Talk:Seal hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit war[edit]

The article has been protected due to an ongoing edit war. The involved editors are requested to solve the issues through discussion. Please note that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Equipment and Method Section[edit]

...Perhaps my intentions of adding to this section are being misunderstood. I keep adding text to the section to reflect that regardless of the fact that rifles are indeed used 90% of the time to initiate the killing process that doesn't mean that they those incidents are devoid of the use of either hakapik or club. According the EFSA Q-2007-118 section 4.2.2.1. there are cases (3 out of 8 in some cases) where the rifle was not effective in rendering the seal either dead or irreversibly unconscious. The study goes on to point out, in the same section, that a club or hakapik was used to finalize the killing process. This is not an attempt to, as some have pointed out, bring elements of the "Cruelty to Animals" section into the "Equipment and Methods" section. I'm simply pointing out what the EFSA explains, saying 90% of the hunters use rifles does not exclude different elements of Equipment and/or methods from being used in the same incidents. Just saying 90% of hunters use rifles can and is being misinterpreted to mean 90% of the seals are killed by rifle fire. Not true. The section needs modifying and anyone wishing to contribute to this needs to step forward now and make recommendation instead of simply deleting my text.

The following is my recommendation: "the hunt occurs, use firearms.[27] ...This does not exclude the use of other sanctioned tools like clubs or hakapiks from being used on seals where rifles were not effective in rendering the seal either dead or where the seal regained consciousness...Both rifles and hakapiks are..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talkcontribs) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

--XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Seeing how quickly people delete my additions to the article, but yet have no response to my discussion, I'm adding the text a week after I posted the discussion.

--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps people aren't reading your discussion points because THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TALK PAGE, eh wot? There is lots already in the controversy section and very little of it has more than one reference. It already addresses everything talked about. Rework it, if you want, but stop adding to it.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You make no point. This "method" of clubbing seals after they are shot if they are still alive is just that "A method" this has nothing to do with cruelty to animals. It's a "method" involving "equipment". As I said above, "Just saying 90% of hunters use rifles can and is being misinterpreted to mean 90% of the seals are killed by rifle fire." The data exists antiseptically outside of the realm of "cruelty to animals" and should be handled as such.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at the bottom (current) area of the talk page. What you think people are "misinterpreting" is irrelevant. The statement is pretty clear, and is EXACTLY what is stated in the reference, despite what data you claim exists.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
See the "GDP" section. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Creation of "Seal hunting" or "Sealing" category[edit]

I've been doing some organizational work in Category:Whaling and suggest creating a parallel category Category:Sealing or Category:Seal hunting. This hopefully non-controversial edit would permit all sealing-related articles to be grouped together, with the cat itself being put into the parent cats currently used for the main article. There are at least a handful of applicable articles, and it would help keep the structure parallel. Hopefully this concentration would help both sides of the argument, as well as neutral parties, access information more effectively. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and created Category:Sealing and sub-cat Category:Sealing ships. If there are any sealing-related articles I missed, please add them to the cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd ordering of sentances[edit]

"After molting, the seals are called beaters, named for the way they beat the water with their flippers. [9] The practice remains highly controversial, attracting significant media coverage and protests each year.[10]"

Suggest the second sentance be clarified or moved as it sounds like the controversial act is the way the seals beat the water with their flippers. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WHAT AERE YOU DOING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.127.243 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - EU ban[edit]

In the introduction, two sentences make comparison between seal hunting and the legal killing of animals in the EU. There's a clear insinuation here that the ban is inconsistent. In any case, it's not relevant to an article on seal hunting (or rather, the *introduction* to such an article). Seems like NPOV and under weight. Being bold, I'm deleting.

Sentences were:

The bill did not mention or refer to any metrics that quantify the Canadian seal hunt as being any more inhumane than the accepted, legal slaughter of animals in the EU. Billions of animals are slaughtered annually in the EU for food, fur[12], and entertainment[13]

62.31.42.170 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Being bold, I'm putting it back. It sure looks like it's relevant from my perspective. It is very common Wikipedia practice to have counter-arguments in sections like this.206.210.126.186 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the sentence is clear POV pushing, and does not belong in an intro. In fact, I would argue that the EU ban should not really be elaborated upon in the intro. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please read the talk page, Vanitas, before accusing others of not having done so..99.245.37.46 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of the ban can go under a subtitle desribing the law in more detail or in a seperate article about it. It has no place in the introduction to the article on Seal Huntig. It's a real stretch to say that unreferenced criticism (there is no content regarding the seal ban in the references, only general info about animal treatment in the EU) of one economic bloc's law which deals with seal hunting belongs in the introduction to the article on Seal Hunting.--U5K0 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Even if a subheading is made about this ban, criticism of it has to be referenced. By that I mean that the criticism itself must be in the references, not just general information about animal treatment. A reference where a person, group or organisation is cited as critical of this law for certain reasons would be needed.--U5K0 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Then make a subheading yourself. I will get reference for this. Until then, it can stay.99.245.37.46 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There is currently no refrence saying that anyone at all has criticised the EU ban in terms of it not mentioning legal slaughter of animals in the EU. Unreferenced statements have no place in the article. In other words, until there is a reputable source for the statement it can't stay. Please see WP:RS for more information about reliable sources and their use in wikipedia.--U5K0 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Did you even read the references? Nonsense. You're kidding about "reliable" references, right? CBC? The Economist?! Utter balderdash. Read WP:RS yourself. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Quotes from the references:
"This industry, you know, has tight standards, the tightest in the world. The standards of this industry, quite frankly, are better than many other industries that deal with animal products," Harper said.
"There is no reason the seal industry should be singled out for discriminatory treatment by Europeans or any other nation."

...

