|
to the seal hunt, but I have some issues with it that make it difficult for me to criticize the hunt the way I used to.
My uncle and aunt live in Newfoundland. My father's family was born and raised in Newfoundland. And the main source of income in the area is fishing. If there aren't any fish, there is no money, and if there aren't any fish, everyone suffers.
The seal hunt is not killing for killing's sake. While I personally would stand in front of the seal killers myself and beg for them to leave the seals alone, I can stand back here and see it a different way than as a passionate animal rights activist.
The seals are "used" in every way. Meat is used, fur is used and there is no waste. And it's not like killing them is a plan to exterminate them, it's a plan to cull them. Because one of the main competitors for the fish that is the major income for most people there, is seals. The seals eat up an extraordinary amount of the fish, making the amount that fishermen can collect a lot smaller. To Newfoundlanders, seals=deer in the U.S.
We all love deer, but if we never had to kill a deer, their population would expand and many of them would starve to death. I don't condone ANY of this, but I understand it. Humans have been very bad in this situation, because if we hadn't wiped out the natural predators of the deer and other agrarian animals, the coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats and other such carnivorous species, the population of the deer would not be a problem--to us and to themselves. We're the bad guy here, and in a way, we're also the bad guy in Newfoundland.
If the domestic predators hadn't been eliminated, the seals population would remain at a status quo. If anyone remembers, the first rule of Darwin's Law is "Survival of the Fittest." We know this, but we don't practice it anymore in reality. In human history, even those who would have died at some point during their lives from illness, disease or other causes, are being kept alive longer. In some instances, we make heroic efforts to keeping someone with a major medical condition alive. It's a sign of compassion for many, but it weakens the entire race when these measures are taken. Think about it: every single time we find a cure or a therapy for a major disease or condition, mother nature bounces back with an even deadlier disease, which then takes even more efforts to resolve. It's not very nice, but it's real, and it's life.
We have always tried to place ourselves above the other "animals" in this world, and whether we're out to save or to savage, doesn't matter. We have an arrogance that says we are in charge, and we are going to take matters into our own hands.
But let's face it: we've already looked at another thread recently where we were concerned with the fact that a scientist pointed out that we will be the cause of earth's destruction if our population continues to accelerate and grow. And this holds true in the seal hunt in Newfoundland, where there is a fierce competition between the needs and wants of both man and seal. If we stop the seal hunt, we pay with less income, and less fish for those who live in Newfoundland, and whose stock in trade is fishing. If we continue to kill the seals, we find that we are failing our desire to show compassion toward these helpless animals.
While I often think that "ruling" the world might be a fun job, it's situations like this where even Solomon might have a hard time rending a decision. We can not "win" either way, because practicality is gained in one solution and compassion is sacrificed; and in the second scenario, we might gain a point for humanity with stopping of the massacres, but our friends, the Newfoundlanders (Newfies), and all those who buy their fish, would suffer in ways we can not even imagine.
I can not stand watching the massacre because I love animals. And if I love animals a little more than I love mankind as a whole, that's my business. But the fact remains that when there is a strong contest between two species for a single source of food such as there is in Newfoundland, man will always overrule those of us who would see the campaign dead.
Trying to introduce a new source of income to these people is really a good idea. But think about it--many of us would be very upset at the price of fish when it would go up as a result of letting the seals live. We think of ourselves first in this, and as a result we modify things to get our own way, and to hell with the animals in the scenario. I don't think that there is a majority of us who would be willing to give up our salmon, cod, haddock and other seafood, or pay significantly more for the ability to consume the fish. Most people in the world, and most people even here would never give up their right to eat beef, let's say, or other such "manly" source of protein. If we were to make a choice between turning meadows to cattle grazing land or offering grains for both fuel and consumption, most people would say the hell with the fuel and to hell with a vegetarian (or modified) diet. Most people are completely selfish, and we need to remember this. If we're not selfish ourselves in this area, we're hard put to try and change someone else to such modifications, because it will never happen.
And let's face it--allowing the seals to continue to breed without any management at all, would increase the population to the point where they will eat ALL the fish, and begin, like deer, to starve to death when there is no longer any fish to eat.
Is there an alternative? I don't know. And if there is, how can both parties be satisfied with an outcome? We express outrage at the thought of these small animals being killed, but to the people who must kill them, there is more a sense of resignation than there is of any kind of enjoyment. If you think this is bad, think about the killing of cattle and pigs in slaughterhouses, or the chicken or turkey "industry" where animals are not even considered "alive" and having any kind of pain. Or think of those young cattle which are killed for veal, or lambs, or any one of a long list of animals we consume for food.
I recall an episode of a long gone TV sitcom, where one of the characters grew up on a farm, and told the others that when you grow up on a farm, it is difficult sometimes to look at some animals as "pets" or anything more than a source of food. She said that they learned never to name certain of the animals because they knew that someday that animals was going to end up on their plates for dinner.
If most people had to kill animals to supply meat for the dinner table, there would be a lot more vegetarians. We tend to look at a wrapped package at the grocery store as something other than something that was once alive, breathing and enjoying life. We don't see the horror in the animals' eyes when they are led to the slaughterhouse, nor do we care to think about it. But this is the same situation as the case in Canada with the killing of the seals--EXACTLY the same. We like everything packaged "just right" and we don't look at the consequences we create for ourselves when we try to have it both ways. Animals are killed for food, or killed so that a food source might remain, or killed as an impediment against our obtaining of such.
We have to decide what way we will go, and it doesn't matter how outraged we are about the culling. And we must understand that these people are not gleefully doing away with the baby seals, they are doing it because they must. And we CAN NOT criticize them for doing the dirty deed, because if we were in the same situation, how the hell do we know we wouldn't do the same?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
