 12 days of age and have lost their newborn white fur (“whitecoats”) by the time they are hunted, although they continue to spend the majority of their time resting on ice floes. These animals have particularly thin skulls that can be completely crushed by one or a few strong blows with a hakapik (a long club). Therefore, the CVMA considers this a rapid, efficient, and humane means of killing young seals if conducted properly.

Specifically, the CVMA recommends that, when a hakapik is used, each seal should be hit with a minimum of three strong blows to its skull in order to ensure complete destruction of both cerebral hemispheres. When rifles are used, the CVMA supports the current Marine Mammal Regulations specifying the minimum velocity and energy of bullets that can be used in the hunt, as bullets meeting these specifications are more likely to kill an animal even if they do not directly hit its brain case, as compared to bullets of lower velocity and energy. Regardless of the killing method, the CVMA strongly asserts that the sealer must check by palpation that the skull is crushed to ensure that the animal is dead before it is dragged with a hook or is bled.

The CVMA opposes the shooting of seals in the water as this can result in an unacceptably high rate of loss of these animals at some times of the year (3). Also in some regions of the Atlantic coast, subsistence hunters rely on the use of nets set in water to catch and drown the animals. The CVMA opposes this method of hunting, as drowning is considered to be a protracted and, therefore, inhumane form of death.

The CVMA believes that harvest of seal populations must be done in a sustainable manner, using the principle of precautionary approach. The CVMA does not support an annual harvest of seals above the replacement yield for that population (defined as the number of animals that can be taken in a given year without reducing the total population in the next year) (4). Because the CVMA is concerned about the health and welfare of animal populations, as well as of individual animals, continued population studies are essential."


I wonder what the compliance rate is ?

[sparks19]

Thanks for the info Blue Frog. I had read reports similar to the info in the first link & wonder if government gives it the thought that it deserves.

The article by the Canadian Vets. Assn. is very enlighning.

"Background

Young harp seals, approximately 3-4 weeks old, account for 90% or more of the commercial catch in Canadian waters. These seals are weaned at about 12 days of age and have lost their newborn white fur (“whitecoats”) by the time they are hunted, although they continue to spend the majority of their time resting on ice floes. These animals have particularly thin skulls that can be completely crushed by one or a few strong blows with a hakapik (a long club). Therefore, the CVMA considers this a rapid, efficient, and humane means of killing young seals if conducted properly.

Specifically, the CVMA recommends that, when a hakapik is used, each seal should be hit with a minimum of three strong blows to its skull in order to ensure complete destruction of both cerebral hemispheres. When rifles are used, the CVMA supports the current Marine Mammal Regulations specifying the minimum velocity and energy of bullets that can be used in the hunt, as bullets meeting these specifications are more likely to kill an animal even if they do not directly hit its brain case, as compared to bullets of lower velocity and energy. Regardless of the killing method, the CVMA strongly asserts that the sealer must check by palpation that the skull is crushed to ensure that the animal is dead before it is dragged with a hook or is bled.

The CVMA opposes the shooting of seals in the water as this can result in an unacceptably high rate of loss of these animals at some times of the year (3). Also in some regions of the Atlantic coast, subsistence hunters rely on the use of nets set in water to catch and drown the animals. The CVMA opposes this method of hunting, as drowning is considered to be a protracted and, therefore, inhumane form of death.

The CVMA believes that harvest of seal populations must be done in a sustainable manner, using the principle of precautionary approach. The CVMA does not support an annual harvest of seals above the replacement yield for that population (defined as the number of animals that can be taken in a given year without reducing the total population in the next year) (4). Because the CVMA is concerned about the health and welfare of animal populations, as well as of individual animals, continued population studies are essential."


I wonder what the compliance rate is ?

I'm sure you could find something online to give you an idea.... how reliable it is... who knows, it is afterall on the internet.

But I just can't imagine that all these sealers would just willingly by pass the recommendations so they could see the seal suffer. Of course.... there are lazy people in every profession.... there are bad seeds in every group.... but I would venture to guess that most of them do their jobs efficiently or there would be a bigger broohaha than there already is. I'm sure they are closely watched by numerous animal rights groups etc etc. if they all were just gutting the seals alive I'm sure you would be hearing about it.... A LOT. The media would make a killing off of that story I'm sure.

