I’m in transit on my way to Amsterdam so I will make this short.
1. We cannot look at a case and dismiss it because there is worse in the world. Do we leave a child in an abusive home because there’s children starving in Africa? Yes there are many problems in this world, but working on a solution for one problem does not mean that we have to exclude other problems. At the moment I donate to Doctors without Borders, and in the past I donated to the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. There are many important causes in the world and the seal hunt happens to be one that I am working on. Furthermore it is in the developed world, so to end the cruelty does not inflict any poverty, which brings me to my second point.
2. First world countries condone unnecessary cruelty and killing, but only when this applies to third world countries. In the third world an actual fine line has to be drawn between a persons livelihood and the welfare of the animals. For example in Africa we try to prevent the killing of elephants, even when those elephants at times destroy farm land. Unlike the first world, this is subsistence living where people live on less than $1 a day. But even with a huge population, scarce resources, and very little money, the government, the locals, and the world as a whole work together to prevent this killing and to minimize it. If this is the case in a poor country then why can the same not be said for a developed country like Canada. This isn’t the only thing that Canada does. Canada sells licenses to wealthy americans to hunt polar bears. This is even while they are endangered. There are other examples but I would have to look them up.
Canadians have very little excuse for this. No one will starve if they dont decide to kill. We live in a socialist country, welfare is accessible. Environmental organizations have offered to pay sealers $16 million dollars (which is what they reported was earned last year) to stay home. This offer was not responded to.