Europe’s industrial farms dispatch 1m sheep, cattle and pigs every day. You cannot cater to the welfare of a large animal like a pig when the line must kill five in a minute.
If the European Parliament were really interested in animal welfare, then it might look rather more closely at the farming industry that the European Union so lavishly rewards with subsidies. But it has more pressing business. On May 5th MEPs, suddenly disgusted by the cruelty of people far away hunting seals, voted to endorse a ban on the trade of seal products, most of which come from Canada. Their hypocritical recommendation, which still has to be approved by the European Commission and Council, isn’t even much good for the seals.
...
What's put in the article sounds like a pretty good summary of these two criticisms. Again, if you don't like it in the lede, that's your problem. Move the whole EU thing. Not my concern.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Never mind - done for you. :)99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I was talking about the references which were originally attached to the statement. I didn't notice you had chaged them / added new ones. My mistake.--U5K0 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No, you've removed everything I've done. You are now in violation of 3RR, and unless you revert your own last change to my last version, you will be reported.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
If you will kindly check the history, you will see, that I only made 2 reverts in the last 24h and one of them was justified, since the statement in question had no source regarding the statement. When I realised that the 2nd one was a mistake since you had added sources, I returned the statement in question and apologised for my mistake. I miss things sometimes. I'm only human.--U5K0 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I did, very kindly, check the history, and you have THREE reverts of my changes on October 31. You did NOT return the statement in question, rather made your OWN edits to those REFERENCED sentences. I have noted your violation of WP:3RR on the WP:ANI noticeboard, U5K0. It is unfortunate that you didn't accept YOUR OWN recommendation, and leave the whole EU thing in a later section outside of the lede, which is what I did. I propose that this is what is done to this page. Also, I will be re-adding the summary of criticism from my earlier edits. Yours, which mentions ONLY Harper, not anything from the Economist article, is insufficient.99.245.37.46 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I maintain that I made 2 reverts, not 3. I returned statements to the effect of the references after I noticed that they had been added. As for the economist article; I didn't see it but was prompted to join some sort of user environment to see the full text. I can not confirm the content in that article so I did not add anything that may or may not be contained in it.--U5K0 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, it would be more productive if you both agreed on how to resolve the situation of the reaction to the EU ban (in the intro, or later on, etc.) than arguing about how many reverts you guys did.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like it if the thing had clear source links that people could actually go and look at. But I don't really have the time to keep fighting this... so do what you want. I0m done.--U5K0 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, didn't realise that small change would spark an edit war. The new version looks a lot nicer (I was thinking a quote would be better when I removed those lines, but didn't know of any). I'm inclined to agree that the ban isn't really something that should be in the *introduction* though. Who objects to restricting it to the subsection on it (or just having something *really* brief in the intro). Given that Seal hunting has been practiced for thousands of years, it seems a bit silly to have all the stuff on what's been going on in with the EU and so on in the last 2 years. In fact, I'm a bit dubious about all the info on canada in the intro too. Really seems like undue weight being given the recent events! 62.31.42.170 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The EU ban is now a subsection, as per consensus, out of the lede, fully referenced.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
That's great, but now the original problem is back! there were two problems (i) EU stuff being in intro; (ii) Comparison to other animals slaughtered by the EU. The way the second bit is presented is clearly insinuating an argument that the EU ban is inconsistent. Much as I think the EU ban *is* inconsistent, this looks like either NPOV and/or original research. If we have a quote of someone significant making this argument, that's much better. I'm swapping it with the old quote from Steven Harper from the intro (which is basically making the same point). 62.31.42.170 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentences in the article clearly stated that this was a position held by critics of the ban. This is in BOTH references. Please read them.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain what the relevance of putting in the stuff about EU consumption of animals and use of animals for sport is? You've also messed up the references - it's not clear what is referencing what. Fix this can we can see whether it works. The other problem is with the '*Critics* of the EU's actions say ...'. Who are the critics? In the article I assume you mean to reference, we have stephen harper saying "There is no reason the seal industry should be singled out for discriminatory treatment by Europeans or any other nation.". That is making the *exact* same point, and avoids the problems. Why are you so attached to the original text? 62.31.42.170 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. In the previous discussion you had, it's clear you buy that inconsistency argument yourself. This looks very much like *you* have a particular problem with the ban, due to your own reasoning against it, and you want to make the article reflect that. I actually agree with your reasoning, but this is looking decidedly NPOV. I'll change it back if I don't hear from you in the next day or so. 62.31.42.170 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What inconsistency? Read the references, then get back to me. Sorry that critics of the EU ban are "NPOV". That's kinda the point. This is not OR, so too bad. Read and understand Wiki policies. There is a section for the EU ban, and this is the appropriate place to have ONE SENTENCE stating the NPOV opinions of critics opposing the ban. 'Nuff said.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If you haven't read the discussion, please do so. I have quoted from both references above, supporting the inclusion of the sentence I CONTINUE to re-add. There are FIVE references on that one sentence. Please have a look at them some time, and post in here why you think that sentence doesn't belong - noting that ANY criticism of the EU ban is going to be "NPOV". Of course, the EU ban is NPOV against seal hunting, which is the topic of this article. If you have a problem with a link, fix it. You don't need to revert to do that.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have read the references. The point is they don't help. At the moment we've got 'critics say XXX'. The reference to the article with Harper has Steve Harper himself saying roughly 'there is no reason to single out ...'. In that one quote, he's making the argument that it's unfair to single out the seal hunting industry, presumably when many animals are killed for other reasons in the EU. So why not just put this quote in? Similarly, Steve harper doesn't talk about fox hunting, or bull fighting, so why is that info in there (of course you can find references to show there is bull fighting in the EU! this isn't the point. The point is it's not relevant unless someone has actually made the argument that a seal hunting ban is ridiculous when there is bull fighting in the EU. You and I both *agree* with this argument, but that's original thought on our part, and we can't put it in unless we've got a notable saying it). Also, references still not working - can you have a bash at fixing it? 62.31.42.170 (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's more than obvious that the sentence in dispute is pushing a particular POV. I can't explain why the opinion of an internet jurnalist would otherwise carry more weight than that of the Canadian PM, who isn't mentioned at all.--U5K0 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It is very obvious that you are pushing your point of view. The seal hunt ban is very controversial and very dubious in it's "raison d'etre" and the sentences, as they were originally, were pointing out the why this is so. These sentences were adding much needed context. Your problem obviously is you resent anybody presenting the ban in any way that is not supportive of your own bias. There was no need to change the sentences, or remove them. And here is a reference that features a comparison of the seal hunt and bull fighting AND also speaks to the dubious nature of the EU ban http://www.embassymag.ca/mobile/story/eu_lawyers-8-12-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.36.82 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't talk for U5K0, but I agree with the point of view from those sources. With that source, the article is better. But given the disagreement, I still don't see why you guys prefer anonymising and presenting the views of some random canadian lawyer to the Prime Minister of Canada saying exactly the same thing! Really guys, I'm at a loss here. Can one of you please explain this....? 62.31.42.170 (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that we're going to prove incapable of explaining this to you to your satisfaction, so why bother.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that you're going to prove incapable of explaining this to anyone's satisfaction who didn't agree with you to begin with. This leads me to believe that you have no substantive objective argument to make.--U5K0 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
99.245.37.46 - you haven't attempted to explain it yet. You've just pointed out it has some sources, which no one ever objected to in the first place. Please try and assume good faith. If you're not interested in discussing how the article should be, I'd suggest you don't get involved in changing it. 62.31.42.170 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We've had the discussion. If you don't like how it got resolved, I'd suggest you move on.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