[Puckstop31]

Thank you very much for your imput. You make great points. I almost
asked Karen to lock this thread because some people don't seem to be
able to accept anothers opinions for what they are. Their opinions, no more
no less.People should be able to express a thought without be attacked and
insulted because of it. Geeze, it just a discussion, everyone's thoughts are
worth hearing even if you don't agree with them.Chill already.

Hmmm....

Like when you asked certain people to edit posts because they said things that were offensive to YOU? I was the target of the "offensive" stuff and it did not bother me one bit.

The double standard you constantly display is amazing. Political Correctness at it's worst. You claim to be fair, but the only viewpoints you suppress are ones opposite your own.

Look up the word facist and tell me what you find.

[Miss Z]

Hmmm....

Like when you asked certain people to edit posts because they said things that were offensive to YOU? I was the target of the "offensive" stuff and it did not bother me one bit.

The double standard you constantly display is amazing. Political Correctness at it's worst. You claim to be fair, but the only viewpoints you suppress are ones opposite your own.

Look up the word facist and tell me what you find.

I don't think we need to resort to primary school insults here. I'm sure she is familiar with the definition of 'facist', and quite frankly to label someone as such is appalling. You may claim to be the more experienced party here but the anger that comes across in this post does not show this in its best light. Perhaps have a go at rephrasing and maybe you will be credited with more authority on the matter.

Plus, as yet, how do you know it was her who asked the link to be removed? That's a shot in the dark if I ever saw one.

And finally, I believe lizbud has been very fair throughout this whole thread. It was her who stood up against someone sharing her own views when that person called another 'crazy'. I would say that's pretty fair. I don't claim to be particularly fair as I know my opinions won't be changed. How fair do you claim to be, just out of interest?

I have been enlightened a little by this thread, were it not for the ravines of brewing tensions that have to be crossed to get to the bare-boned facts. I, as much as others, think a debate is spineless unless you can relate to facts on the opposite side. It can strengthen your own opinions in more ways than one and widens your horizons on the matter. So please, continue to post your views, but don't expect that by dictating them you will get very far.

Perhaps I might even go as far to say that I've found it interesting how a couple of good points from one angle are blindly ignored by the other, and that goes for both sides. It seems that whilst people on either side appear to have all the answers, they also seem to be selective about the ones they share.

[Puckstop31]

I don't think we need to resort to primary school insults here. I'm sure she is familiar with the definition of 'facist', and quite frankly to label someone as such is appalling. You may claim to be the more experienced party here but the anger that comes across in this post does not show this in its best light. Perhaps have a go at rephrasing and maybe you will be credited with more authority on the matter.

This is far from a "primary school insult" and I am not angry. I simply find it disturbing to see that certain people can say offensive things, while others (who just happen to have a view opposite of their own) are asked to change things.

Of course, life is not fair nor do I expect it to be but I just thought this should be said.

As for labelling someone a facist, what is so apalling about that? Why can we not say what we mean and mean what we say anymore in this world? The world would be a better place if we simply did so.

Plus, as yet, how do you know it was her who asked the link to be removed? That's a shot in the dark if I ever saw one.

I don't want to drag anyone down with me, so I am not naming names but I know it to be true.

And finally, I believe lizbud has been very fair throughout this whole thread. It was her who stood up against someone sharing her own views when that person called another 'crazy'. I would say that's pretty fair. I don't claim to be particularly fair as I know my opinions won't be changed. How fair do you claim to be, just out of interest?

This is not about being fair. This is about the whole story getting air and letting people decide for themselves. I simply believe there is a double standard when it comes to who is able to say what here.

[Sophist]

Just on the religion front:

I always am a little vexed when religious quotes are brought into an arguement too. I agree with Denise for the most part. What always springs to mind that whilst people's opinions may be based on faith, that faith is by no means the same for all involved. What about someone who is Muslim, or Jewish? Bible quotes mean nothing to them. That's why I always believe faith and debate should keep apart. But then, that's just my view. I'm sure plenty disagree.

