The President of the Republic,
Palais de l’Elysée, Paris, France.
Mr. President,
In a letter dated April 25 last to the officers of the Société Protectrice des Animaux (SPA) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Mr. Alain Auvé, Technical Advisor to Ms. Nelly Olin, then Minister of the Environment and Sustainable Development, confirmed that the President of France at that time, Mr. Jacques Chirac, intended to prohibit trade in France in products derived from seals hunted in Canada.
President Chirac wrote to me on May 10 last to confirm that he intended to do so in order to “preserve the species in a context in which there have been changes in habitat as a result of climate warming.”
However, it would appear that, despite constant amendments to Canada’s legislation and regulations on marine mammals and slaughtering techniques, despite successive reports by the Eminent Panel on Seal Management and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, despite the precautions taken by our scientists and the enhanced compliance of our hunting methods, and despite the transparency that Canada has sought in allowing foreign observers to enter Canada during the hunting season, non-governmental organizations are manipulating information, images and the emotions of citizens and parliamentarians of all countries, particularly in Europe.
First of all, allow me to say that Canada, a signatory to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity, poses no threat to seal populations. The number of Harp seals, the species most extensively hunted, has even tripled in 30 years to some 5.5 million head today. The European Commission moreover recognized our prudent management on January 26 last by refusing to act on the European Parliament’s written declaration calling for a European boycott on Canadian seal products.
Allow me to add that I have commissioned a study by the research service of the Parliament of Canada on the impact of climate change on Canada’s seal populations. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), the Arctic is highly vulnerable to climate change and will undergo major physical, ecological and economic transformations. However, climate change will have numerous positive and negative effects on the cology of seals, and the net effect on each species will be the result of a complex weighting of various effects.
Without downplaying the extent of the impact of climate disturbances on the seal population, to state that the species is in danger is an intellectual shortcut that no scientist today is taking. Not to mention the fact that all seal species, whose feeding, migratory and reproductive behaviour differs from one species to the next, will not be affected in the same way.
Mr. President, I know you are sensitive to the rational, science-based approach. In that respect, I hail the position you expressed in your letter to Brigitte Bardot on April 18 last, in which you said you wanted to ensure “that species management is henceforth conducted on a scientific basis”, adding that “the status of the conservation of species is all that counts.”
Canada bases its seal hunting quotas on government and independent scientific studies, which are available on the Web site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and may be consulted by the general public at:
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque/report-rapport_e.htm
In addition, I can only be thankful that you informed Ms. Bardot that you wanted to “put a stop to the misconception […] that hunters and fishermen do not protect nature.” Indeed, who would believe that the Acadians, Quebeckers and Inuit who live year-round in contact with the natural environment, on which their culture, community and prosperity depend, are not knowledgeable and protective of the ecosystem?
However, Mr. President, I am satisfied that this rational approach is not embraced by those who discredit Canada’s image and that the media no longer rely on environmentalists, but rather on “animalists”, that is to say animal fundamentalists.
In conclusion, I would also like to express my concerns.
First, I believe that the animalist organizations manipulate emotions for profit. The constant use of the image of the whitecoat or “baby seal”, the hunting of which has been prohibited since 1987, is one of their main weapons in maintaining artificial pity and compassion. When John Hoyt became President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), one of the most influential animalist organizations, in 1970, it had 30,000 members and an annual budget of approximately US $500,000. The average annual revenue of the HSUS increased by US $22 million starting in 1994. In 2003, the figure rose to US $123 million. When the HSUS merged with the Fund for Animals in 2004, the group announced that it had raised US $95 million for its operating budget alone.
Second, I believe that the objective of these so-called animal defence groups is not animal protection, but ultimately to impose their moral vision of society, which is inevitably based on vegetarianism. All the Web sites of these organizations promote vegetarianism, starting with that of Ms. Bardot, which features a vegetarian cooking column. Ms. Bardot has also announced her latest crusade: the prohibition of horse meat. I would add that these organizations have moved from the field of “animal protection” to tat of “animal rights”.
The approach of the Humane Society of the United States and its allies is thus to propose another moral vision of humanity the sectarian and religious nature of which should be questioned: “To point to economic advantage is insufficient as a moral justification […],” wrote the Reverend Andrew Linzey on the subject of the seal hunt, in a document entitled “Public Morality and the Canadian Seal Hunt” published by the HSUS in 2005. Reverend Linzey, who also holds a doctorate and is a member of the Faculty of Theology at the Oxford University, added: “There is no adequate moral justification for the seal hunt.”