U5K0, please do not make changes without discussing them here first. You removed a huge referenced section, and are up to one revert for today. Stop and discuss, if you're interested. Frankly, you'd left the discussion. Don't come back and make changes without discussing first. 'Nuff said.99.245.37.46 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I made no revert. I reworded the section to better reflect the content of the source material. It is you who are up to one revert for today. I will be up to one the moment I revert your undiscussed revert of my contribution.--U5K0 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that was a revert - it's exactly what you'd been doing before. It does not better reflect the references. Only a small part of them.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There aren't only two critics, despite the two references you seem to like. There are lots of critics. Your edits seem to imply that these are the only ones. Also, your sentences seem very biased. Not acceptable. The established version is much clearer and more concise.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
True. It is what I've been doing before. As per the ruling of newtral admins, your report of me violating 3RR was shot down meaning the were not reverts and neither is this. The two references I seem to like are the only 2 inline citations that I have access to. I summarised the references objectively. If you would like to add futher statements based on them you are free to do so. Furthermore; there is no established version of wikipedia articles and the one you seem to like is not clearer in my opinion, nor is it more precise or objective given the source content.--U5K0 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You've now reverted three times. Seeing as how you blanked your user talk pertaining to this issue, consider this notification that I have reported you to WP:ANI/3RR. There are more than two references on that sentence that you keep deleting. Your "neutral" edit is laughably transparent.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Before anyone gets the impression that I want to silence you, I should mention that I deleted your posts on my talk page only in response to your deletion of my posts on your talk page. One of the references that I deleted is unaccessable. The other is identical to one which is still in the paragraph, indead, at the end of the sentence, where it belongs. I can link to an encoded page as well an claim anything I want about its contents.--U5K0 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Give me a break, u5k0. Your edit is very biased. The so-called encoded page is from the printed version. If you don't have that print version, can it not be linked? lol206.210.126.186 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
U5K0, please seek consensus. Your edit is unacceptable.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's better. You haven't removed the contentious sentence, nor any of the references. It looks fine to me, for now.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't expect to do any more work on this article since it's not really a subject matter I care about. Enjoy.--U5K0 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

I've protected the page due to edit warring. Please seek consensus on this talk page rather than reverting the article back and forth.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GDP[edit]

