Talk:Seal hunting

Belgium ban on seal products

Recently Beligum has imposed a ban on all seal products turning to be the first European country to adopt such a ban. I put a line about this with an appropriate reference in media in Demand for Seal products section. But the user named EuroTrash came here and deleted it with comment "Removed entry irrelevant to demand for seal products. Also: No demand means no need to ban. No?", which also-part made my day.

It seems to me EuroTrash is wrong stating its irrelevance. Basically, this ban means there is no demand for seal products in terms of both economics and ethics in Belgium. Or Belgians don't want such demand to exist.

Nevertheless, whether it should be in Demand section or in Protest section (or some special section), I think we should put this info into the article to give new facts to readers over the issue. Being afraid of EuroTrash with his cleaning broom, I put the question for discussion. Ollyn 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the info about Belgian ban in Demand section again with an explicit mention of word "demand" in order to lift preliminary misunderstandings whether it is about demand or not. EuroTrash, if you don't like something in the text that I posted (the section), come here and discuss it rather than deleting factual information.Ollyn 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Eskimo

I think that the use of the term eskimo should be changed to Inuit. This is mostly due to the fact that eskimo is considered an offensive word to the Inuit peoples and is pretty much an out-moded term.

• Not true, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo QuinnHK 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as i hate it when people label words as "offensive" he is right, no one in canada uses eskimo anymore, and it has pretty much changed to inuit over the past decade. --Dallin Tanjo22 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the use is in Canada, I am teaching in the village of Chefornak, Alaska and the people here are Yupik Eskimos. Eskimo is the preferred term in western Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcbpolish (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Is it just me, or does this article seem biased? -- Kmsiever 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a few pro and any-sealing people switching the article back and forth a little. Perhaps they can discuss wording on the talk page rather than the article page. FYI I was actually expecting this article to have more on historical sealing operations much like the History of whaling and whaling articles. - SimonLyall 07:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I just took the liberty of marking this article with a NPOV tag. It's filled with unsupported, unattributed POV statements, both overt and subtle. Conclusions are drawn from statements where the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the stated arguments, uses uncited sources, and the coverage seems slanted. And lots of weaselwords too. --Codemonkey 14:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with your NPOV tag. This has the potential to be a very informative article if it were done right. A thorough section on the history of sealing around the world (Canada is not the only country that has a seal hunt, after all), followed by different sections on the arguments for and against might be a better solution. --Crabbyass 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The page has been cleaned up significantly. With a few minor exceptions, all of the facts are referenced. As such, I'm removing the "original research" tag, and changing the "totallydisputed" tag to a "POV" tag. Bueller 007 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that alot of the pro-sealing research was replaced and edited to make the viewpoint seem more geared towards anti-sealing.

I am sorry to say so, but I have to agree with those saying that the sealing article is a mess. The main focus seems to be the sealing debate rather than the sealing as such and too much space has been allocated environmental activist organisations. Lots of abbreviations are used without explanation. The Canadian case, even though I acknowledge its importance, is too dominant. Take for example the section on Ecological feasibility. First it refers to DFO (?) without telling the reader that this is a national Canadian governmental institution. Secondly it refers to the Harp seal population as if the Northwest (mostly Canadian) population covers all Harp seals in the world. It is to inaccurate, biased and too little encyclopaedical. At this stage I think we would be better of scraping the whole article and start it all over on the basis of some main principles:

• It should cover the sealing: History, Distribution, Technology, Management, Market, Importance (society, economy, and policy).
• It should be covering the global story and make it clear when national perspectives are presented.

Who will start the work and who is willing to take the blame from all the POV-happy people preferring the article to be a mess?

