I appreciate your response. The use of the words "rum sodden primitives" was not mine, though I see how my support for Eric’s general view might have implied a common disdain for the executors. If anything I said was insulting to you or your family, it wasn't my intent and I apologize for it. As for your comment about "pseudo-intellectualism.." well... I don't know what real intellectualism is. So I'll take the insult for what it's worth.

While I recognize the economics that drives these kinds of activities, my problem is that governments subsidize and promote these hunts, thus rendering the slaughter more economically viable than it should be. It also artificially depresses the costs of the articles acquired from the animals. The current regime shields hunters from the expensive externalities of trawling the icecaps for seals, and creates manufactured incentives for depleting an increasingly stressed species. And don’t think for a moment that my criticism of the whole matter doesn’t run up to the purchasers of the end products… the hats, coats, and other articles of vanity. At times, the killers seem easier to blame than those who make such killing profitable, but rest assured, I would focus advocacy and education efforts on the latter.

But you raise a fair point. I have heaped a lot of criticism upon the hunters, and perhaps that’s not fair.

My skepticism of a hunter’s lax observation of the laws arises from my own experience, which isn’t entirely academic. First off, I am not convinced that the laws are all that sensitive to the plight of the animals. This is certainly a failing of U.S cruelty laws, which are written by agricultural industry lobbies rather than conscientious legislators. Secondly, I have spent enough time with callous hunters, slaughterhouse personnel, and lab technicians to know what happens when an animal’s suffering is construed as meaningless or unlikely.
While hunting isn’t generally a mechanized affair, I’ve seen first-hand the blood lust that consumes many hunters who gun down big-game trophy animals they won’t even eat. Do I condemn the safari club hunters who seek to kill as many trophies as possible during their lifetime? Of course! Those who kill for bloodsport are deplorable, and in my view distinguishable from those who kill for profit or sustenance.

As for slaughterhouse workers and lab technicians… while they may begin their work with a conscious appreciation for the animal’s pain and distress, monotonously processing animals will soon drive your conscience out of you. I know that first hand; I found myself stepping away from the process in my own life to think about what kind of person I was becoming. My ultimate decision took me away from ‘animal experimentation’ entirely, and I now work (occasionally) on the other side of the fence, ensuring that humane treatment norms are enforced.

When an animal’s struggles against a worker’s ‘processing’ efforts seem more annoying than understandable, it is clear that a worker’s appreciation the suffering he is causing is evaporating. I’ve seen it happen too many times to believe that the average Canadian seal hunter is so different a human being from the rest of us; and indeed there is footage indicating that some are not so different. That said, perhaps the hunt’s visibility makes it better for the slaughtered seals. You know what they say about slaughterhouses and glass walls… we might all become vegetarians.

My data on dwindling ocean fisheries is corroborated in many places, including the Economist, NOAA reports, and the findings of many nations whose livelihoods depend, to varying degrees, upon the sea. Jeffrey Sach’s latest, meticulously bibliographed book also paints the same picture; oceanic resources face critical depletion as many species of fish are added to the endangered species lists, and other pelagic marine life become increasingly difficult to find. I’d be interested to see where you are getting your information to the contrary.
My use of the word “sentient” was a conscious choice, not rooted in any desire to show thesaurus-wielding skills. I use it to explain a concept that I think is pretty intuitive. There is a universe of literature out there indicating that animals “feel” and “perceive” a great deal more than pain. Many animals are clearly able to do all of the things that you list in Webster’s definition, yet human conceptions of what those animals feel do not change. How else can one justify Japan’s insistence upon hunting whales and dolphins? These creatures are, by just about every measureable standard, sentient. In the African bush, the poaching of highly perceptive great apes has becoming increasingly common. Even seals, whose intelligence is no less than that of a dog, are probably capable of engaging in behaviors that exhibit sentience. Hence, I don’t think the word “sentience” is a high-minded substitute for “ability to suffer.” I think it describes a quality of animals that too few are willing to ascribe to them.

I don’t want to dwell on my animal welfare views in a column about Russia, so I will finish with the following. I think we are in agreement in many areas. I think the solutions to problems of poverty should avoid placing stressed or healthy wildlife populations upon the altar of economic necessity. Canada should seek to empower subsistence seal hunters with other ways to supplement their meager wages. I also think it’s helpful to encourage a broader sense of empathy in society. We live in on a continent where ruthless animal agriculturalists ignore every basic need of food animals, and purchase exemptions to the very laws that would hold them liable for their cruelty. Our attitude towards wildlife is to “manage” it by assigning it some economic value, such that humans might harvest it in economically reasonable, sustainable ways. I have been troubled all too often by the raging blood lust that grips the worst of big game hunters as they seek to make the process of hunting and killing ever easier through canned hunts, GPS-collared hounds, and professional guides.

Given the consequences of thinking of animals as mere resources for utilization, I have come to a different view. Animals have a moral right to existence that must, to some degree, be independent of economics. While some human needs may justify slaying animals or imposing suffering, there has to be a better way to balance the suffering of animals with the capriciousness (or necessities) of the humans who would use them.