Irrelevant to seal hunt article.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I note the same changes were made to the article, by the same user, without discussion. Talk page? Hello?99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Listen. I don't have to open peer reviewed and relevant material to discussion. If you want to challenge my edit, then go ahead. You're entire argument is just "Irrelevant"? If "By the late 1800s, sealing had become the second most important industry in Newfoundland, second only to cod fishing. The peak of the sealing industry occurred in 1821, when Lloyd's Register had 164 sealing vessels on their records. " is relevant, then so is, "Today however, the world largest seal hunt provides less that one half of one percent of Newfoundland's GDP; a mere $6 million in a $14 billion dollar economy [17]." They both have to do with the economy. I started a discussion on 99.245.37.46 wall, but he keeps erasing it. 99.245.37.46 obviously doesn't like the fact that the argument "it's an important part of our economy" is being blunted by relevant facts. PERIOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XB70Valyrie (talkcontribs) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign.
I still don't see how the fractional percentage that sealing represents in the economy of NL is germane to the overall issue of sealing.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhhh ... Valyrie? YES, you have to run changes by other editors in here when there is no consensus. Tough luck. You make pretty clear that you have a point to make, rather than just inserting what you think is "relevant" to seal hunting. I'd accept this: "Today, the seal hunt provides about 0.5% of the Newfoundland economy." Lots of the rest is your perspective and bias peeking through. No weasel words in Wikipedia. Either that, or nothing, as Ramdrake proposes.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If everyone has to "run their peer reviewed edits through this Discussion page" then the Discussion page should be 20 times longer than it is. My GDP data are JUST as relevant and "germane" as the nebulous statement made about sealing being second highest gross next to cod fishing in the 1800. How come you (Ramdrake) and you (99.245.37.46) had absolutely no problem with that little tid-bit, huh? Huh? HUH? Point made. If you want to take out my economic data, then watch "By the late 1800s, sealing had become the second most important industry in Newfoundland, second only to cod fishing" go out the window too. I am here to stay gentlemen. I was only considering little tweaks to this page, but any more illogical and selective censorship of it by two obvious seal hunt supporters will lead to major changes. INCLUDING the addition of the Canadian government playing of the Inuit Card to protect the hunt. See "Defense of the Fur Trade", 1986 --XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If everyone has to "run their peer reviewed edits through this Discussion page" then the Discussion page should be 20 times longer than it is.
Welcome to Wikipedia.
My GDP data are JUST as relevant and "germane" as the nebulous statement made about sealing being second highest gross next to cod fishing in the 1800. How come you (Ramdrake) and you (99.245.37.46) had absolutely no problem with that little tid-bit, huh? Huh? HUH? Point made.
Reel it in. I proposed a change. Please comment. That's the point of discussion.
If you want to take out my economic data, then watch "By the late 1800s, sealing had become the second most important industry in Newfoundland, second only to cod fishing" go out the window too. I am here to stay gentlemen.
Fact, or threat? You be the judge.
I was only considering little tweaks to this page, but any more illogical and selective censorship of it by two obvious seal hunt supporters will lead to major changes.
Threat. Okay. Not welcomed.
INCLUDING the addition of the Canadian government playing of the Inuit Card to protect the hunt. See "Defense of the Fur Trade", 1986 --XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You want to discuss, or rant? I welcome the first, and don't have to put up with the second, nor does anyone else.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If seal hunt supporters are allowed to show how substantial the seal hunt was to Newfoundlanders back in 1880, then I can show data in the same section as to how inconsequential is was in the not so distant past. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see above, and stop editing what you've said.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Threatening to start an all-out edit war is not the way to go. For the record, I am the one who originally reverted your addition of the killings by hagapik and clubs being necessary, as they are not supported by the cited ref. Also, I fail to see what's wrong with just mentioning that "Today, the seal hunt provides about 0.5% of the Newfoundland economy.", right after the sentence about what it was in 1800. It removes the weasel wording of "a mere 6 million out of 14 billion". Edits need to be worded as neutrally as possible, be supported by refs and above all, gain consensus on the talk page whenever requested. And for the record, tantrums are not welcome.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"EFSA Q-2007-118, 4.2.2.1. Shooting
Of 47 carcasses of harp seals shot on the Front in 1999 and examined by Daoust et al. (2002),
35 (75%) had been shot in the head: the skull and brain were “completely destroyed” in 28
cases, the mandible and base of the cranial cavity destroyed in 5 cases, and the snout and
frontal region of the cranial cavity destroyed in 2 cases. Six (13%) of the 47 animals had been
shot in the neck, with complete transection of the cervical portion of the vertebral column;
three (6%) had been shot in the ventral region of the neck with destruction of soft tissues,
including major blood vessels. The remaining three seals (6%) had been shot in the thorax or
abdomen, one of which was “found alive by itself on an ice floe and was immediately killed
with a hakapik by a DFO officer”.
In 2001 in the Gulf, in most (estimated 85%) of 43 cases where the animals had been shot, the
interval between the shot and first contact by a sealer (resulting primarily from the time
required for the vessel to get close enough to the ice floe for one of the sealers to land) was 1
min (Daoust et al., 2002). Some of these animals (3 of 8, in one instance where exact records
were kept) were still alive during this interval. Retrospectively, the authors thought that
ammunition of lower caliber than allowed by the Canadian Marine Mammal Regulation may
have been used that year.
In the 169 cases examined on video by Butterworth et al. (2007), of which 37% were shot, the
authors were able to establish the start sequences for 88% of the seals. Of the seals shot, 78%
were shot once. Of 51 shots where the point of impact could be established, 41% were in the
head region, 55% were in other parts of the body, and 4% missed the animal entirely. The mean
time interval from the first shot to contact by a sealer was 48.8±9.4 seconds. Sixty-six percent
of the shot animals received subsequent blows from a hakapik and a further 16%, which were
not clubbed, responded to stimuli after being shot."
Okay. Have we read it now? It's there in black and white.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I read it long ago - it's a total summary of the Daoust and Butterworth articles, which are already heavily referenced in the Controversy section. There's absolutely nothing new here. Or did you not realize that? While we're there, please feel free to clean up the reference tags in that section - there are a few dead links you could replace, before someone removes information which is not properly cited. Frankly, there's probably far too much for such a TINY number of references, but it's acceptable as is - WITHOUT a bunch of "new" additions, drawing on articles already totally mined for information.
I agree with your revision of my wording regarding the GDP. "Today, the seal hunt provides about 0.5% of the Newfoundland economy." With the following suggestion, "about"/"only". .05 is indeed a data point that, unlike a credit card APR, should be preceded with the word "only".
I don't accept your amendment, as "about 0.5%" is a neutral statement, while "only 0.5%" is not. Not a chance.
Although much of it is peer-reviewed I don't post IFAW refs and I don't come in here and add outlandish PETA quotes. I respect the sanctity of a fair article, but I will respond with venom if that same respect is not returned to me.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't make threats. Your reference, which I read in detail months ago, is nothing but a summary of other studies, most of which are already referenced in this article.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
AND STOP EDITING YOUR MESSAGES AFTER YOU POST THEM IN HERE. It's not welcome Wiki behaviour.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
And, while we're at it, do NOT edit other people's comments in here. Not now. Not ever. Not on any page. Period.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