---Arnejohs 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

? No, i don't agree with this Quote: At this stage I think we would be better off scraping the whole article and start it all over on the basis of some main principles. You could try to improve the current article instead. You don't remove hours of work because you believe the article is needing a NPOV tag. Bib 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

However i agree with this History, Distribution, Technology, Management, Market, Importance (society, economy, and policy). It should be covering the global story and make it clear when national perspectives are presented. Bring it on, this article needs more basic facts IMO, (neutral point of view facts of course). Bib 14:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes

What a terrible article this is. I've removed the worst of the POV, but there's a still a lot in there, and very few sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I first requested sources in December [1] so if they're not forthcoming soon, I'm going to remove the claims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Can someone list the non-neutrality claims so others can try to address them? Marskell 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week since this was post, and no one has listed any NPOV issues, so I'm deleting the NPOV tag. Bueller 007 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it needs more under the History headline about earlier hunting of whitecoats, bluebacks, considering it used to be legal. Now the history is more of a sunshinestory, because it's not written about earlier hunting of suckling pups, earlier use of regulations, including methods and so on. Cause the "humane" hunt which regulations allow today, is new, and the article needs history on how it was. Bib 02:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the neutrality tag needs to get back up, since there is new information added and removed, and sources give different information on the hunting, and there is much information which needs to be added before removing the neutrality tag. (Oh, and information on for example the "Harp seal" article, it could also use a neutrality tag, since information about the harp seal is important in issues pro or against sealing. Bib 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the neutrality tag back up. Many paragraphs have a biased tone, and there seem to be a lot of weasel words used.

This is my favourite part (which I will edit later so it may not say this when you read this discussion) "However, there is criticism against the involvement of celebrities. One of them is that their remarks are more easily reported on the media than those by the experts on the issue, although the media is more responsible of this. Also, these celebrities often say the seal hunting industry as unnecessary and small and tell the fishermen to change their jobs to seal watching, however the jobs of the celebrities such as music and fashion jobs can also be seen as unnecessary and nonessential." Lurker 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this article still need the "Neutrality" tag? It seems like it covers both sides of the debate pretty well. --Crabbyass 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section cruelty to animals comes across as POVish to me. It basically consists of a list of objections to the hunt and reasons why they are wrong. Nothing factually incorrect in there, AFAIK, but the tone comes across to me as biased. Lurker 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias against Canada

What about the OTHER countries doing the seal hunt? Greenland and United States? Why the hell is only Canada being listed? - T'Sura

I already answered this question on the harp seal page, but for the benefit of others who may read this page, the US is not a seal hunting nation. Killing marine mammals is against the law in the US, with some minor exceptions for native people. And Canada is the one killing hundreds of thousands of seals, obviously they are going to be a main focus of the article. Its also possible that there are more Canadians editing the english language articles, who will obviously know more about the Canadian hunt than the hunts in Greenland, Norway and Russia. Generic Player 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's find other countries too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

An article in the Canada Free Press from September 2005, states that the seal hunt off Alaska is much larger that the hunt of the East Coast of Canada. Can anyone confirm that a seal hunt does take place in Alaska and if so the number of seals taken in that hunt? HJKeats 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link for you: [2] From the link: The seal hunt in Alaska is a relatively minor aboriginal hunt in the Pribilof Islands that takes less than 1,500 animals each year and can hardly be equated with the slaughter of 350,000 seals each year on the nursery floes of the harp seal by non-aboriginal peoples. Levin in his statement to Congress cited the fact that the U.S.A. ended subsidies on the Alaska seal hunt in 1983. Bueller 007 13:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a bigger section on export to Norway, Russia (also more about hunting in Russia) and China, which are big importers of the peltz. Bib 00:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask: What the floikunstchilts is going on here? I just read the article and it's like a boxing match. Jab to the government here, jab to the seal hunt advocates there, what is this a tug o war of "facts"? C'mon folks, this is an encyclopaedia! I must agree with the NPOV here, and even though I have a personal view on the issue I wouldn't just blab myself on this page. Grow up, haha. Phil-hong 15:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is true that's why citations would be good and some pictures too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with this article. It was probably created as a result of what little protest celebrities tried to shore up. Someone should just delete this article or clear it into a clean slate so people don't have to see this mess every time they find out about this issue! Phil-hong 06:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

14,000 fishermen?