I've also been a little surprised as to some attitudes here. I've raised an eyebrow a couple of times on these last few pages, it seems some people may be getting a little big for their boots. Can we not just let this be by now? Sure, not all people here are fact storage facilities, nor are we emotionless robots who fire information at each other constantly until the other runs out of ammo. Some of us get our ideas and opinions from a little thing called gut feeling. Maybe even conscience or morals. Of course this is nothing unless backed up by at least a few facts, but nonetheless it is a strong arguement in any case. If you saw bullies beating a kid in the street, would you not act upon morals instead of weighing up pros and cons of all possible outcomes? I sincerely hope that would be so.

My opinions will not change by any facts. I live by my morals. For anyone else, well whatever floats your boat is fine by me.

Thanks. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Once again, "No religion, go by your morals"?

You cannot do that. I have not relied on religious arguments, but you cannot promote moral or opinion or emotion-based stances for a debate, and then say religion can't be a part of that.

For most people, even if they aren't actively and staunchly religious, religion and morals are pretty inseperably intertwined.

[sparks19]

Once again, "No religion, go by your morals"?

You cannot do that. I have not relied on religious arguments, but you cannot promote moral or opinion or emotion-based stances for a debate, and then say religion can't be a part of that.

For most people, even if they aren't actively and staunchly religious, religion and morals are pretty inseperably intertwined.

Thank you......

I thought that was just KNOWN. Where do you think my morals and beliefs stem from? MY FAITH. How can you ask me questions on my morals and beliefs and then tell me I can't bring up the subject that played the biggest part in the molding of my morals and beliefs. I know not everyone believes what I believe so that is why they say you shouldn't bring religious beliefs into a debate.... but when it is a question of your morals and beliefs it can't be done. I am not telling them they must believe what I believe.... I'm just giving my opinion just like everyone else.... if my opinion includes religious content well than thats how it is.

[Miss Z]

I personally don't think that morals and faith are the same thing. I grant that they are similar, but I don't consider them to be the same.

For me, faith is based on what one believes is right in their religion. I do not have any problem with it whatsoever, and if someone believes something is wrong or right because of their faith then sobeit. My reasoning for faith and debate being better apart was that not everyone shares the same religion, if any at all. Not everyone can relate to religion. I certainly can't, I've thought about it my whole life but as yet nothing has convinced me that there could be a god.

Morals, on the other hand, is something you feel for yourself. Whether they've been imprinted on your mind ever since you can remember or whether they were sparked by faith doesn't really make a difference. They are always there in your gut, telling you when something is right or wrong. You don't need to quote anything to explain them, it's simply an emotion, and a strong one at that. And where it importantly differs from religion is that whilst people may not share your own morals, they can at least relate to having them.

That is how I see it anyway. I have no faith but a heck of a lot of morals.

Puck, I thank you for being more civil in your recent post, now I can relate to you more. If you did find out from a reliable source why the link was removed then I take back what I said, although of course I could not have comprehended that was the case beforehand. I know we should all be able to say what we think and I agree with that, but the truth is, that just isnt how humans as a race work. Saying what people want to say wrote history, made all our wars, murders and punishments. Here it's evidently driving divisions between members of this forum. I believe that there's a time and a place for everything to be said, but you have to find said time and place first.

[sparks19]

I personally don't think that morals and faith are the same thing. I grant that they are similar, but I don't consider them to be the same.

.

Well then there is our problem

we will have to agree to disagree because for me.... while they may be different words.... my morals stem GREATLY from my faith. Does it need to be quoted in regular conversation? no.... but when you state your reasoning for something and someone says "what makes you say that" then I find it IS nessecary to quote it and tell what makes one say what they said and if that is from your faith then thats where the quote will come from. Hmmm I didn't explain that very well.

[DrKym]

On this I will have to agree with Sophist and to a very large degree MissZ,
I teach religion, both ancient and Modern and yet practice none of what I teach, as a religion.

To Quote to me from the Bible, well I could if necessary out quote it and give the history behind the verses, same for the Koran, Torah etc.

How ever, I feel that my beliefs are truly by my gut and what we are all born with, the ability to be both good and evil the ability to choose, and that fact that everyone differs in their opinion of each.

I feel I have seen on this thread some very serious and well thought out opinions. I respect all of them even if I do not hold them as my own.

Just my thoughts