Debating the future of the seal hunt
By Aaron Beswick
FOR THE SOU’WESTER
Kirby Brown remembers heading out to the ice floes from St. Lewis, N.L. in a small rowboat.
He’d hop across the ice pans, hakapik in hand, for a couple dollars a pelt.
Brown’s world has changed – he’s traded in the rowboat for a $1.3-million 65-foot dragger, the Northern Auk, and prices have skyrocketed in recent years to more than $100 per pelt.
But much has remained the same – the industry and Brown’s bottom line is threatened once again by anti-sealing protesters.
“Sealing is 20 per cent of my income – if I lose it, the viability of my enterprise will not be strong,” said Brown, who now resides in Green Bay.
Belgium and Holland have banned the importation of seal products. Germany, Italy and Austria have drafted similar legislation and there are calls for bans in France, Britain and Spain.
As part of the continuing efforts to save a hunt that helps keep Newfoundland and Labrador’s fishing fleet afloat, a Seal Harvest Advisory meeting was held in St. John’s on Jan. 9 and 10. Federal fisheries ambassador Loyola Sullivan, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) officials, Fish Food and Allied Workers’ union representatives, sealers, processors and many other stakeholders converged on the meeting to discuss the industry’s future.
“Fellers left a little more confused,” said Brown, who will have spent $30,000 gearing up before the Northern Auk slips its lines from the St. Anthony wharf for the Front.
Much of the discussion focused on the situation in Europe, where critical transit countries for seal pelts on their way to markets in Norway, Russia and China are closing their doors.
“The wording they’re using in their legislation references conservation concerns, welfare concerns and the idea that hunting seals is unethical,” said Rob Cahill, executive director of the Fur Institute of Canada. “There’s no conservation concern, which has been admitted by the European commission. Veterinarians have found practices used in hunting seals are appropriate for good welfare – determined by both the European Food Safety Authority and the Independent Veterinarians Working Group (IVWG).”
DFO is planning to implement the IVWG’s proposal that sealers follow – a three-step process of first striking the seal to render the animal dead or immediately unconscious, then perform the blink reflex test to prove the animal is unconscious and then bleed the animal immediately on the ice to end brain activity.
While some sealers are concerned that bleeding animals on the ice will create great publicity photos for anti-sealing protesters, Cahill explained it’s all part of forcing the European Union into a rational discussion through the World Trade Organization. Canada lodged its complaint in September of 2007.
“We know good conservation and animal welfare practices. As far as the morality and ethics, every country in the world hunts wildlife for various reasons – these European countries have major wildlife management programs,” said Cahill, pointing out that Germany hunts 1.2-million deer and 500,000 wild boar annually while Belgium and Holland trap over a million muskrat. “If they really want to address animal welfare then they should not be afraid to engage in dialogue to determine acceptable practices for hunting wildlife.”
Meanwhile, the Northern Auk rests at the St. Anthony wharf, furnace running, waiting to meet the seal herds at the Front.
“We’re professionals, we’ve got good gear and good boats, there’s no reason why we can’t do a professional job,” added Brown.
(Aaron Beswick is a journalist with Transcontinental Media’s Northern Pen newspaper and a contributor to the Sou’Wester.)
(Editor's Note: The federal department of Fisheries and Oceans says N.L. Fisheries Minister Tom Rideout was not at the seal consultations meeting in St. John's as was earlier reported. And DFO says Ambassador Sullivan did not say the campaign against bans in Europe were "10 years too late" as has been reported in media outlets. Responding to a reporter's question: 'How do you combat the message that's been out there for decades, that Canadians kill baby seals and that's cruel and you should stop buying Canadian products?' DFO says the ambassador's response was: "It's difficult because it's advanced so far...I would love to be in this position 10 years ago to advance it before it got such a foot hold in Europe, and most people close to the situation feel that a ban by other countries is imminent...it would be unpopular now for a member of Parliament in a European country to support the hunt."