Do we have a cite on 14,000 fishermen? These two references give the annual amount at "$16.5 million in 2004" which is just a dozen seals and $1000 odd on average, which seems a little low. Are there really several thousand fishermen who catch just half a dozen seals for beer money? Cite needed. - SimonLyall 19:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems kinda silly having citations for every tiny little fact that is easily verified with google, but none the less I'll put one in there. Yes, the average income per sealer in the Canadian hunt is $1000. They aren't seal hunters as a profession, they are fishermen. The seal hunt doesn't last long enough to support people as their sole income. And to be fair, $1000 for a few hours of work is pretty good money, even if the work is pretty horrible, its more than just beer money. Generic Player 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not silly to cite facts to an encyclopedia even if the facts are easily verified. If someone wanted a site full of unbacked unbiased information, they wouldn't come to an encyclopedia. --Kirkoconnell 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

on articles such as this, where there a VERY strong and differing opinions everythin must be cited. Sure in some articles it isn't priority to cite certain information (it should still be done though), but whenever it is a highly opinionated article it is necessary.

Greenpeace and WWF

While Greenpeace is not an "animal protection organization", they do in fact speak out against the Canadian Seal hunt at least. And why is the WWF supporting the hunt an "interesting fact"? They are pro-hunting in general. Perhaps these two organizations should be mentioned as conservation organizations that oppose and support the hunt respectively?

Basically, WWF does not support seal hunting. It says it is not opposed to "sustainable harvesting of renewable bio resources" in general, but that doesn't mean they support the hunt. Statement that they are pro-hunting is wrong as well. They are not opposed - it is not in their interests, since they are a conservation group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.176.2.12 (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Complete Re-edit of this page

This page is appalling. The seal hunt in Canada is big news now, and surely this page has received a lot of hits recently.

It MUST be cleaned up, ASAP.

I recommend that the sealing page take the same format as the whaling page, which I recently edited. Whaling

First, the history, and the manner of the hunt. Then outline the sealing policies of the different countries who still conduct the practice. (Needless to say, Canada will receive a substantial amount of cover.) Then, outline both sides of the sealing debate.

I have edited the article to follow this format. At first, it will appear somewhat empty. I hope someone steps up to help fill in some more info. I have provided a few links researchers can follow to get data.

I tried not to delete any info that was in the pre-existing article when I reformatted it. If you think I deleted something that you wrote, just check the code for the page and you will probably see that I just commented it out because I thought it was irrelevant or I couldn't figure out where to put it in the new article.

Cheers,

Bueller 007 20:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regulations

Which are the regulations for sealhunting? Those should be in the article. Bib 18:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are no international regulations. If I'm incorrect, I would recommend that we put this in the "Modern Sealing" section. I would suggest that national regulations just go under the individual countries' entries in "Sealing Nations".

Bueller 007 19:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, since regulations are not the same for every country. Bib 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity involvement

Many of the celebrities claimed to be in opposition of the hunt, namely the Dali Lama, have been reported to have no official stance. So please, don't post names of supporters without a credible reference.

Please sign your inputs in the discussion. Well a credible reference, several articles mention him, such as this bbc article news.bbc.co.uk, and the source i already wrote. Where is the report you mention, claiming this is false? Bib 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

next thing you know, PETA will tell us Hitler will be supporting the hunt. lol, just a piece of humour on my part poking fun at them dumb hippies. As Ted Nugent says "the cuter the critter, the tastier the meat"

--216.46.128.94 16:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(The former statement is just not in the spirit of this site. Please read the guidelines)

A statement is made that "The song is based upon a poem of Rolf's writing that graphically depicts the nature of seal hunting and his highly controversial opinion of the seal hunters themselves." What poem? No citation for the alleged opinion of the seal hunters, yet alone a controversial one. It should have citation. SeanyJoshua 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"ragged-jacket" "raggedy-jacket"

So is it "ragged-jacket" or "raggedy-jacket"? Anyone have a good source with the correct term? Bib 20:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google for '"ragged-jacket" seal' turns up 459 hits. '"raggedy-jacket" seal' turns up 59 hits. This is despite the fact that "ragged jacket" and "raggedy jacket" by themselves turn up approximately the same number of hits (817 and 767 respectively). I think we have our answer -- the term is extremely rare, but it appears as if ragged-jacket is the preferred form. Bueller 007 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See Dictionary of Newfoundland English URL: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/dictionary/default.html . Both terms have been used in Newfoundland pretty much synonymously..

