Talk:Seal hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Seal hunting is part of WikiProject Animal rights, a project to create and improve articles related to animal rights. If you would like to help, please consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Newfoundland and Labrador
This article is part of the Newfoundland and Labrador WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] 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
71.48.44.65, what do you mean, who wrote what? Eliezg, great suggestions about what to expand the article with. If there's a splitting of the article: Instead of calling the separate article Canadian seal hunt I'd suggest calling it Commercial seal hunting, since the Canadian hunt is closely linked to the other contries, and Norway for example is the lead buyer of the Canadian pelts, and there is the same type of commercial hunting other places but in lesser degree. Besides, a ban on pelts, would be a ban on buying pelts from every country's hunt, every country's commercial hunt that is, the exception would be from the inuit (Canadian) hunt, which would still be legal. So if the articles are divided, both articles would in huge degree be about the Canadian hunt, one about the Commercial hunt, and the other one about the traditional hunt and methods and inuits and history. Therefor better to name the other article Commercial hunt, instead of Canadian. Bib (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a split would be nice. I recently began teaching in a Yupik Eskimo community (Chefornak, Alaska) that still practices subsistence hunting. I have even went along on a seal hunt, even though I am forbidden by law to participate in the killing of marine mammals. This article says nothing about the way subsistence seal hunting is practiced by the natives in Alaska, or about the value of seal in the Yupik way of life. Wcbpolish (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 redirectedthuglasT|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? thuglasT|C 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Changes made by SLimVirgin

Is it possible to have all the changes made by SlimVirgin in the last 12 hours reverted? SlimVirgin is an administrator at wikipedia and with the 20+ changes they made they basically gutted the article and turned it into a soapbox for their own anti-sealing views.

SlimVirgin has removed much material that does not support his/her own anti-sealing bias as well as rearranged material to change it's context and support their bias. He/she has added material that is completely out of context to support their bias. I believe this totally flies in the face of the spirit of wikipedia.

I believe the article should be reverted to what it was before SlimVirgin made todays changes. The article may have needed to be tidied up but that's no excuse to gut it and remove all neutrality. At least SlimVirgin should be required to backtrack and separate the tidying up from the heavily biased content changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattedcalf (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You've e-mailed me saying the same thing, but you haven't said what you object to exactly. Most of what I did was move material. Anything that I removed was because it was hard to understand (a few sentences were almost incoherent), and that was on both sides. Please say exactly which material I removed that you think should be restored. If you have a point, I'll restore it myself for you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If the text now seem to be very anti sealing to you, Fattedcalf, it's nice if you help edit the article. The SlimVirgin edits are neutral point of view edits, mostly moving around text, headlines, and other wikifying edits. Good work in my opinion. Bib (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Fattedcalf would contribute but the wikipedia police have now blocked Fattedcalf's IP address. I know because I am Fattedcalf (obviously writing from a different IP) I guess you're not supposed to challenge the mighty admins edits? The thought of adding new edits to the article is somewhat discouraging as I had previous solidly referenced contributions deleted yesterday by SlimVirgin while "tidying". It must be discouraging to other contributors as well to see their work removed or altered without explanation. SlimVirgin didn't offer any of their changes for discussion here in the talk section and attempted to conceal many of them in edits that were summarized as "tidying" or similar. In a short e-mail conversation with SlimVirgin last night I pointed out one of the problems with the edits and SlimVirgin agreed to make a change. Hours later the change has not been made, but Fattedcalfs IP has been blocked??? Wikipedia is a great idea. It shouldn't be allowed to be hi-jacked by animal rights extremists. When Fattedcalfs IP is unblocked and I have time I will attempt to return my own and other contributions to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.70.22 (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Anti-Sealiing Bias

This whole article has an anti-sealing feel to it.

