I never realized there were so many Canadians in the forums.
I was just in Toronto..pretty cool city. I couldn''t find where all the seal clubbing was. Younge St?
I don''t have a problem with hunting. I just have a problem with how some people do it. If you want to hunt something, in my opinion you should hunt it. Not set up a huge bait and wait for an animal to show up only to kill it while you sit up in a tree drinking beer. Where the hell is the hunt in that? Lazy ass idiots in my opinion.
Actually clubbing is a really humane way to kill a seal. It is no less effective than a bullet from what I have heard.
I say take it a step further. You can hunt, but you gotta eat/use what you kill. Also, no cheating with weapons. Make it a true sport and catch/kill it with your hands. Otherwise it''s barely a step above dynamite fishing.
It''s YONGE street but pronouced young (I have long forgotten why), and our ice has melted so the clubs go away for another day.
Could someone with a scientific background explain why culling herds of animals is better than leaving them alone?
The reason most commonly given is that they''d otherwise eat everything in sight, resulting in mass starvation and potential extinction. Since the existence of that species in numbers sufficient to warrant culling indicates that their species was not permanently damaged by a lack of mass-hunts before humankind came along, how does that reason make any sense?
It makes sense because Humans have had an impact on the enviroment themselves. We are now part of the balance of nature. Not to do anything about overpopulation would be worse than trying to do something to preserve a balance.
edit: Of course this my spin on it. I have always enjoyed science but I am not a professional in the field.
I don''t have a problem with hunting. I just have a problem with how some people do it. If you want to hunt something, in my opinion you should hunt it. Not set up a huge bait and wait for an animal to show up only to kill it while you sit up in a tree drinking beer. Where the hell is the hunt in that? Lazy ass idiots in my opinion.
There was a big controversy locally about exactly what you are talking about. The state is revoking the licenses of those caught using bait to hunt. I agree that it is cold-blooded to shoot tame animals.
I don''t think I''m gonna participate in this thread. My only interjection will be, if there''s anything I used to find decidedly evil about Canadians, it was the weirdness of their bacon.
Spot778 Wrote:
It''s YONGE street but pronouced young (I have long forgotten why), and our ice has melted so the clubs go away for another day.
I was a foreigner, cut me some slack! 
I say take it a step further. You can hunt, but you gotta eat/use what you kill. Also, no cheating with weapons. Make it a true sport and catch/kill it with your hands. Otherwise it''s barely a step above dynamite fishing.
And you can''t cook it either. Just eat/use it on the spot.. 
Anyways, I would think that clubbing is a very inhumane way to kill seals. What if you miss the brain? Basically stabbing them in the back/side, then having to whack a screaming, bleeding, pained animal.
If it must be done, shoot them in the head from 50 yards with a sniper, so they don''t see you coming.
Could someone with a scientific background explain why culling herds of animals is better than leaving them alone?
The reason most commonly given is that they''d otherwise eat everything in sight, resulting in mass starvation and potential extinction. Since the existence of that species in numbers sufficient to warrant culling indicates that their species was not permanently damaged by a lack of mass-hunts before humankind came along, how does that reason make any sense?
The short answer to your question is that people have generally wiped out the predatory species upon moving into an area because things that eat other animals are both competition and potentially dangerous. In the absence of those predatory species, the populations of the prey species are unchecked, and can grow to nuisance levels. If the hunting is properly executed, then the people who hunt are simply replacing the indigenous predator species. My scientific background? Lots of Discovery channel.
![KrazyTaco[FO]'s picture](https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/pictures/picture-100746-1453603815.jpg "KrazyTaco[FO]'s picture")
Kill the damn things. Kill the damn things.
I''m shocked that this has not been said...
""It''s coming right for us!!!""
""It''s coming right for us!!!""
A Canadian?
Anyways, I would think that clubbing is a very inhumane way to kill seals. What if you miss the brain? Basically stabbing them in the back/side, then having to whack a screaming, bleeding, pained animal.
If it must be done, shoot them in the head from 50 yards with a sniper, so they don''t see you coming.
They''re probably much more likely to miss with a gun than a club. We''re not talking about spec ops trained snipers here.
Another to keep in mind and something PETA doesn''t say, it that we''ve all seen the cute little white seal pups these aren''t the ones targeted. It''s the ugly old ones not the cute newborns.
Thanks for the explanations, Gorack and Gaald. I''m glad there''s a logical reason beyond ""They''re eating the fish we enjoy very much.""