Yes, both appear there, which is why I recommend the use of "ragged-jacket" for the reasons stated above. We have to have some kind of uniformity. Also, please sign your name when you post here. Use four titles. Bueller 007 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hunting of whitecoats

Hmm, so apparently there is a stage between whitecoats & ragged-jackets, namely a "greycoat". Greycoats are very similar looking to whitecoats, i wonder if anyone can search for information whether hunting of greycoats is prohibited. Bib 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is stated in the Wiki article in numerous places and referenced in many of the links at the bottom of the page. When they begin to change color, they are open game, so long as their mother is gone. Also, please sign your name when you post here. Use four titles. Bueller 007 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, is hunting of whitecoats actually prohibited in Canada? Quote, "In December 1987, a government decision prohibited the commercial harvest of whitecoats or bluebacks and hunting from large vessels." [3] Quote, "The hunting of whitecoats has been banned in Canada since 1987, but it is still permitted for personal use." Bib 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"The hunting of whitecoats has been banned in Canada since 1987, but it is still permitted for personal use." -- This line appears nowhere in the article that you provided. The first quote is correct. It is 100% illegal to hunt whitecoats in Canada. Also, please sign your name when you post here. Use four titles. Bueller 007 14:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Russia, on the other hand, is another story, here is a quote, "Russia, sealers usually only kill whitecoats." [4]Bib 01:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bueller 007, trying to correct the errors you point out in my writing. Since i wrote those questions under the headline "whitecoats" at the same time, i signed at the bottom. Now i have added my signature two more places. There were 2 sources, you may find the quote "The hunting of whitecoats has been banned in Canada since 1987, but it is still permitted for personal use." in source 2 (http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-seal-whitecoat.htm). Bib 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a second, reputable, source on that, then go ahead and write something about it. But at the moment, nearly every single article cited in the article states that the hunting of whitecoats has been banned. The webpage cites no resources, merely "environmentalists" or something. Further, the webpage is pretty weak. It looks like something some kid doodled up in his bathtub. I wouldn't trust anything from that site. Bueller 007 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents worth here - As far as the hunting of whitecoats in Canada goes, there is no mention of anything in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) website nor in the Marine Mammal Regulations about the taking of whitecoats for personal use (or at least nothing that I can find). Any reference to the hunting of whitecoats states that it's illegal - I've yet to find an exemption to this. Furthermore, DFO is the Canadian federal government division that regulates the seal hunt, between DFO and the Department of Justice they are the definitive source for what is legal and illegal in Canada with regards to the seal hunt. This may be redundant, but just as a rule of thumb, any domain that ends with ".gc.ca" is a Government of Canada website, basically like ".gov" in the US. -- AntiPropaganda 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, everything cited states that the commercial hunting of whitecoats is banned. People in certain coastal areas are allowed to kill 6 seals a year, and people above 53 degrees are allowed to kill as many as they want. There is no license required, and no age requirements. This is even clear from the DFO site linked above. Generic Player 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Pictures

I'm not sure it's appropriate to use pictures in this article.

1. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, pictures of sealing are offensive to most and inflammatory to many.
2. Pictures like the one just posted are chosen carefully by anti-sealing advocates to evoke pathos. (For example, if the cameraman had looked the other way, he may have seen nothing but white ice and baby seals for miles.) Photos are SELECTIVE by nature and therefore not appropriate for a sensitive issue such as this one.
3. Regardless of the article content, images stand out, and too many people who support the hunt will feel that use of images such as these makes the article biased. I don't think this article will EVER pass the NPOV test if there are pictures in it.
4. Yes, it's a "slippery slope" argument, but if you start using pictures, this article is going to start overflowing with them as anti-sealing advocates and pro-sealing advocates add more and more to prove their point.

I would like to suggest a no-picture policy for this article. Except, perhaps for the "History section". A picture of an old sealing ship, or some other neutral thing like that.

I would recommend that if you find a good website with lots of seal hunt images, you add it to the lists of links in the bottom with a name like "Seal Hunt Images" or something. Bueller 007 06:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i vote no for the suggested no-picture policy for this article.

i vote yes.

