Welcome back.
It's been a while so, I'll fill you in on what has been happening:
Cody moved down here to Sac. He now works with me. We are getting a townhouse soon. We have become true musical snobs. I haven't talked to my closest friends in a while, so Jasen, I miss you!
If you read Cody's blog, you've seen his link to hungry children. We are becoming activists. A little bit of reasoning for you. I went to PETA and was deeply saddened by two things. The cruel Seal Hunt in Canada, and the horrible mistreatment of animals we breed for food. I am in NO way proposing we all go vegan or even vegetarian, I just think that here, in the Northern America's, we have a greed problem. Why do we insist on buying bulk beef then throwing out half of it? Why do we buy a 18 oz. steak when we know we are only hungry enough to eat 10? These are problems I have. We are so wasteful. We throw out food when kids here in America go to school hungry. In America. The wealthiest still have children going hungry, imagine the rest of the world.
It saddens me. We are Christians, followers of Christ, and we can't care for his creation? We abuse animals while starving children with our wasteful greed. Why don't we stand up for the very values Christ proposed? Love? Feeding the hungry? Meeting needs? Caring for his creation?
Please, stand with us. We will fill you in on what we are actually going to be doing. You can get bumper stickers and buttons from us with our slogan in a few weeks.
Each person we encounter, let's want to meet. Heal a stranger with kindness.
buy Bright Eyes - Lifted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
"Every person we encounter, let's want to meet"...strong words, Jeff. And maybe it's not just people that we can heal with kindness.
I hope that this isn't misinterpreted as just some stupid college age attempt at getting at "the man". That used to be the case. But now? We're working for the man ourselves.
Oh man...something's coming.
call me dogg, call me...
From the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans:
Myth #1: The Canadian government allows sealers to kill adorable little white seals.
Reality: The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable seal 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. Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. Furthermore, seals cannot be harvested when they are in breeding or birthing grounds.
Myth #2: Seals are being skinned alive.
Reality: The most recent Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) Report and numerous reports mentioned by the Malouf Commission (1987) indicate that this is not true.
Sometimes a seal may appear to be moving after it has been killed; however seals have a swimming reflex that is active – even after death. This reflex falsely appears as though the animal is still alive when it is clearly dead – similar to the reflex in chickens.
Myth #3: Seals are not independent animals when they are killed – they still rely on their mothers and can’t even swim or fend for themselves.
Reality: Only weaned, self-reliant seals are hunted after they have been left by their mothers to fend for themselves.
The vast majority of harp seals are taken after more than 25 days of age, after their white coat has moulted. Harp seals have the ability to swim at this stage of development. They are also opportunistic feeders and prey on whatever food source in readily available to them.
Myth #4: Countless seals that slip off the ice after being clubbed or shot are lost and never accounted for.
Reality: "Struck and lost" data from at-sea observers as well as the CVMA indicate that this is not true. In fact, the record of struck and loss for the Canadian commercial seal hunt stands at less than five per cent.
For one thing, most of the harp seals taken in Canada are hunted on the ice rather than in the water and this makes losses much lower than in places like Greenland. Second, harp seals that are hunted have very high levels of body fat, making them quite buoyant. That, coupled with the buoyant qualities of salt water, make it quite easy for sealers to retrieve a seal should they slip into the water after being shot.
Myth #5: The Canadian government is allowing sealers to kill nearly one million seals to help with the recovery of cod stocks.
Reality: Several factors have contributed to the lack of recovery of Atlantic cod stocks, such as fishing effort, poor growth and physical condition of the fish, and environmental changes. Seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod, therefore it is difficult to hold any one factor responsible for the decline in cod stocks.
In addition, there are many uncertainties in the estimates of the amount of fish consumed by seals. The commercial quota is established on sound conservation principles, not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks.
Myth #6: The club – or hakapik – is a barbaric tool that has no place in today’s world.
Reality: Clubs have been used by sealers since the onset of the hunt hundreds of years ago. Hakapiks originated with Norwegian sealers who found it very effective. Over the years, studies conducted by the various veterinary experts, and American studies carried out between 1969 and 1972 on the Pribilof Islands hunt (Alaska) have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely. A recent report in September, 2002, by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, had results that parallel these findings.
Myth #7: The methods used to kill seals are far less humane than those used to hunt or slaughter any other domestic or wild animal.