It''s amusing, though, how, when fixing the imbalances we''ve created in nature is fun and/or profitable (as in this circumstance) there''s a great hue and cry that it''s our sacred duty to rectify the situation. When preserving the balance involves sacrifice and hardship (say, in preserving old growth forests or filtering out coal plant emissions), our duty to avoid disturbing nature suddenly becomes a tad less important... 
"KillerTomato" wrote:Could someone with a scientific background explain why culling herds of animals is better than leaving them alone?
The reason most commonly given is that they''d otherwise eat everything in sight, resulting in mass starvation and potential extinction. Since the existence of that species in numbers sufficient to warrant culling indicates that their species was not permanently damaged by a lack of mass-hunts before humankind came along, how does that reason make any sense?
The short answer to your question is that people have generally wiped out the predatory species upon moving into an area because things that eat other animals are both competition and potentially dangerous. In the absence of those predatory species, the populations of the prey species are unchecked, and can grow to nuisance levels. If the hunting is properly executed, then the people who hunt are simply replacing the indigenous predator species. My scientific background? Lots of Discovery channel.
This is partially true, but what it really comes down to is there''s only so much fish to go around. As noted by the discovery channel, humans kill off predatory species because they''re competition--seals are a predator that competes for fish. Either humans get them, or the seals get them. Guess what, humans win.
300,000 seals is a HELL of a lot of seals. What has the seal population been historically (I''m talking ancient history, not recent history). The main predators of seals are killer whales and sharks, two predators that weren''t that prolific even before humans started killing them off. Do we really know that this large a seal population is out of whack? This could be completely normal, but is interfering with what humans want. Humanity, of course, being the single most overpopulated species on the face of the planet.
Clubbing seals for the good of the environment, my ass. If we were that concerned with ecologically sound population control we''d be policing ourselves. The seals are in the way, so they get to go. It''s economics, not ecology.
Humanity, of course, being the single most overpopulated species on the face of the planet.
I really don''t understand comments like this.
![Pyroman[FO]'s picture](https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/pictures/pictures/picture-27.png "Pyroman[FO]'s picture")
Clubbing seals for the good of the environment, my ass. If we were that concerned with ecologically sound population control we''d be policing ourselves. The seals are in the way, so they get to go. It''s economics, not ecology.
This isn''t nearly as contradictory as you seem to think. You''re forgetting the first rule of any human endeavour ""Humans come first"". We''re clubbing the seals for the good of the environment, because that''s the only option we have when we take away suicide. We''re here, we''re staying and we''re not going to kill ourselves for some damn seals. So we kill them instead to keep the animals around we prey on, namely fish. They''re competition, we take em out. You feel real bad about it until you have to starve because a wolf attacked and killed your livestock. Basically I''m agreeing with Gorack.
So apparently we need to have a mass killing of humans in order to reduce our population. Who should we start with, Paladin?
This is the Devil''s Advocate speaking. Hi. Maybe, instead of killing people, people just stop having litters of kids. Two will suffice, don''t you think? Just ignore that old guy in the robe and funny hat and pop an Ortho-Tricyclin or two.
Damn Straight Bagga! Zero Population Growth...
No more 10-12 kids each. Each person can have 1 child, or each couple could have 2
This is harsh reality speaking. Hello. According to the CIA World Factbook the birth rate iin the US is 2.07 children per woman which is quite close to your ""two will suffice"" comment. The countries that don''t have access to Ortho-Tricyclin are engaging in the mundane business of trying to survive. In the absence of technology (and government safety nets), a large family often makes the difference in life and death.
If they did the two for two for 100 years the populationw ould drop enormusly.
Wouldn''t that be swell!
Damn Straight Bagga! Zero Population Growth...No more 10-12 kids each. Each person can have 1 child, or each couple could have 2
When did the leader of China join the forums?
Why do people need 8 kids? I know the whole ""this is america"" and ""freedom"" sort of goes against my comment, but you can''t do everything you want anyways, so whats one less freedom?
The cost of educating all these children is bananas, so anyone that has more kids should not get a tax break, they should have to pay more taxes to make up for them.
I guess I should go back to China, sniff, at least my ideas were more liked there, sniff....
Gorack, it''s simple arithmetic. Someone somewhere is having too many kids, hence the population problem.
I don''t see a problem. I have provided numbers.
Pages