Compare the images used here to other hunting pages such as fox hunting, deer hunting, bear hunting, waterfowl hunting, or fishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.168.216 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

The footnotes near the end of the article seem to be broken; for example, note 56 points to note 36 according to the preview, but doesn't actually take you to the note. It's hard to tell which source goes with which note. I don't know how to fix this, although I am prepared to learn. 70.171.53.10 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Elle (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elle, I'm not seeing that myself. Can you say more about what you see — not in preview, but when you look at the page as a whole? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV / Fringe Sources

I just wanted to address the issue that Wiki whilst reflecting neutrality does not put weight on either side of the argument. The fact that a lot of the wording of this article makes it sound like the majority of people in the world support sealing is farcical. It's a very, very small minority who support it or even allow it in any way shape or form. Words like 'the protestors' and 'animal rights groups' makes it sound like a fringe culture against these barbaric acts, whereas reality puts a different weight on the situation whereby the vocal minority are in fact the hunters and the even more minor minority of the consumers. 122.107.65.2 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but we're in a difficult situation on Wikipedia. We have a large number of editors who are aggressively opposed to any animal-advocacy position. We therefore have to bend over backwards, and more, to present animal-related issues from both points of view. This does mean that articles end up slanted to the anti-advocacy POV, even though, as you say, there are very few newspaper articles, books, or papers that defend the pro-sealing position, and we are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how anyone who agrees with the wikipedia policies could agree with what 122.107.65.2 wrote. In the 1930's a majority of Germans elected Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. By the reasoning of SlimVirgin and 122.107.65.2, if Wikipedia had been around in Germany then, it's articles should have all been based on Nazi propaganda rather than NPOV and verifiable facts. Anyone reading Wikipedia would have thought that the Holocaust, and other Nazi atrocities, were the right thing to do. If SlimVirgin agrees with 122.107.65.2 then SlimVirgin should be blocked from making any further edits to this article, and should probably be barred as a Wikipedia administrator. 122.107.65.2 should be blocked from editing this article also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.101.40 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There are reliable sources on facts that benefit the anti sealing views, and there are reliable sources on facts that benefit the pro sealing views. 76.70.101.40, I'm not sure who it is you are referring to as propaganda, is it the volunteer organizations you refer to? To those who know: Can we use volunteer organizations as reliable sources, what's the wikipedia policy on this? Government sources, even though they are pro sealing, are considered reliable sources. (Right?) Bib (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This should answer your question: these sources can only be used as sources about themselves, not as sources about what a third party said or did. Governmental sources have are considered more reliable because they are accountable for fact checking. Generally speaking, organizations with an avowed anti-sealing goal may not be considered reliable, while larger animal conservation organizations without a reputation for being activists (such as the WWF) would be considered more reliable. News sources reporting on sealing-related events, however, would in all likelihood be considered fairly reliable.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It does not mention volunteer organizations in specific, good to know. People have to read up on a organization before possibly using it as a reference then.Bib (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with Ramdrake here, because I don't see why a volunteer organization should in and of itself be regarded as a questionable source. If it's a self-published website, then yes (self-published means by one person, as a rule). But if it's an established organization, then it counts as a reliable source, whether staffed by volunteers or not. We can't define the sources in terms of their POV, which this would end up doing, because the only people who support seal-hunting are those who are making money out of it and the governments who defend them. You can't define in advance that these are the sources you will regard as most reliable, or you end up with an NPOV violation. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement "...the only people who support seal-hunting are those who are making money out of it and the governments who defend them" is blatantly false. You only have to look at the pro-sealing views section of the article to find at least four that don't fit either category. I have defended the seal hunt and I do not fall in either category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.84 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to sources. The only sources who defend the hunt tend to be financial beneficiares of it, so it's important not to prioritize them in any way, because then we'd be prioritizing one POV over another, and in this case it's probably the minority POV. We're supposed to reflect the views of the sources, not side with any of them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain how the CVMA is a financial beneficiary of the seal hunt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.84 (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this statement: The only sources who defend the hunt tend to be financial beneficiares (sic) of it. I believe you are painting the picture with a much gtoo simplistic view. Reliable sources can emit positive comments on the hunt or one of its aspects (such as the CMVA report) without supporting the hunt per se, or being a beneficiary of it in any way, shape or form. Besides, there used to be a section in the article about how the hunt acutally cost the Canadian government much more than it gained from it; if this were true, then the Canadian government is not benefiting from the hunt, but is still defending it. Like I said, the picture you're painting is much too simplistic.