In this new moral order, animals have rights and, surprisingly, no duties because, as Reverend Linzey notes: “Animals are morally innocent.” In the animalists’ vision, the purity of animals contrasts with that of Man, the author of original sin, corruptor of the Garden of Eden. It is therefore not morally acceptable that Man should take life in cold blood in order to support himself. “Language about seals as a ‘resource’ is sub-ethical,” Reverend Linzey states, adding, “The instrumentalization of animals still prevails in today’s world.”
The logic in thinking that animals are equal to human beings and therefore cannot be “instrumentalized”, that is to say consumed, leads directly to this dual concept defended by the animalists of “animal-human” and “animal-non-human”. One therefore understands Ingrid Newkirk, founding president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), when she says: “Six million Jews were killed in concentration camps, but six billion chickens are killed in slaughterhouses every year.” Now that Ms. Bardot has referred to the seal hunt as “animal genocide”, we will soon be seeing the creation of “crimes against animality”.
Third, and last, these animalist groups are not known for their open-mindedness. The lawsuit that the HSUS threatened to file last spring against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and director Raoul Jomphe for refusing to broadcast the documentary “Seals, the film”, which presented them in an unfavourable light, speaks volumes. In addition, a more radical branch of “ecoterrorists” are operating in the United States and Europe, led by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Animal Rights Militia. France was moreover fell victim to their actions on August 31 last in the deliberate contamination of Novartis products.
To my knowledge, neither HSUS nor Ms. Bardot, nor any animal rights group has condemned these acts. What is worse, PETA previously reacted as follows to the violent acts committed by the Animal Liberation Front: “We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front… they act courageously, risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every day on animals in the labs. ALF’s activities comprise an important part of today’s animal protection movement.”
Consequently, Mr. President, as you can see, defending the seal hunt is not simply a matter of defending a hunt, a culture, a way and place of life or a means of subsistence for modest populations. It also means defending the truth against manipulation and disinformation, defending the spirit of democracy and freedom from the imposition of a moral order, and defending the language of science against extremism and anthropomorphism.
On this subject, it is rumoured that you recently met with Brigitte Bardot. Following that meeting, you purportedly made a commitment to ban seal products in France by the end of the year. Allow me to doubt this information, given that Ms. Bardot, who occasionally comes back to restore her notoriety on Canada’s ice floes, is so contrary to the archetypal scientist, to the rational discourse of which you are so much in favour. In her Ottawa press conference last year, for example, Ms. Bardot addressed journalists before an enormous poster showing a walrus – not a seal – with a club in its mouth, lying and wallowing in its blood at the foot of a young child. It would be difficult to be more cartoonish, anthropomorphic or grotesque. I am therefore sure you will agree with me that Ms. Bardot’s scientific competence in these matters is probably equal to that of Sir Paul McCartney or Pamela Anderson, who also recently spoke out on this issue. I recall what you wrote to Ms. Bardot on April 18 last, in reference to the Observatoire de la faune sauvage: “If there is any difference of opinion with other institutions, it is up to the
experts to reach an agreement.”
Mr. President, the seal hunt is a sustainable activity, carried on in a sensible manner for the animal species in question, under the control of our government and scientists, by Canadians who work hard in difficult conditions, but in a manner respectful of their environment.
That is the message that I would like to send to France through you and that I have undertaken to transmit both in and outside Canada.
Mr. President, I am,
Yours sincerely,
The Honourable Céline Hervieux-Payette, P.C.
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Quebec, Canada
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Is this a coordinated attack on the sealing industry from the Canadians and the Norwegians?( re banning of seal furs in the EU)
Yesterday , the the Norwegian Scientific Commitee for Food Safety ( Vitenskapskomiteen for mattrygghet) released a report to the EU that seal killing methods in Norway were ” humane” compared to other slaughter procedures.
In Norway , seals have never been looked at as a resource , only as trubble for fisheries.
I’m opposed to sealing, partly because it’s an extension of fur farming. We don’t need the fur in the fashion industry. It’s cruel.
Keep up the good work Brigitte Bardot!!!
Excuse me , I meant ” an attack on the ANTI- SEALING industry….”
finally a voice of logic and reason. and i’m not talking about bridget or ann. it’s just to bad that the media will never publish it. emotions tend to triumph over science every time.
Well Les. The hunt might be sustainable , but IMO the hunt is a waste with natural resources. Last year many tons of seal pelts were burned in Norway by Rieber, that is the major buyer of Canadian pelts. Not much science. Much meat is just dumped as well.