I'm formatting the quote so it looks presentable. I understand that you're worried that some people might want to change their argument, but I'm clicking the "This is a minor edit button" because all I'm doing is adding bolds, indents and italic. I added the reference as to where to find the rest of this discussion and even made a note of it so you would see it. I'll make my own post next time.
Use the preview button to do that. Every time you edit AGAIN, the talk page can't be edited by someone else. It has nothing to do with "some people might want to change their argument".
Your point still does not make my edit irrelevant to the Methods and Equipment section. Listen, I can understand how any ardent seal hunt supporter would love to keep the data point that 90% of the time rifles are used in a vacuum, since hakapiks have such bad PR, but if you don't like the data presented because it's merely a "summary of other studies" then the most comprehensive study ever done on seal hunting, the EFSA Q-2007-118 report, can no longer be used as reference either. Even the veterinary "Panel on Animal Health and Welfare" (aka: The EFSA panel) admits that there is a lack of evidence to draw really good conclusions off of. Either you like Q-2007-118 or you don't. You can't cherry pick. The rifle comment in the Equipment and Methods section is misleading and needs grounding. Referencing my edit is not enough. Let's just reference the, "90% of the time rifles are used" statistic and replace it with, "rifles are used". Let's see how many people continue to believe the hakapik is the preferred piece of equipment then. It is clear from the EFSA that the hakapik is still broadly used not only in The Gulf. The article says, "The hakapik is a tool of hunters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence." Clearly this needs to be changed. The EFSA proves that to be opportunistic writing. Simply saying, "hakapiks are permitted in the hunt" and "as a last resort" is simply not the truth. it's just as bad as saying "only" in front of 0.5%. In fact, the entire second half of the Equipment and Methods has not one citation. Not one. It's simply creative writing used to play down the role of the hakapik in smashing an animal's head in.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think your main problem is that you cannot understand how any _neutral editor_ would love to keep a data point which is fully and precisely quoted from a reference. Your assertion, adding to that statement, is OR. The EFSA panel merely studied other documents. It's not a question of "liking their paper" or not. It's just a summary, not any new evidence one way or another. I don't think the FULLY REFERENCED statement needs editing, and I think the article is perfectly clear the way it is.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"It is clear from the EFSA that the hakapik is still broadly used not only in The Gulf." Actually, this isn't really clear _at all_.99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
From the report itself: "For several years, the rifle appears to have been the most commonly used weapon in the five main harp seal hunts (Canada’s commercial hunt, Canada’s Arctic summer hunt, the West Greenland summer hunt, the West Ice hunt, and the White Sea hunt). Its use is likely to continue to dominate and even to increase if the poor ice conditions in winter and spring, which have characterized recent years and which limit the ability of sealers using hakapiks to reach live seals, persist. It is an effective weapon from a humane perspective when used by a good marksman with the right ammunition and firearm." and "In 2007, of a total of 1738 animals killed by 19 vessels, 6.35% were killed with a hakapik in the Gulf and 1.26% on the Front."99.245.37.46 (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Wh-wh-what??? You think that the Equipment and Methods section is fully referenced??? Outside of my additions and the rifle reference it's all OR.
"One method of killing seals is with the hakapik: a heavy wooden club with a hammer head and metal hook on the end. The hakapik is used because of its efficiency" hakapik article says (citation needed)"; the animal can be killed quickly without damage to its pelt. The hammer head is used to crush the skull, while the hook is used to move the carcass." Hakapik article says (citation needed)
The hakapik is a tool of hunters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Hunters who operate on the "front" off the northeast coast of Newfoundland primarily use high powered rifles. The hakapik is then used as a last resort in retrieving the animal from the ice floe, and ensuring it is dead." Point to the reference.
You said...."...quoted from a reference." I think there's an either an "in" or "out" missing there. Claiming that a reference from a peer reviewed document is OR is like the defendant in a criminal trial moving for a summary judgment during discovery. No, you can't decapitate an argument simply by attacking the bonafida nature of a peer reviewed document. You think it's perfectly clear that hakapiks aren't even mentioned in ops. at the front, although the EFSA clearly points out the fact that in one case it had to be used 3 out of 8 times to kill the animals in question. Huh. That's very interesting. Here, tell me again how "you don't kill baby seals any more." Mr. Seal-hunt supporter. There's another study I should add. The DFO even stating that harp seals up to at least 6 weeks of age are considered "Neonatal" by them. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/Publications/ScR-RS/2007/ScR-RS2007_008_E.pdf
You know what I think? I say we just erase the existing Equipment and Methods text and add the EFSA text. At least that way there's a citation instead of all this opinion and OR. Clearly it's needed. A 3rd grader could have done a better job. You're in a state of seal hunt supporter denial and anyone reading this can see it.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Naw. But, feel free to propose some text. Otherwise, I guess it'll stay as it is. It was the sentence you were complaining about - 90% using rifles - that was fully and completely referenced. Please re-read what I posted. Much of your stuff is OR from the EFSA document. Please point out where the EFSA says that 3 out of 8 times the hakapik had to be used (in what year) to kill on the Front. Your arguments are pretty insulting. It's obvious you have as serious a bias as you think we have.99.245.37.46 (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm done. Unless you tone down your rhetoric and attempt to come to consensus, I'm not going to discuss this with you any further. Without consensus, you will not be making any edits to this article. Come back when you want to discuss, rather than bandy about insults.99.245.37.46 (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