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The CMVA did not support the hunt. It said simply that, in the opinion of a small number of vets, most of the killing was humane. And the report specifically states that it does not represent the opinion of the CMVA. The Canadian government benefits very much from the hunt, even it does have to subsidize it. I don't mean to paint a simplistic black and white picture. I'm in fact arguing against doing that, by painting activist groups as necessarily less reliable. Some are and some aren't. We have to judge each source on its individual merits. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read my statement: I didn't say the CMVA supported the hunt; I said they made some positive comments (about the humaneness of some of the hunting tools and techniques). And again, I'm not arguing about setting aside all activist groups; I'm just saying we need to be critical about them, and we can't (most of them) accept what they say at face value unless we've already looked into the reliability of what they say.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Slimvirgin, I'm not saying that all volunteer organizations should in and of themselves be regarded as questionable sources. Some would pass the reliability criterion (mostly the larger ones). But one needs to be careful: an organization that bills itself as having a goal "to end seal hunting" (such as IFAW) would be questionable, IMHO, and for exactly the same reasons that we wouldn't accept a statement about PETA coming from a site like "Petakillsanimals.com" (something I believe you're very vocal about over at the PETA article). Some volunteer organizations, such as WWF (to name just one) aren't activists, and therefore have more credibility. But even a report from a volunteer organization, if echoed by a reliable newspaper, would be acceptable. I'm not saying that government sources are more reliable because they support seal hunting; I'm saying they tend to be more reliable because most government have a reputation for fact-checking prior to issuing a statement; that's very different. That some governments also support seal hunting is not really relevant to their credibility, one way or the other.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ramdrake, that's not how the policies work. Even if a group says its aim is to end seal-hunting, that in no way means it's not reliable. All sources have their biases. The Canadian government has said it strongly supports seal-hunting. Are you saying that means we ought to stop using it as a source? The governments emphasize the facts that support their position and ignore the others; the organizations do the same in reverse. That's why we have to treat both equally. There is no comparison between IFAW, WWF, and a hate site called Petakillsanimals, which is run by a commercial lobby group that's being paid to do it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's exactly how policy works. An activist group, which doesn't have any reputation for fact checking, and declares it exists for the sole purpose of ending an activity, cannot be considered a reliable source about this activity, as their information may be tainted by their views. This is the exact same reasoning we're using to exclude petakillsanimals.com from the PETA page, and it should work both ways. Now, if a large organization that's not only about ending seal hunting (again, my example of the WWF) were to say something about seal hunting, I'd consider them a reliable source. However, that's not the case for every two-bit organization that hasn't established its own reputation for fact-checking. We need to be able to tell reliable info from mere propaganda, whether for or against.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Your second sentence is only partly correct. An activist group that openly declares it is in favor of something may be a perfectly reliable source. What matters is whether they appear to fact check, who relies on their information, where does it get published, do good newspapers use them as sources. If yes, then so do we. The IFAW is not a two-bit organization by any standard. It's a highly respected animal welfare group, and yet that was what you used as an example of an unreliable source.
It's odd that you would distrust a group dedicated to the subject, but trust one that likely knows less about it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
An activist group that expresses a criticism about an activity and declare in their goal statement that they want this activity stopped, should see this criticism double-checked for accuracy, as there always is the obivous possibility of their goal imparting a bias on their criticism. I'm aware that the IFAW is a large organization, and that worries me less than their stated goal. That they wrote a paper out of their research and that that paper got accepted by what looks like a peer-reviewed publication talks to its reliability, and means I have no objection to the inclusion of this particular research in the article (it's been presumably already checked by an expert third party). However, I'd still be cautious about the stuff they write, as there is the obvious possibility of bias due to their stated goal.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you believe the Research Defence Society (a lobby group dedicated to defending the use of animals in research) should not be used as a source without being double-checked for accuracy, because of its stated goal? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The main reason for being suspicious of any SIG is their goal imparting a bias on their statement.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Bib:I wasn't actually talking directly about sources. I was talking about the implication made by 122.107.65.2 that Wikipedia should reflect the views of a majority, regardless of whether those views are supported by quality sources. But on the topic of sources - on Feb. 29 SlimVirgin made a large number of changes to the article that were supposedly NPOV but in my opinion were meant to taint the article with SlimVirgins anti-sealing bias. One of those references added by SlimVirgin was over 10 years old, yet SlimVirgin used the information as if it was current. Another source added by SlimVirgin was an unlinkable reference to another encyclopedia article. Are those quality sources? I think not. I am the wikipedian formerly known as 76.70.101.40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.100.84 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial revert