Quote, Bueller 007, (06:38, 4 April 2006): 2. Pictures like the one just posted are chosen carefully by anti-sealing advocates to evoke pathos. (For example, if the cameraman had looked the other way, he may have seen nothing but white ice and baby seals for miles.)

Answer: Even if so, it is an accurate image of the hunt. But maybe we could find one image taken by pro-sealing advocates, and use two images.

Here is a previous discussion about images, [5] and they have kept controvercial images. Blood and hunted dead seal on the ice is not enough to keep a picture from a sealing article. Bib 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous argument. "Pictures shouldn't be used because they may cause bias to one side." Bleagh! We're NPOV, the readers aren't. We strive to present the most information possible. In almost entirely all circumstances, articles with pictures are better than articles without pictures. The pictures add to this article, and therefore, they are staying. --Cyde Weys 02:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

People take offense at lots of things. That has never been considered a reason to censor wikipedia. Its been pretty consistant that images is better than no images, and not to remove "offensive" or "graphic" images if they are relevant. Generic Player 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think pictures should be used, but why don't we just use the picture of a whitecoat being beaten? its about as NPOV as the one that is there - the canadian government gives incentives to use the entire seal, not just the pelts (at least i think i remember reading this in the paper). Anyway, my opinion: yes to pictures, but preferably more NPOV ones. SECProto 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the seal which are being hunted are "beaters". Canadian government gives incentives to use the meat or the pelts, not both. Regulations 8.33.1 "Every person who fishes for seals for personal or commercial use shall land the pelt or the carcass of the seal." [6] Bib 23:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the pictures themselves aren't NPOV. This reminds me of Jon Stewart doing an impression of George W. Bush, saying, "It's not fair, the facts are biased against me." Those are real and accurate photographs of a seal hunt; there's nothing POV about them. And I don't know what other photo you're talking about, so could you post it here so the rest of us know what it is? --Cyde Weys 23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The other photo is not a specific photo - sorry for confusion. I was just referring to the fact that seal hunt protesters often have pictures of whitecoats being killed - even though it has been illegal since 1987 or whatever. I now see that the picture itself is not POV- but it doesnt show the whole picture (eg, the other living seals that could be surrounding one patch of blood/carcasses). The article on slaughterhouse doesnt show a picture of cattle with their in a bucket and blood everywhere - it shows the animals being led in and the meat at the end. anyway, i don't really care much. SECProto 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The slaughterhouse article shows a picture of pig carcasses with entrails hanging out being inspected. How is that (dead pigs) different from this case (dead seals)? Generic Player 18:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because there isn't blood all around, and there is no sad looking living pig looking at the camera with the dead ones in the background. SECProto 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, if I'm outvoted, I'm outvoted. Although I still think it's inappropriate, I will agree to the use of images so long as they are of the post-reform seal hunt. No pictures of clubbed whitecoats. But just so you know, the image that is currently being used was taken by Jonathan Hayward, and licensed to Associated Press Photo/Canada Press, who are not in the habit of providing their images for free on the Internet. See: [7], [8] A perfunctory Google image search would have indicated this. There are lots of freely available seal hunt photos out there. The link I just posted includes some that I would assume are freely available, as they were taken by HSUS and IFAW. By the way, Cyde, I don't really care for your response to my post. I would expect an "administrator" to be a little more civil. I have listed this picture as a copyright infringement for deletion. Cheers. Bueller 007 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