And what about the ” science ” behind the arguments that marine mammals pose a threat to fisheries???
“-What is worse, PETA previously reacted as follows to the violent acts committed by the Animal Liberation Front: “We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front… they act courageously, risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every day on animals in the labs. ALF’s activities comprise an important part of today’s animal protection movement.”- Celine H.P
Re the actions of ALF, they are controversial. Most accepted / official animal rights NGOs condemn officially their actions. In secret they might give them their silent support.
The danger with actions like ALF are carried out , against fur farms and medical labs , is that the fur farms and labs will just move to another country , such as China, with even worse legislation re fur animals and lab animals.
And to release fur animals and battery hens is NOT doing the animals any favour.The fur animals will cause havoc in the environment and the battery hens are totally brain washed , and have no chance to survive in the freedom.
Ann I am unsure of the actual figures on marine mammals poseing a threat to fisheries, but I do think there would be some threat.
I presume that a seal would eat 10 times its weight each year of marine creatures mostly fish. If there are 3 million and they weigh 50 kg each they would thereticaly eat 500kg each making the total 150,000,000 kg or 150 thousand tones. A lage number of people like to eat fish and they have to come from somewere. It is a matter for governments to decide on for the benefit of the population or for the seals.
The way the world population is increasing faster than food can be produced it is only a matter of time before something gives.
“Excuse me , I meant ” an attack on the ANTI- SEALING industry….””
Well I guess we’re making progress if you’re admitting the animal protests are indeed a profit making business.
🙂
As for the “necessity” or not of fur, that’s just a non argument.
Can I go through your wardrobe and start telling you what fibers you can and can’t use?
If you don’t like fur, don’t wear it.
Besides “fake” is for fake people with plastic thinking and no idea of what really goes into the resources they consume.
Also, the idea of an “organized attack” on anti-sealers is hilarious. When was the last time the sealers were “organized”?
I like fur. It’s natural, warm, light and works!
Plastic fur is for folks who like their furans hot.
>Besides “fake” is for fake people with plastic thinking and no idea of what really goes into the resources they consume.
Really? I thought it was for people who saw no necessity to kill animals needlessly in the name of fashion. For people who can think a bit beyond their own consciousness. For people who realise there are alternatives and that wearing dead animals when you live in New York is not practical and again not necessary. It makes plenty of sense, but then an expat running around pretending to be something he isn’t has never made sense to me.
” Besides “fake” is for fake people …” – IceClass
And you’re a fake Inuit!
” I like fur. It’s natural, warm, light and works!”
If you just knew how polluting and un-environmenally friendly the tanning industry is with heavy metals etc. polluting the environment
” Also, the idea of an “organized attack” on anti-sealers is hilarious. When was the last time the sealers were “organized”?” – IceClass
Don’t be ridiculous now IceClass…we all know that the sealing industry has powerful lobby groups in Europe etc ” white washing ” sealing.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has white washed sealing quite succesfully….
“Contrary to fur-industry propaganda, fur production destroys the environment. The amount of energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately 20 times that needed to produce a fake fur garment. Nor is fur (like leather) biodegradable, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to stop the fur from rotting. The process of using these chemicals is also dangerous because it can cause water contamination.”
Ann,
have you ever heard of wild caught fur?
Ever heard of brain tanning for one?
One doesn’t have to intensively rear furbearers any more than one needs intensive meat production.
In fact, one might add that the giant rise in mass produced furs is a direct result of the animal protest industryu picking off the smaller less intensive players.
If you can say that fur production “destroys the environment” how in the good Lord’s name can you recommend petroleum products as a replacement?
It just shows once again, as if needed , that you put ideology above practicality.
I don’t fear those that use animals. I fear more those that blithely push aside animals to make other uses of their habitats.
That should be the focus not projecting one’s “ethics” onto other users when you can’t show a lighter footprint yourself.
That’s just a recipe for conflict and stagnation not to mention some stunning hypocrisy.
Ann:”Don’t be ridiculous now IceClass…we all know that the sealing industry has powerful lobby groups in Europe etc ” white washing ” sealing.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has white washed sealing quite succesfully….”
Oh, puh-leaze!! I now know that you have absolutely no idea what you talk about.
I suppose this is like how 35,000 Inuit control how Western media conglomerates portray them so that they remain above criticism for their wildife use? Hmmmm…Ann. That’s another one of your throw-away unsubstantiated comments that you failed to back up.
I think if you actually were able to participate here a little more honestly even you would have to admit that there is absolutely no evidence to back up that comment.