My bias comes out when I face someone as blindly vehement as yourself. You're lucky that I'm not some lunatic vegan insisting that fish should now be called "sea-kittens" ref: PETA.
I'll come up with proposed text. I like the no-nonsense approach of your quote but will obviously combine both of ours. Of course I'll leave it open to debate.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not YOUR article 99.245.37.46 (seal hunt supporter). YOU will discuse any edits from now on. You are deleting agreed upon verbatim. That's a violation of discussion treaty and you will from now dforward be treated as a hostile editor. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Just waiting for 99.245.37.46 to justify his removal of agreed upon verbatim that he himself recommended. We'd like to clear things up here. Any answers as to why you'd remove your own recommended and agreed upon language? It was discussed as an addition to the History/Newfoundland section. Now suddenly it doesn't belong there? Either speak now or forever hold you peace.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking to end the edit war, keeping up a hostile tone will not help much. Just my tuppence.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ramdrake. Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter would be the first person to tell us that the end to wars are reached through dialectic. Until 99.245.37.46 decides to come to the table we will have no movement. Now, who's more interested in ending this edit war? Nevertheless, I'd rather see this article frozen in time than see it captained by a bias editor down the slippery slope of subjectivity. You can see throughout all my discussions and edits that I am the one being fair and reasonable with my offerings, capitulations and edits. My ears are always open to reason. You know me from the Cousteau quote. Didn't take much to make me happy there did it? Six characters later ("In 1978") and I was happy. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Recommended text addition to the History/Newfoundland section, "In 2007 the commercial seal hunt dividend contributed about $6 million to the Newfoundland GDP, a fraction of the industry's former importance." --XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been some discussion, between XB70 and myself on his talk page concerning this change. He agreed that the wording of an earlier draft was a bit skewed, specifically the word "mere," which has of course been discussed on this talk page earlier. My sense of the word was that the intent was to stress the historical differences in the fiscal aspects of seal hunting in Newfoundland (and let's not forget poor Labrador! I think that wherever Newfoundland is discussed it should be "Newfoundland and Labrador." That's the proper name, no? People are just too lazy to write Newfoundland and Labrador all the time, I guess...) I proposed a copy edit that removes any POV, and carries the intent of the entry, that is, that a once important industry for Newfoundland (and Labrador), has only fractional importance today. As long as the cites support the claim. XB70, can you link directly to that source? so I don't have to search for it? Thanks in advance. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the ref on the seal hunt contribution to GDP specifically in 2007: http://www.economics.gov.nl.ca/E2007/fishery.pdf . That comes specifically from the complete GDP overview site here, where you can see all the different categories and highlights etc., here: http://www.economics.gov.nl.ca/E2007/default.asp . I suggest we ref this link. The one ending in, "default.asp". Yes, Newfoundland and Labrador are now considered one providence. Lazy people, or those just trying to save space, simply use "NL" to abbreviate it.
Okay so here's what we have, "In 2007 the commercial seal hunt dividend contributed about $6 million to the Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) GDP, a fraction of the industry's former importance."--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Equipment[edit]

Still waiting for discussion. IN HERE.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The reference supporting the firearm comment does NOT support your edits. In fact, there are several broken links in the article right now. The information that was drawn from those should be properly referenced, otherwise the information should be removed. And will be, at some point.99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed edit to E & M section.
As with any hunt the equipment used and the methods practiced will vary with environmental conditions and the size of the prey being pursued. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej610_sealswelfare_en,3.pdf?ssbinary=true Section 2. In general, seal hunting employs the use of two primary methods, shooting and blunt force trauma. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej610_sealswelfare_en,3.pdf?ssbinary=true Both have been shown to be humane killing methods if they are used correctly, under good hunting conditions. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej610_sealswelfare_en,3.pdf?ssbinary=true Section 3
Fire Arms - Canadian sealing regulations control the caliber of the bullets and the minimum muzzle velocities, which can be used. In order to insure greatest lethality rifle muzzle velocities may not be less than 1800 fps and shotguns of no less than 20 gauge slug. Rifle bullet calibers must be greater than .22. http://www.sealsandsealing.net/resources/IVWG2005.pdf Section 3.3.1.
Clubbing/Blunt Force - The traditional equipment used in most Northern seal hunts is called a Norwegian hakapik, although other club types are allowed by hunt regulations as well. Canadian fisheries regulations specify that, “Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the forehead until its skull has been crushed." Since the end of the "whitecoat" hunt in 1983 hakapiks are being used far less. ref. (29) http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-93-56/latest/sor-93-56.html In Namibia young seals are usually clubbed with a wooden pickhandle, a much less effective tool than a hakapik. ("pickhandle" wiki article link will be inserted) ref: EFSA Q 2007-118 Section 1.3.5.1.
Both – In cases where the beginning of the kill sequence was initiated with a rifle or shotgun but failed to render the seal either dead or irreversibly unconscious, hakapiks or other clubs are used to end the killing sequence. ref http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej610_sealswelfare_en,3.pdf?ssbinary=true Section 4.2.2.1.
Inuit - The Inuit hunt primarily adult ringed seals. Since the hakapik is not recommended for adult seals, the rifle is the preferred equipment in their Northern Arctic Summer hunt, West Greenland hunt and White Sea hunt. ref http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej610_sealswelfare_en,3.pdf?ssbinary=true Section 1.3.1.1.
Canadian commercial harp seal hunt – Here too rifles are primarily used. 90% of sealers on the ice floes of the Front (east of Newfoundland), where the majority of the hunt occurs, begin the killing method with use rifles. Since the average age of the seals being targeted in this hunt is much younger than those in Inuit hunts hakapiks play a larger role. Although it is used much more widely in the Gulf of Saint Laurence, the hakapik is not excluded from use at the Front. In recent years Hakapiks are shown to be used between just over 1% up to 10% of the time in either region (Front or Gulf) depending on ice conditions for the given year. ref. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scientific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej610_sealswelfare_en,3.pdf?ssbinary=true Section 4.2.2.1.
Open to debate. I put goodies in there both for hunt supporters and opponent to preempt as much editing as possible. I have additional citations where needed although much of it comes from EFSA and the existing citations. I think now would be the time to jump in for anyone on the sidelines since we are aiming for the fairest and most coherent section possible.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Problems: the hakapik is not a "club", and is consistently distinguished from a simple club in the EFSA document - unless you want to talk about Namibia, it is MUCH more accurate to talk about firearms and hakapiks; add text, fully and completely referenced, stating that 90% of sealers on the Front use firearms - just as is in document already - NOT what you've put in; remove OR regarding increased use of hakapik vs. Inuit hunt. As is, I am opposed to this replacing the current section.99.245.37.46 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've read your recommendations on this text and agree with your assessment that "Club" is a bit broad and not applicable to most hunts. I wanted to intro the genre of such instrument with the generality. I agree though. It reads a little awkward. I'm busy right now but will return this evening.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We were making some progress here. Anyone can tell by my suggestions that I'm not being unfair.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
99.245.37.46, I have added all the links to the exact section of the referenced documents cited. There is zero percent OR in my edit recommendation. Additionally, since clubs are included in some seal hunting, as you alluded to, the hakapik first falls under the genre of club. I have changed the heading of "Club" to "Clubbing" and then distinguished the differences from there with the addition of the Namibia hunt.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have described it as a "cudgel," but my verbiage is - admittedly - archaic, and outmoded. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The cudgel article gave me some ideas. I've changed some of the verbatim in the clubbing section to separate the hakapik more from the word "club". This IS an article on seal hunting in general not just the Canadian commercial seal hunt although it is the largest seal hunt on the planet. I've also added the words "Blunt Force" to the Clubbing subheading to address 99.245.37.46's concerns about morphing the hakapik into a club, which it is not. Insofar as my removing the text that the commercial seal hunt uses the hakapik more than the Inuit hunt; no. The EFSA and the Canadian Fisheries act both mention that adult seals are not to be hunted with a hakapik since the Inuit hunt primarily adult ringed seals. I'm aware of the "Playing of the Inuit Card" initiative by the Canadian government and that misinformation campaign doesn't fly here. Also, I'm aware that many commercial seal hunt interests would like to play off that they don't kill baby seals anymore when they still do, and that also doesn't work in a peer reviewed environment. Outside of that I have now established consensus. In absentia, I've also addressed some of 99.245.37.46's concerns too. I'm now making the motion to have the article unprotected and moving forward with the edits.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I had originally edited in "90% of sealers on the ice floes of the Front (east of Newfoundland), where the majority of the hunt occurs, begin the kill process by use firearms. [1] This does not exclude the use of other sanctioned tools like clubs or hakapiks from being used on seals where rifles were not effective in rendering the seal either dead or where the seal regained consciousness.