However the picture is not taken from a copyrighted website, but from a website where it is free for non-commercial reuse [9], reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Because otherwise is not stated by the author. Bib 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So considering wikipedia allows animated gif images, and screencaptures, it is easy to acces pictures which are not copyrighted. When we now are considering having this [10] picture of a "beater" sitting beside dead "beaters", it is ugly, but then again it is not a radical picture in comparison to which images we can use. Even if someone made a gif image of a hunter chasing, clubbing, and poking a "beater" in the eye, it would be representative for legal hunting. When we have a picture of hunting which regulations allow, we add the picture with fitting information. However, if we were to show some picture of illegal hunting, we must write "illegal hunting", and write about the extent of it, and whichever accurate information we have access to. A picture of someone killing a whitecoat, can be fitting in the history section, if we write "commercial hunting of whitecoats is not permitted since 1987", and represent facts in the description of the image. Bib 01:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against a no-pictures policy on any article. I do, however, think that a picture should be carefully chosen. Given the contentious nature of the debate, I would avoid a picture of bloodstained ice and heaps of carcasses. This is an example of the kind of image I'd use (but this specific image is copyrighted do no-one post it): http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/pics21/sealer.jpg

It clearly shows what is involved in seal hunting (a "neutral" image of a ship doesn't) but isn't full of blood and gore which would lead to a debate on POV. It shows a club being swung at a seal, leaving no doubt about what is happening, but, at the same time, it isn't graphic. If someone could find a non-copyrighted image like the above, I'm sure those of us who have strong views on either side of the deabte could live with it Lurker 14:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

References need to be cleaned up

The references definitely need to be cleaned up! Right now they're just a list of external links without even any link text. Please see the citation templates for some ideas on how to properly reference other resources. {{cite news}} is probably your best bet. --Cyde Weys 02:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of them. If I could get some help with the rest of them, that'd be great. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Links

Have a question about links: Can we have 3 headlines under Links? Such as one neutral, one pro-hunting, and one against hunting? Bib 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is thesealfishery.com a one man personal website? Bib 20:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not whitecoats

Is there any real reason for why whitecoats can't be hunted or is it just a political reason.--Mrebus 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Whitecoats are not hunted because there pelts are not valued on the world market. So be a little suspicious when you see all the pictures of the former beatle petting an adorable little furry white creature with beady eyes, as they are not hunted, and are not valued at all. As the PETA says, their strategy is 90% sensationalism and celebrity, less then 10% fact. This information I am giving you here came from the latest edition of Maclean's Magazine, a well-respected magazine that has top-notch reporting.

--216.46.128.94 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The whitecoats suckle their mothers, and the hunt is only allowed for non-suckling pups. They only suckle for 12 days or so, before their mothers leave them on the ice and the pups start to lose the white fur.Bib 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

connection to new health food craze

At this current moment I cannot find the Maclean's article that I would like to cite, but the seal blubber is a humongous source of Omega3 fatty acids, which is what all them health nuts are goin crazy over rite now. The article states that in a few years it could even overtake the pelts in the value gained from the seals. Does anyone else have a sunscription or can find another source that says similar, so that it cna be included in the article, as that is a very valuable piece of information.

--216.46.128.94 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources of Omega 3. Cod liver oil is the most well-known and widely sold in health-food shops. It is also present in land animals and vegetable sources. Seal oil doesn't seem to be a particularly common source of Omega 3. Lurker 14:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect issue

Whyyyyy does seal clubbing redirect here?

If no one has any objections, I'm going to cap that and start redoing the seal-clubbing page. Blast-san | Talk 09:01, 08.01.06

Why shouldn't it redirect here? They are the same thing, surely? Lurker ^talk 12:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

seal massacre

read the following article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/fishermen-charged-over-seal-colony-slaughter/2006/09/04/1157222070836.html

these *#!C%#'s need to be shamed. please use the power of wiki and the net to put the spotlight on them. Paul Goodwin and Damien Hislop should have their names and photos spread all over the net.Anon-o-man 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't believe this would be in line with Wikipedia's mandate. QuinnHK 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

neutrality (again)

I'm removing the neutrality tag. This article is well sourced, and I think, for the most part, well balanced and well written.

If you restore the tag, please state your reasons here. Bueller 007 08:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article... one day it's NPOV, the other day it's not. At least it's constantly a controversial topic, with strong interests both ways. Bib 04:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased Encyclopedia Article?

I am a Newfoundlander, born a bred. I know “sealers”. I just have a few ideas to pass to those who lack information in this area.

Whitecoats have not been killed in the fishery since 1986. It is against regulation so any pictures of whitecoats are bias.

The numbers in this article seem rather odd and I can’t pinpoint a reference.