Canada’s sealers have almost no direct representation on the issue at all. The Canadian Sealers Association was a bad and underfunded joke that folded last time I looked for lack of funds and stakeholder participation.
The Inuit sealers only produce an average of 8,000 skins for the whole Territory of Nunavut and for the last thirty years have been completely unable to get the Federal Government to make any effort to separate their hunt from the southern Harp Seal hunt.
In fact, if you had done your research you would have read that in the early 80’s the Department of Foreign Trade and Investment really couldn’t be bothered to mount any kind of defense of the hunt.
For the Feds, sealing is a hassle, an encumbrance.
It has however become a bit of a symbol and many bureaucrats now fear a slippery slope.
But please Ann, don’t let me stop you from your blind hypocrisy. Please feel free to show me this powerful cabal of sealing lobbyists. Where are they? Who are they? What power do they have? How?
Give me something to believe that you’re not just busy waffling on and spouting info-pollution.
Travis:”For people who realize there are alternatives and that wearing dead animals when you live in New York is not practical and again not necessary. It makes plenty of sense, but then an expat running around pretending to be something he isn’t has never made sense to me.”
Fur in a New York winter??? Are you kidding me?
Fur is perfect for New York and makes as much sense as Egyptian cotton or Dupont Gore-Tex.
As for my supposedly pretending to be Inuit, please demonstrate where I have done so.
I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I am not an Inuk.
So what exactly is your problem? You don’t like people who move to other areas and appreciate other cultures? What exactly is your problem or is this just the same cheap attempt at demeaning that you toss at David for living in Japan?
And, Ann, chemical treated fur does indeed biodegrade. It takes a while but it does.
I have a couple of fur blankets I use for winter camping that are made from old recycled fur coats.
They must be at least twenty year old furs by now (not bad use compared to the latest “plastic” coat) and they are breaking down.
I have regularly replaced panels as they become worn or simply break down.
Did you know that Dupont the petro chemical giant was funding the anti-fur organisation LYNX in England in the late 70s and 80s?
When it came out in the press, the company uncharacteristically admitted that it was to help sales of its then new Gore-Tex fabric.
In the ensuing scandal, the anti-fur organisation “LYNX” was shut down. LYNX was originally staffed by the Ex-Greenpeacers who left when Greenpeace moved away from it’s anti-fur position.
Those folks later reappeared as “Respect For Animals”.
So much for “alternatives”.
” have you ever heard of wild caught fur?” – IceClass
I have already told you that I’m opposed to sealing because it’s AN EXTENSION of fur in the fashion industry. If it’s trendy with seal skins then it’s trendy with fur farm skin as well.
BTW, are not the wild caught animals killed in a especially cruel way , either trapping or shot in such a way that you don’t destroy the fur?
“Please feel free to show me this powerful cabal of sealing lobbyists. Where are they? Who are they? What power do they have? How?” – IceClass
I read regularly Norwegian sealing news. I’m sure they are connected to Canadians as well, as they buy Canadian pelts.
Actually IceClass, methinks you read too much HSUS and IFAW newsletters! If you read for example Norwegian news then you get information such as the European Parliament wanted to ban imports of seal pelts but the European Commission was of another opinion and wanted more information about seal killing methods. This due to pressure from lobbyists.( So now it’s white washed that sealing is ” humane”)
Today I read that the EFSA, the European Food Safety Agency, is going to evaluate the Norwegian report that saeling is more ” humane” than many hunting and farm animal slaughter methods. ( Now methinks the Norwegians use rifles mostly for adult animals , and hakapiks only for pups).
“As for my supposedly pretending to be Inuit, please demonstrate where I have done so.” – IceClass
In a polar bear thread , you told us that you were dressed as an Inuit.
And IceClass, I have already pointed out that the animal protest industry ( your words) is not opposed to Inuit hunting and as a matter of fact , one proposal to the EU , is labelling of seal products, for example , this seal product is ” made by Inuits”. Consumer choice in this case…
Of course they are opposed to Inuit hunting. They are opposed to any hunt that forms part of anyone’s economy.
You are mistaking their tactically motivated refusal to take on Inuit hunting directly with some moral, philosophical or ecological position.
Besides, there’s twenty years of history of damage to the northern mixed economy brought on by animal protest industry campaigns and they know (as do the Inuit from unfortunate experience in the early 80s) that if the southern hunt is impacted then so too will be the Inuit hunt.
“one proposal to the EU , is labelling of seal products, for example , this seal product is ” made by Inuits”. Consumer choice in this case…”
But Ann, as you yourself have made very clear many times over, you are completely opposed to allowing the consumer the freedom to choose.