I've reverted some changes reporting on studies regarding the efficiency of the hakapik to properly kill seals. As it stood after modifications, the article said the hakapik had been found an efficient tool by the 2001 IFAW study; they did no such thing: the CVMA study came to that conclusion. Furthermore, it put the conclusions of the IFAW study (that the hakapik is sometime not used properly) in front of several other studies which concluded just the opposite. Since the IFAW sutdy is the minority conclusion, putting it in front is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and thus I have reverted the paragraph to resolve both these issues.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

After your revert, it still says the hakapik has been found an efficient tool by the 2001 IFAW study. (It now says: A study of the 2001 Canadian seal hunt conducted by five independent veterinarians, commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), [2] concluded that, although the hakapik is a humane means of hunting, many hunters were not using it properly.) Secondly, the other studies does not conclude the opposite. They have another percentage. There are three different studies, of which two are conducted at the same time and same place. There is no mentioning that the 100 animals the one group tested, were the same animals the other group tested. Both reports may be accurate. Bib (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I misstated myself. The CMVA study did find that the hakapik was a proper hunting tool, when used efficiently. The IFAW study stated that, "although the hakapik is a proper hunting tool, some hunters misuse it". They are using the CMVA study conclusion. Also, the IFAW study found that 17% of the seals killed with the hakapik did not have their skulls properly crushed (complete unilateral or bilateral crushing is required); the CMVA study found that 86% of the seals had their skulls completely crushed; only 2% (if you read the study) did not show appropriate crushing of either side of the skull (as opposed to 17% for the IFAW study). This is why there is such a contrast between both studies. Several other studies had findings similar to those of the CMVA study. I'm not aware of another study which replicated the findingd of the IFAW study. Hope this makes things clearer.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian regulation on whitecoats

So I can't find where it says in the regulations that there is a ban on hunting whitecoats. I only find No person other than a beneficiary shall sell, trade or barter a whitecoat or blueback. So the rule is on the trading, which makes it unprofitable to hunt them? Bib (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bib, DFO has it stated on their Myths and Realities page.
Myth #1: The Canadian government allows sealers to kill whitecoat seals.
Reality: The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable whitecoat pups are targeted by sealers during the commercial hunt.
The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal – and has been since 1987. The Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. The seals that are hunted are self-reliant, independent animals.
--MoralAnarchist (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, MoralAnarchist. Since asking the question, I have found it in the Marine Mammal Regulations too. It says 27. No person other than a beneficiary shall sell, trade or barter a whitecoat or blueback.[1] Though it says Disclaimer: These documents are not the official versions, and that the official ones should be at the Part II of the Canada Gazette. I don't quite know how to find them there, cause I've searched, but haven't found them. If anyone find them at the Canada Gazette, please write a link. Bib (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fur seal hunting unbiased introduction needed

The introduction is anything but neutral. Alex (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your changes to it made it biased. The introduction is neutral, as it simply mentions that the hunt occurs and gives some figures. Your change adds a link that is unnecessary and not related to anything else in the lead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)