Mike Swiler
Comment online since January 30th 2008Bridget,
Par usual you seem to be a little foggy in regards to information regarding the seal hunt. The only place 85% is mentioned in the 2002 report is in reference to the percentage of times it was seen that a sealer struck a seal on the head with a hakapik upon reaching it after it was already shot, this is not a break in regulations. The 2002 report stated “We believe that, currently, the large majority of seals taken during this hunt are killed in an acceptably humane manner.” The EFSA report states that the hunt is not a conservation issue and the tools used are humane. Both sound like endorsements to me and most of society realizes that nothing is perfect and there will always be cases of those who do not follow the rules. Most of us realize there SHOULD always be room for recommendations for making anything the best that it can be.
If you knew anything about the hunt Bridget you would know that the main concern whether it be of DFO or veterinarians is human safety, as it should be. Some of the recommendations made by veterinarians, depending on the exact implementation, could risk human safety. You would know this if you were at the DFO consultation meetings as I was, actually there wasn’t a representative from any of the anti groups, interesting. After studying the recommendations and discussing the ways they could be implemented DFO is ready to bring them into regulation. I would imagine they are quicker to bring in regulations regarding protestors because they are a safety risk, to themselves and sealers.
The “major flaw” you mention was discussed at the consultation meetings and I was in the room as it was discussed via conference call with the veterinarians of the IVWG. The veterinarians stated that the three step process should be carried out as it is written unless human safety is a concern when it would be acceptable for the seal to be brought onto the boat and immediately palpitated and bleed. You talk about stabbing a seal through the head and really such an act would destroy the brain thus inhibiting any chance of pain. What’s the problem? As far as the shooting, they are working out the details for different scenarios because they, as do most of us here on planet Earth, realize that nothing is cut a dry as you would like to see it.
The hunt is widely monitored by DFO via onshore inspections, fixed wing and helicopter monitoring and from ship. Can they watch everyone? Of course not, such an idea is idiotic just like every other hunter of any other animal can’t be watched.
The hunt is not inhumane, its not perfect but it is for the greatest part humane. You call for the hunt to be shut down but let me ask you address the same statements I have made to you on multiple other web sites which you have continuously side stepped,
“In closing, let me ask you this which I have asked you on other sites with no answer. What is your great plan? How is it that we are to control seal populations? I can tell you this as a fact Bridget, if the animal rights lobby is successful in having the seal hunt shut down it will only be 3-5 years and there will be a cull probably under a bounty system instituted in regards to Harp seals. The same sort of system which exists in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Baltic, off the coast of your home province for Grey seals and most likely many other places around the world. Now under a cull, nothing of the animal will be used. They will be killed and the whole carcass will be left as it is done in most of the places stated above. Also under a cull there will probably be less regulations and most certainly less monitoring in comparison to the industry based hunt we currently have. In reality when you fight to end the hunt you are basically fighting for reduced regulation and monitoring/enforcement. You see Bridget, no matter what type of hunt we have the main concern is animal welfare which in turn is concern for regulating populations to reduce the chance of starvation and disease. Every year seals are being seen in fresh water ponds and rivers and one can only assume it is in search of food. This would lead us to believe that starvation is a real threat as is endangerment of trout and salmon species.
Par usual, the animal rights lobby has no plan. They lobby for stringent changes and have absolutely no course of action for the explosion in species population once they have won a particular fight. In every case that I know of, problems arise from this explosion in population and everyone else is left holding the bag as the animal rights groups are nowhere to be found. They create a problem for the people who are left to deal with it and an even a worse situation for the animals they are supposedly helping. Again, what is your plan Bridget? Contraception maybe? Talk about government subsidies, such a program would cost taxpayers millions while in the present day hunt, sealers foot the bill. Oh right, besides the Coast Guard vessels ensuring safety and transporting monitoring personnel.”
I believe your final statement paints you for what you seem to be, a conspiracy theorist and the rest of your statement and your inability to answer my statements on countless occasions shows you as someone with only a minute knowledge of the subject.