Reality: Hunting methods were studied by the Royal Commission on Sealing in Canada and they found that the clubbing of seals, when properly performed, is at least as humane as, and often more humane than, the killing methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, which are accepted by the majority of the public.
Myth #8: The hunt is unsustainable.
Reality: Since the 1960’s, environmental groups have been saying the seal hunt is unsustainable. In fact, the harp seal population is healthy and abundant. In excess of five million animals, the Northwest Atlantic seal herd is nearly triple what it was in the 1970s. DFO sets quotas at levels that ensure the health and abundance of seal herds. In no way are seals - and harp seals in particular – an "endangered species".
...
Myth #10: The seal hunt provides such low economic return for sealers that it is not an economically viable industry.
Reality: The landed value of seals was $16 million in 2004. Pelt prices as high as $70 have recently been recorded. Seals are a significant source of income for some individual sealers. The money is earned over a very short period. Sealing also creates employment opportunities for buying and processing plants.
While sealing income may seem negligible by some US or European standards, sealers themselves have stated that their income from sealing can represent from 25-35 per cent of their total annual income. Sealing also represents benefits to thousands of families in Eastern Canada at a time of year when other fishing options are unavailable or limited at best, in many remote, coastal communities.
....
Myth #12: The seal hunt is not worth it - seals are only taken for their fur and the rest of the animal is wasted.
Reality: Seals have been harvested for food, fuel and shelter and other products for hundreds of years. The subsistence hunt is a valuable link to Canadian cultural heritage. Canada exports seal products in three forms: pelts, oil and meat. Traditionally, the pelts have been the main commodity, but production of seal oil for human consumption has grown substantially in recent years. Seal oil markets remain positive, and a large percentage of seal oil is finding its way into areas other than traditional marine and industrial oils.
DFO encourages the fullest use of seals, with the emphasis on leather, oil, handicrafts, and in recent years, meat for human and animal consumption as well as seal oil capsules rich in Omega-3. Any seal parts that are left on the ice provide sustenance to a wide variety of marine scavengers such as crustaceans, seabirds and fish.
This is only a short excerpt- there are many other facts on the site. At the end of the day, the hunt is a viable method for helping the poor communities of the area (the average income is $9,800) to attempt to supplement their incomes. The argument against it is purely aesthetic- "I don't like that because its icky" At the end of the day, it is actually a way to fight poverty in Canadian fishing towns.
Curtis,
Congratulations on the copy and paste argument method. However humane you may say they are, the video tells a different story. Anyway, think about it before you defend it. They are God's creatures, don't beat them to death. Use a freakin gun.
Seeing as you clearly didn't follow the link, I'm quite glad that I copy pasted it in so that you read it. ;)
The video is a contextless example of the 5% figure that the reports talk about. At the end of the day, the Canadian government has facts and science on its side, and PETA just has appeals to emotion. Perhaps the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should post a video of the poor living conditions in the fishing towns- maybe that would sway more people.
The reason they don't is because they've chosen to present the situation in a mature, intellectual manner. PETA does what they almost always do- chooses to argue with emotions, not reason.
After viewing the video for a 3rd time, let me recant- this isn't even the 5% figure. I had originally viewed it on a slower machine which was choppy. Having seen in on a more adept computer, I've come to realize that even PETA's video doesn't show the unfortunate 5%- in fact, it shows the government and scientist approved method of killing them- a method judged humane. PETA may claimt that it isn't, but I prefer to believe and support the claims of the Canadian government and their researchers. Its either that or let this descend into a war of "uh-uh!" "uh-huh!" preferencial arguing. I'm going to side with science on this one and say that there's nothing wrong with what the sealers are doing- and that this claim is clearly supported by the facts. It may not be pleasing to watch- but then again, neither are a lot of things, and that doesn't intrinsically make them "inhumane".
IMO...
A "cut and paste" argument may be better than emotion in some parts...but what did you cut and paste it from? Somebody ELSES emotion. Unless of course you believe that the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans are completely unslanted. Basically, look at both sides of the story, and make a decision based on that. I think all Jeff was trying to say is, look at the video. The seals are running for their lives before being clubbed. So if that is CDFO's non-emotional definetion of "humane", then I would prefer a more personal response anywaY. Just watch the video, and stop google searching organizations only existing to protect those in the clip.
