All Europeans are vegetarian, right?

not that I have a personal point of view or would disagree with anyone here but, I raised beef, hogs, sheep and chickens most of my life and would opine that my animals led a a quality life (other than ending up on someone's dinner table.) essentially every animal I raised was "free range" well fed, protected from elements of weather and, eventually, slaughtered in the most humane manner, nurtured though birthing, illness and general hardship. "factory farms" are a consumer choice that eventually drove me and 1,000's of other family farms out of business.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

I doubt the average European urbanite could say the same thing.

No idea.

But where I grew up (a small town with 15,000 inhabitants in those days) people still slaughtered their animals (mainly pigs) at home - we even had three farms in the town centre where cows were slaughtered (in the 50#s).
Until the mid-80's, a local butcher slaughtered the animals (all from small local farms) two houses away in the neighbourhood, in the town centre.

We still get our ("organic") eggs from some neighbours, buy (most) meat directly from a farm butcher.

For people in the large cities, farms offer to 'rent' chickens, cows, pigs ... until the 'deadly end'.

I think, the main difference is that we don't have 'farm facturies' here, but all small family owned farms.

But I'm sure many from the cities don't know about such ...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

To speak of the 300,000 seals taken in the hunt as a bad thing, while not objecting to indigenous people taking them is quixotically absurd. If Inuit did not receive government welfare, and didn't get handouts from proselytizing charismatic Christian groups, and relied solely upon hunting, not only would their health suffer, but you can bet that certainly no fewer than 300,000 seals would buy the farm each year.

It seems that there's a quota of roughly 300,000 seals per year that can be commercially hunted, and, on top of that, a quota of 10,000 seals per year that the indigenous population is allowed to hunt. Given those numbers, I'm not sure that concern about the Inuit population is really part of the overall picture.

1 Reply

And yet only 60,000 were taken last year due to a declining market.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

I'm not sure where to find actual numbers. This article seems to suggest a different number:

Quote:

Canada's seal hunt wraps up

Posted Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:19am AEST

Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans has officially closed the last and largest phase of the seal hunt off Newfoundland and Labrador.

Officials say participation for this year's hunt was low, mainly because of the high price of fuel and the low price of pelts, which were selling for about half of what they were a year ago.

Hunting conditions were far from ideal, with heavy sea ice and snow hampering the sealers.

At least three boats were abandoned over the past week because of ice, and nearly a dozen others required assistance from the Canadian Coast Guard.

Federal officials say only about 80 per cent of this year's quota of 275,000 seals were taken.

Which would amount to 220,000 seals. However, adding up the numbers in this Wikipedia article, the total number of seals taken would be approximately 250,000 for 2008.

Nevertheless, if those numbers are below what's sustainable for the seal population, then I don't really think that the actual number of seals taken matters all that much.

0 Replies

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/06/eu-free-trade050609.html
Canada had set a quota of 280,000 harp seals for this year's hunt, but only about 60,000 have been killed because of dwindling markets for seal products.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Well, that's this year, though - 2009. And it's before any kind of ban by the EU went into effect. I mean, if the global market for seal products has actually decreased by 80% within one year - even if that's partially influenced by the possibility of a future ban in Europe -, there's arguably no future in commercial seal hunting either way.

1 Reply

@old europe,

The point, which you seem to ignore, is that the Inuit are only restricted in the hunting of seals because of government regulation. Absent that regulation, and the hand-outs which allow them to survive without the hunt, and in view of their greatly reduced numbers since the arrival of Europeans, the odds are pretty good that a hell of a lot more than 10,000 seals would be taken by them.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

That's fine Dys, but i'm sure you know that most meat that is consumed in North America comes from feed lots, and not "free range" animals. I can't, of course, speak to the situation in Europe. Nevertheless, foie gras and the consumption of lamb and veal argues against any moral position on the part of the Europeans.

0 Replies

@old europe,

To be fair, the vote was only held yesterday. I doubt somehow that this years cumulative hunt was affected by yesterdays vote. So, 60,000 seals this years due to a dwindling market makes sense to me.
Patato, potato....

0 Replies

Commentators on the CBC, when being honest, have pointed out that the principle market for the seal hunt is in China and Japan, and not in Europe. I suspect that the Newfies and the Inuit are just feeling persecuted.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Yes, I did ignore that point. Mostly because I don't think that the European Union is responsible for the quota the Canadian government allocates to the Inuit. Out of the total number of seals the DFO says can be taken, only 3-4% are allowed to be taken by the indigenous population. In that light, I don't think that the complaints about a future European ban of seal products that result from non-traditional hunting have so much to do with concerns about the welfare of the indigenous population.