Any trouble with that tweaking? Some people didn't like it so we found ourselves here. Interestingly also, some people would prefer others argue their point for them.

RE: POV pushing. I didn't want to make you do this Hamster Shandwich, but, please read all the links in my recommended edit to the E&Q section. From simply reading the passages you'll see that not only does the E&Q section need elaboration, but it's also just poorly written. Finishing the killing sequence with a hakapik where the rifle used to initiate the sequence did not suffice is mentioned at the very end as if it is almost inconsequential and rarely ever done. You'll see that in reality this happens as often as 3 out of 8 times. And, the differentiation between the commercial hunt and the Inuit hunt, where hakapiks are almost never used is not even mentioned. The current section makes me believe all seal hunts use the same equipment and methods, including the one in Namibia as you have seen generally uses pickaxe handles. We could add. "In regards to the Canadian commercial seal hunt..." at the beginning and then continue with my other tweaks?

I don't want to add it but, if the E&M section were so complete, where is the section on skinning knives? See Hamster Sandwich, this section is missing lots. The question is, at what point does the information given become irrelevant to the average wiki-reader? Since there are as many contentions with Inuit versus commercial seal hunt, hakapik versus rifle and lethality versus non-lethality in the seal hunt this section needs to be handled accordingly. Go to some of the Youtube videos on seal hunting and read the comments below the video. You'll see that many of the people leaving comments need clarifications and wiki is here to do it. Wouldn't you agree? --XB70Valyrie (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposed lead into the section as pertains to the Canadian seal hunt, "In regard(s) to the Canadian commercial seal hunt..." I would, however, rephrase the wording slightly in the following description, from the one you had earlier proposed, at the lead of this thread, so:
"In regard(s) to the Canadian commercial seal hunt, the majority of the "NL" based seal hunters initiate the kill using a firearm. Reportedly, in three out of eight attempts the animal is not killed by shooting, and the hunters will often/sometimes kill the seal using a club, or hakapik of a type that is sanctioned by the governing authority <link>."
That lede simply states facts. I prefer an unvarnished approach. The "equipment" and the descriptions of them need alone be included in this section. The links to EFSA and Gov. websites only support the material as regards to regulations. Of course, the addition of statistical material is going to be a helpful addition! Why ask, particularly where the data is supported by a .gov webpage! :) Also, it would only be mete to point out the difference between the weapons used by the northern indigenous peoples regarding their hunting techniques versus commercial hunters. We strive for completeness. I suppose the only argument I could really foresee here, is, "Does three out of eight times constitute sometimes, or often?
I'm afraid you're under the impression that you are "doing something" to me, in engaging me in this discussion. Please, do not worry! All I am asking is that the editors here maintain a neutral stance; to me this means putting everything in its proper place, and keeping the wording very crisp and precise. A section about "equipment" should pertain only to that equipment, and where applicable, the regulations that govern their use. Similarly (for example), the section dedicated to the "pro/con" sides of the issues regarding the hunting of seals (for whatever purpose/motivation), would cover that aspect in detail, including the arguments concerning the use/misuse of seal hunting equipment. I'm not sure how to respond to the "skinning knife" question, other than to ask if there is a regulation pertaining to the use of a particular kind of knife? (I think it's pretty obvious that the dead seal will be skinned, but the process of skinning should go under the Sub-heading ==Processing the animal== or something that describes that aspect. Skinning, tanning, transportation, wholesale sales, product manufacture, and retail sales should be described in that section.)
I think I'm all tapped out for now, other than to state - for what it's worth - that I don't believe very much at all of what is on the internet, and that people's comments, (particularly at a website like YouTube) are almost invariably dismissed by me a being, at the very least, "badly informed." I'll await the input of all interested editors. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay so lemme see. I'll copy the sections together here you and I agree on and add/change some verbatim just to make it work grammatically:
"In regards to the Canadian commercial seal hunt, the majority of the hunters initiate the kill using a firearm. Reportedly, in one case, three out of eight times, the animal was not rendered either dead or unconscious by shooting, and the hunters will then kill the seal using a hakapik or other club of a type that is sanctioned by the governing authority. (we then continue here) 90% of sealers on the ice floes of the Front (east of Newfoundland), where the majority of the hunt occurs, use firearms.[28]
Canadian sealing regulations describe the dimensions of the clubs and the hakapiks, and caliber of the rifles and minimum bullet velocity, that can be used. They state that: "Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the forehead until its skull has been crushed," and that "No person shall commence to skin or bleed a seal until the seal is dead," which occurs when it "has a glassy-eyed, staring appearance and exhibits no blinking reflex when its eye is touched while it is in a relaxed condition."[29]
Hakapiks - One method of killing seals is with the hakapik: a heavy wooden club with a hammer head and metal hook on the end. The hakapik is used because of its efficiency; the animal can be killed quickly without damage to its pelt. The hammer head is used to crush the skull, while the hook is used to move the carcass."
I don't think the last paragraph is needed. It's redundant to the first. Okay. Any other suggestions, comments, questions? Please feel free. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit warring[edit]