The Canadian Dept. of F&O clearly makes a more convincing case, regardless if you agree with it. To suggest that they simply use a different appeal to emotion is completely absurd. Look at the substance of their argument- assertion, factual backup, conclusion. Assertion, factual backup, conclusion. Look at PETA's: a poorly edited video using completely irrational appeals to empathy that is without context and has a significant lack of scientific and factual backup. Whether or not you agree with the Candian F&O argument, it is clearly presented in a logically superior manner.
To suggest that one should not seek out dissenting opinions is somewhat childish. Simply accepting either side of the argument without checking out all ofthe facts shows a lack of critical thinking and ultimately, laziness.
Also, neither side of this debate can be discounted purely because they are biased. Both PETA and the Canadania Dept. of F&O are biased, but that says nothing about either argument. Their arguments stand or don't based on their merit, not based on their lack of "slant" or bias.
Finally, to suggest that the more "personal" approach is better is not a very good one. I might "personally" find the seal hunt humane and helpful after watching the video. You might not. Still someone else might find it to be somewhere in between. At the end of the day, this "personal" approach is so completely subjective that it becomes reduced to what I mentioned earlier- an example of an "uh-uh!", "uh-huh!" style of argumentation- the same style employed in preschools around the country.
No- are arguments must have objective criteria on which to be based. I am suggesting that the Canadian Dept. of F&O have shown are better objective standard on which to judge this hunt "humane" or not. I think this argument is some what irrefutable, given the lack of scientific and factual backup in PETA's. This doesn't make me right universally- after all, there may be those who are against the hunt for truly logical and rational reasons. PETA, however, does an astoundly bad job of presenting their argument. Just becausee we don't like something aesthetically doesn't make it wrong. I don't like mayonnaise, but that doesn't make it immoral to eat or manufacture it. Mayonnaise, of course, is not alive (nor cute), so that's a different case, but my point is the method of argumentation, not the substance.
Once again: PETA's argument: "We don't like watching baby seals get clubbed to death. Therefore, it is wrong." The Canadian government's argument: "Scientists who are respected in the international community have judged this viable and humane method of killing these animals quickly and instantly. This is a necessary way to combat poverty. We are doing this in an environmentally responsible manner. Therefore, it is not wrong."
I don't know about you, but I think the second one is clearly superior.
Have to disagree with you Curtis. You see, the main thing you and Lucas don't like is that my info came from PETA. Had it come from President Bush or Fox News, you would whole heartedly agree. The fact is, you don't agree with PETA.
As for humane.. it clearly isn't. Say what you will about scientists, but I'm guessing some scientists say that abortion is humane... I disagree.
I challenge you, think outside the Republican Christian box and realize that other people have valuable points. And maybe some day, Curt and Luke, you guys will see the whole point of this post instead of calling me out about PETA and Seals.
Think for yourselves. Don't let the University rule you.
Ok Jeff. If you want to trust an organization that gives money to domestic terrorism, that's fine with me.
And I still haven't seen a credible challenge to the Canadian government's argumentation or data.
I'll keep an eye out.
I'm not against Christian Colleges Luke. I'm against buying hook line and sinker. I'm also not FOR PETA. I can find some truths in their statements though.
The point of my post was that we should try to be less greed driven in our lives. And No, baby seals or adult seals should not be the least of our worries. Wealth, big houses, lots of cars, those should be the LEAST of our worries.
Come on guys, you know that you don't fully buy your arguments. Search your hearts on this. God didn't create animals to be abused. He created them to be used and to enjoy (sometimes enjoy means eat, sometimes NOT).
I'm asking you to stretch luke, not deny Christ. If anything embrace him more. Step out. Reach out. Don't conform to the ways of the university, they aren't always right. God does not dwell only in Christian circles. Nor does learning about him..
By the way, what exactly is a Christian Perspective? Is it not just a true perspective? If I learn truth in a secular school, I've learned from a Christian perspective. Have I not? God works through Christians and non christians alike.
"By the way, what exactly is a Christian Perspective? Is it not just a true perspective? If I learn truth in a secular school, I've learned from a Christian perspective. Have I not? God works through Christians and non christians alike."
Insightful comment. There is certainly much truth to be found outside of what we would call a "Christian perspective". Often times it is the secular that performs better (oddly enough) at the revelation of truth. And indeed, God does work through both Christians and non-Christians.
Luke,
I fear that students at Christian colleges don't take the same precautions I must at a public school. I do have to be careful, but so do you. Not everything being taught in institutions is truth, from Biola to San Diego Christian to Sac State. All in all, we all must be very ready to question what we are being taught and test it with discernment. Not bias.
Post a Comment