I appreciate your response. The use of the words "rum sodden primitives" was not mine, though I see how my support for Eric’s general view might have implied a common disdain for the executors. If anything I said was insulting to you or your family, it wasn't my intent and I apologize for it. As for your comment about "pseudo-intellectualism.." well... I don't know what real intellectualism is. So I'll take the insult for what it's worth.

While I recognize the economics that drives these kinds of activities, my problem is that governments subsidize and promote these hunts, thus rendering the slaughter more economically viable than it should be. It also artificially depresses the costs of the articles acquired from the animals. The current regime shields hunters from the expensive externalities of trawling the icecaps for seals, and creates manufactured incentives for depleting an increasingly stressed species. And don’t think for a moment that my criticism of the whole matter doesn’t run up to the purchasers of the end products… the hats, coats, and other articles of vanity. At times, the killers seem easier to blame than those who make such killing profitable, but rest assured, I would focus advocacy and education efforts on the latter.

But you raise a fair point. I have heaped a lot of criticism upon the hunters, and perhaps that’s not fair.

My skepticism of a hunter’s lax observation of the laws arises from my own experience, which isn’t entirely academic. First off, I am not convinced that the laws are all that sensitive to the plight of the animals. This is certainly a failing of U.S cruelty laws, which are written by agricultural industry lobbies rather than conscientious legislators. Secondly, I have spent enough time with callous hunters, slaughterhouse personnel, and lab technicians to know what happens when an animal’s suffering is construed as meaningless or unlikely.
While hunting isn’t generally a mechanized affair, I’ve seen first-hand the blood lust that consumes many hunters who gun down big-game trophy animals they won’t even eat. Do I condemn the safari club hunters who seek to kill as many trophies as possible during their lifetime? Of course! Those who kill for bloodsport are deplorable, and in my view distinguishable from those who kill for profit or sustenance.

As for slaughterhouse workers and lab technicians… while they may begin their work with a conscious appreciation for the animal’s pain and distress, monotonously processing animals will soon drive your conscience out of you. I know that first hand; I found myself stepping away from the process in my own life to think about what kind of person I was becoming. My ultimate decision took me away from ‘animal experimentation’ entirely, and I now work (occasionally) on the other side of the fence, ensuring that humane treatment norms are enforced.

When an animal’s struggles against a worker’s ‘processing’ efforts seem more annoying than understandable, it is clear that a worker’s appreciation the suffering he is causing is evaporating. I’ve seen it happen too many times to believe that the average Canadian seal hunter is so different a human being from the rest of us; and indeed there is footage indicating that some are not so different. That said, perhaps the hunt’s visibility makes it better for the slaughtered seals. You know what they say about slaughterhouses and glass walls… we might all become vegetarians.

My data on dwindling ocean fisheries is corroborated in many places, including the Economist, NOAA reports, and the findings of many nations whose livelihoods depend, to varying degrees, upon the sea. Jeffrey Sach’s latest, meticulously bibliographed book also paints the same picture; oceanic resources face critical depletion as many species of fish are added to the endangered species lists, and other pelagic marine life become increasingly difficult to find. I’d be interested to see where you are getting your information to the contrary.
My use of the word “sentient” was a conscious choice, not rooted in any desire to show thesaurus-wielding skills. I use it to explain a concept that I think is pretty intuitive. There is a universe of literature out there indicating that animals “feel” and “perceive” a great deal more than pain. Many animals are clearly able to do all of the things that you list in Webster’s definition, yet human conceptions of what those animals feel do not change. How else can one justify Japan’s insistence upon hunting whales and dolphins? These creatures are, by just about every measureable standard, sentient. In the African bush, the poaching of highly perceptive great apes has becoming increasingly common. Even seals, whose intelligence is no less than that of a dog, are probably capable of engaging in behaviors that exhibit sentience. Hence, I don’t think the word “sentience” is a high-minded substitute for “ability to suffer.” I think it describes a quality of animals that too few are willing to ascribe to them.

I don’t want to dwell on my animal welfare views in a column about Russia, so I will finish with the following. I think we are in agreement in many areas. I think the solutions to problems of poverty should avoid placing stressed or healthy wildlife populations upon the altar of economic necessity. Canada should seek to empower subsistence seal hunters with other ways to supplement their meager wages. I also think it’s helpful to encourage a broader sense of empathy in society. We live in on a continent where ruthless animal agriculturalists ignore every basic need of food animals, and purchase exemptions to the very laws that would hold them liable for their cruelty. Our attitude towards wildlife is to “manage” it by assigning it some economic value, such that humans might harvest it in economically reasonable, sustainable ways. I have been troubled all too often by the raging blood lust that grips the worst of big game hunters as they seek to make the process of hunting and killing ever easier through canned hunts, GPS-collared hounds, and professional guides.

Given the consequences of thinking of animals as mere resources for utilization, I have come to a different view. Animals have a moral right to existence that must, to some degree, be independent of economics. While some human needs may justify slaying animals or imposing suffering, there has to be a better way to balance the suffering of animals with the capriciousness (or necessities) of the humans who would use them.