You and your ilk are so afraid that you might find there’s a healthy market of consumers who don’t share your ideology.
So, are you now saying that you do NOT support an EU ban on seal products?
So it’s never dawned on Ann that the EU simply rejected the proposal for a ban because as they indeed said they were satisfied that there was no valid conservation or welfare concern.
They are most probably also aware that such regressive legislation would very well be countered at the WTO level.
No evidence of some powerful cabal of “lobbyists” whatsoever but let’s not let a little government to government representation get in the way of some good conspiracy theories.
Trapping and sealing is certainly just as humane as any number of activities that you tolerate in your own backyard, yes.
Besides, wild fur is the best quality too.
“In a polar bear thread , you told us that you were dressed as an Inuit.”
And this makes me a pretend/fake Inuit how exactly??
Not that I actually recall saying that I “dressed as an Inuit” (sic*) but has it ever dawned on you from common sense or maybe a couple of hundred years of failed Polar Expeditions manned by “superior” peoples who perished in woolen tunics, that adopting a few dressing tips from the locals might be a half way good idea?
You do actually know where the Inuit live don’t you?
Perhaps you think that with all the climate change hype the Arctic is now full of palm tress and we all just stand around sweating in our fur so we can pretend to be Inuit and piss off a few EU legislators to boot?
Or perhaps we just do it as you say, to be “interesting”.
I honestly really do try and pay you enough respect to assume you have a certain degree of intelligence and abilities so you’ll have to forgive me for saying that it’s a constant disappointment to see you repeatedly react like the local crazy cat lady.
🙁
* The word “Inuit” refers to a group.
The singular is “Inuk”
One, Inuk, many Inuit.
Just in case you wanted to know something most basic about the good folks you’re trying to project your narrow world-view on to.
“Last year many tons of seal pelts were burned in Norway by Rieber,”
I did ask you for a credible confirmed source on this as well as for some justification and you came back with neither.
Why are you now repeating this as fact?
So, now I guess you think Daniel Arap Moi’s famous photo-op stunt burning a pile of Kenyan elephant tusks was designed to drive the price of Ivory up??
🙂
” …you repeatedly react like the local crazy cat lady.” – IceClass
Nope , not into cats , I’m into birds…crazy, oh yeah, for once you’re totally right! :))))
Actually, now that I think about it for a moment eren’t a couple of President Arap Moi’s own sisters later found to be involved in illegal Ivory smuggling?
Hell, maybe it *was* designed to drive the price up.
>Fur is perfect for New York and makes as much sense as Egyptian cotton or Dupont Gore-Tex.
Of course, they wear it inside out too.
IceMan wrote:
>”As for my supposedly pretending to be Inuit, please demonstrate where I have done so. You don’t like people who move to other areas and appreciate other cultures? What exactly is your problem or is this just the same cheap attempt at demeaning that you toss at David for living in Japan?”
Ann wrote:
>In a polar bear thread , you told us that you were dressed as an Inuit.
Indeed. Cheap shot? Nuh. I have nothing wrong with people appreciating other cultures even without moving to said culture’s backyard. I wonder about those that are absolutely blind to adopted culture’s faults no matter what they may be, and it amuses me no end grown men playing dressups.
“Last year many tons of seal pelts were burned in Norway by Rieber,”
I did ask you for a credible confirmed source on this as well as for some justification and you came back with neither.”- IceClass
It’s totally hopelss to have a meaningsful discussion with you Fakey, as you distort the truth.
I have provided you with links and translations on this subject from sealer’s sites and Norwegian media, can’t call those sites as sites for the animal protest industry.
One source I cited was from the Department of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.
As I recall Ann your link provided no verifiable information. It was simply an other one of your casual relays of an article.
I would genuinely like to follow this up if there is any truth to it.
“Fakey”
Good grief if the fact that I ocaasionaly venture out in Inuit made coats is the best shot you have, I’m thinking you and Travis might need to get out more.
As for the faults of the Inuit they are a people like any other which, I think you’ll fins is a constant refrain in my postings.
You two on the other hand want to frame them as some sort of left over from the pleistocene.
“as you distort the truth.”
…and yet again you make assertions with no evidence.
You provided no conclusive evidence to back up that Rieber burned a pile of perfectly good skins to inflate the price of pelts.
and talking of truth Ann, I’m still waiting for your evidence to back up your LIES about Polar Bear quota increases being driven by sports hunts.
…still waiting….and waiting…
Still, don’t let some cheap insults mask your lack of evidence.