In that regard, it would also be interesting to see what would happen if the Canadian government would allocate 100% of the quota to the Inuit.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Geeze, Buddy, the sun doesn't rise and set only over Europe, you know. My remark had absolutely no reference to any actions of the European Union.

My point is that were the Inuit undisturbed in their native environment today, as the Thule and Dorset Eskimos were a thousand years ago, there well might be a hell of a lot more than 300,000 seals taken. I see no substantive difference between Inuit taking seals, and Newfies taking seals--and i see no substantive difference between clubbing seals and stuffing corn meal down the throats of geese.

1 Reply

I do actually. Geese are perpetually stuffed. Daily.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Good point . . . the seals are only taken once a year . . .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Geeze, Buddy, the sun doesn't rise and set only over Europe, you know. My remark had absolutely no reference to any actions of the European Union.

See, that's exactly why I ignored your earlier point. It's not about the EU.

Setanta wrote:

My point is that were the Inuit undisturbed in their native environment today, as the Thule and Dorset Eskimos were a thousand years ago, there well might be a hell of a lot more than 300,000 seals taken. I see no substantive difference between Inuit taking seals, and Newfies taking seals--and i see no substantive difference between clubbing seals and stuffing corn meal down the throats of geese.

I absolutely agree with that. In fact, I think there's a lot more hypocrisy going on concerning the whole foie gras issue than when it comes to seals. Germany has banned the the production of foie gras as animal cruelty, but still allows it to be imported from France. In fact, the European Union recognizes the traditionally produced foie gras with a geographical label of origin. Which really pisses me off just a little bit, especially because I do think that there are several areas where European legislation has improved the way animals are being treated.

My personal experience is rather similar to what Walter described earlier... I grew up in a rather small town, surrounded by with lots of small cattle farms, and people buy eggs, milk and most of the meat locally. I do appreciate the fact that those farms are still (kind of) economically viable. It's one thing I actually miss when I'm in the States. Of course there's always the option of buying "organic" food (which I usually do when it comes to veggies, even if I find it astonishingly expensive in comparison), but usually I can't even be bothered to buy meat.

Anyways.... if it was up to me, I'd have factory farms and foie gras banned tomorrow.

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

See, that's exactly why I ignored your earlier point. It's not about the EU.

So then, for your purposes, the sun does rise and set only over Europe--i'd not have said you thought like that, but i'm not really surprised.

As for "factory farms" (a rather inexact term), i suspect that what Walter describes does not describe how livestock are produced for the export market, either exported on the hoof or as processed foods. I rather suspect that feed lots exist in Europe and account for exported meats. In the United States, a great many people eat meat which was raised and butchered locally--but with an organization such as MacDonalds selling literally billions of hamburgers, and with so many people in cities who think beef comes from the store, wrapped in shrink wrap, the future of feed lot operations seems rosy.

In fact, the practice of feeding feed lot animals with the animal "by-products" of slaughter houses, as another means of increasing the bottom line through vested interests, is the cause of "mad cow disease," if what i have read is correct. We'd all be better off if we all adopted a "hundred mile" diet--but when you've got 7- or 8,000,000 people living in New York, that's a little tough. What have we got in Mexico City--30,000,000? I doubt if you could produce all the food they eat within a hundred miles of the city, especially given the climate and the terrain. No way you could feed Tokyo with a "hundred mile diet."

These are not problems which can be addressed with feel-good moral positions, which is why i have a sardonic reaction to the EU parliament's resolution.

0 Replies

To my right, the radio is broadcasting a "news magazine" show, which was just airing call-ins about the EU/seal ban program broadcast yesterday. To my left, there is a Stanley Cup hockey game on the tee-vee (don't ask me who is playing, other than that it's a Canadian and an American team, because they played both national anthems before the game). To my left and to my right, there is a passed-out dog on the floor.

Life is good . . . hey, have you ever tried a seal burger? Here, take a bite of this . . .

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Germany has banned the the production of foie gras as animal cruelty, but still allows it to be imported from France. In fact, the European Union recognizes the traditionally produced foie gras with a geographical label of origin. Which really pisses me off just a little bit,

Personally, I agree with German foi gras being banned. It just can't compare with the one made in France.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Thomas, that is not my quote. I was quoting Old Europe.

My mistake -- sorry. I mixed up who said what.

0 Replies

All Europeans are vegetarian, right?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know