There are many reverts on this page. I am reminding everyone that edit warring (see WP:EW) is not permitted. Any editor caught edit warring, or violating the three revert rule (WP:3RR), may be blocked. Please seek a consensus here on this talk page first, and seek some form of dispute resolution (WP:DR) if needed. Gabbe (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks have been earned, but they won't foster consensus. I've protected the page instead and will extend the protection as necessary until there is a consensus over the disputed issues. While protection is in place editors should use whichever dispute resolution steps seem appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If there are any edits which have a consensus than the best procedure would be for the active editors to post their agreement and then place an {editprotected} tag. Then an admin can make the edit. Since the last article descended back into edit warring soon after it was last unprotected, I suggest that premature unprotection should be avoided. Have other dispute resolution steps been taken? Has anyone posted to the relevant noticeboard or started an RfC?   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian Connection to NL Sealing[edit]

Seal Hunt Not an Exclusive Proud History to Newfoundlander's and Lab's..... I was reading excerpts from the book "Of Seals and Men: A History of the Newfoundland Seal Hunt" by James E. Candow, 1989. In this book it is shown that in the early to mid 20th century Norwegian vessels and landed seals outnumbered Newfoundland's in the hunting grounds of "The Front". This seems to go against the argument that the seal hunt is "a proud, unadulterated Newfoundland tradition", or at least warrants an addition to the NL history section. I have a question. Does one have to be able to find the exact text from the book on-line in order to cite it as a reference in the wiki-article, or is the title, author and date of publication enough to use it as a ref.? --XB70Valyrie (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You people are evil and pathetic[edit]

This doesn't make sense, why are we listing designers who refuse to use fur?[edit]

a portion of the article is worded "One high-end fashion designer, Donatella Versace, has begun to use seal pelts, while others, such as Calvin Klein, Stella McCartney, Tommy Hilfiger, and Ralph Lauren, refrain from using any kind of fur.[33][34]" in all likelyhood many more designers use seal fur and many more designers do not use seal fur. I think this should read "controversially high end fashion designer Donatella Versace recently began using seal pelts in some of her lines." and if you want you can have a second sentence stating that "A considerable number of fashion designers including X,Y,Z designers are critical of the use of fur." Geranimals doesn't use fur either, but that is just useless filler too! --216.67.26.149 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC) SEAL HUNTING MUST STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.40.163 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

five countries???should be six[edit]

They forgot the country USofA.Native people that live in the "North Slope" Alaska hunt seal year round.Barroweskimo (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in Protests or Celebrities[edit]

Nothing in Protests or Celebrities regarding protests of Traditional Inuit people hunting seals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowellt (talkcontribs) 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What Law?[edit]

Protests: [...] Costco stated that politics played no role in their decision to remove the capsules, and on April 4 that year, they were again being sold in Costco stores.[113]

The law was approved by the Council of the European Union without debate on July 27, 2009.[114] Denmark, Romania, and Austria abstained.[115] [...]

Which law? Doesn't say anything about it... seems to be something missing. -Kloth (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Alaska Seal Hunt[edit]

As it stands, the entry states that seal hunting takes place in five countries. Further down it mentions that there is a seal hunt in Alaska. If we assume that Alaska is still part of the US, it means that seal hunting is also happening in the USA.

Regardless of the bickering, assertions on the page as it stands contradict each other.--66.183.177.97 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Current Population Numbers[edit]

It seems as if the population numbers may be out of date and the references listed do not appear to link to sources giving the numbers quoted in this page.

These quotes appear to cite Canadian DFO numbers but if you see http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-phoque/myth-eng.htm , the DFO Government of Canada website quotes the number of Northwest Atlantic harp seals as an estimated 9 Million NOT 5.8 Million. This appears to be a large discrepancy. Maybe this is an error on the DFO website, but it seems problematic that the references in this page all seem to link to old news paper articles and other out of date information. An updated number seems to be required. -27.33.48.252 (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1], Animal Welfare in Canada.