Canada (mostly Newfoundland AND LABRADOR) is not the only country who has a seal fishery.

A article in Wikipedia is a resource, not a discussion page.

What about modern techniques for sealing? Clubs are not used only rifles. This was a source of income for thousands of people who wouldn’t survive the winter without it.

Also can someone who understands how block editing this page from ALL users. Intelligent Wikipedins have opinions too.

Mr. Prohibition 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Bismark36

The article does not have any pictures of whitecoats, and it's written that it's illegal in Canada to hunt them. As for the numbers, you're right, if they seem odd, we should definitly put references up for every number. An article is not a discussion page, but this discussion page is a discussion page. As for the modern techniques, yes I agree we should absolutely have a section for it. I started a headline in 2006 on this, but since i only added a stub, it got removed for some reason. Why do you want to block this page from all users? Bib 11:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous tag

Why does this have an unencyclopaedic tag? It clearly needs cleanup, but that the subject is inherently unencyclopaedic is frankly laughable. I think the tag should be romoved. Thoughts, anyone? Lurker 10:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the content of the article needs to be deleted then re-submitted. The entirety of the article is based upon the controversy, whereas I believe it should be based upon the history and menthod/practice of seal hunting. There is a defenite bias.

What other tag would you suggest? I'm open to suggestions, if you find a more appropriate one please replace the current one. Dave8904 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It already has a TotallyDisputed tag, what else does it need? Lurker 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed

I just removed the following from the cruelty to animals heading:

"While hunters sometimes begin the process of bleeding out seals prior to skinning, video evidence shows sealers do not often allow any time to pass between cutting the seals open and skinning them - thus it is unlikely seals are bled out properly prior to skinning. It is therefore probable that a large number of seals indicated in this study would have been conscious not only while they were bleeding to death, but also while their skins were being removed. Video evidence exists that shows seals moving as if alive at the time of skinning; the CVMA and Malouf Commission studies, while conceding that some incidents of live skinning may occur, have stated that seals have a swimming reflex that causes muscle contraction to continue even after death."

There are no verifiable sources to support this excerpt and it also includes several weasel words. This should be left out until some verifiable sources are found. Edmoil 22:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

re: pro-sealing views

Is there any way to prevent people from tampering with the pro-sealing links? I just had to change them because someone had edited them to access incorrect pages.

yours, x6-4-6x —Preceding unsigned comment added by X6-4-6x (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Split article

Would it be reasonable to create a separate Harp Sea Hunt (Canada) or Canadian Seal Hunt article? The harp seal hunt and attendant debates absolutely dominate this page - presumably because of its high profile and controversial nature. Almost all the references, links and lists are related to the harp seal. On the other hand information about (a) current subsistence hunts by Arctic peoples - extent, mechanisms, uses and (b) the history of sealing, both as an industry and for it's impact on wild populations is patchy and swamped in this article. There is a whole section devoted to listing off Hollywood celebrities, but there is no mention of Aleuts, Ainu, Chukchi, Koryak, Nivkh - entire ethnicities that subsist (or subsisted) on seals. Nor is there mention of walrus and Northern fur seal (which were severely depleted but which continue to be harvested for subsistence purposes), nor of Japanese sea lion (which were driven extinct), nor of Japan at all, for that matter, where many pinnipeds have been extirpated. In fact, there is no distinction made between "seals" (phocids), "fur seals" and "sea lions" (otariids) and "walruses". I'm not sure how to "formally" propose a split, but it seems that a better organized Seal Hunting page with more global, ecological, historical coverage of the topic and a separate one focussed on the history and controversy regarding the harp seal hunt in Canada would be serve this topic well. Thoughts? - Eliezg (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a question WHO WROTE THIS???!!!! 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)--71.48.44.65 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)EIPY

Seal Hunt Name

Has it already been suggested that the name be changed to sealing? We dont call fishing the "fish hunt". I dislike the name personally. Obviously, it would be redirectedthuglas^T|C 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there is deer hunting and it usually involves guns, but i still think it makes it seem like an annual celebration or something "the seal hunt"... Ideas? thuglas^T|C 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)