Inhuman or Reasonable? — Seal Hunting
Seal hunting has been a contentious issue for years between Canada and the European Union (EU). Which side are you on?
“The moral problem with commercial seal hunting” by Andy Butterworth and “The hunt Canada loves: Why seal clubbing will never die” by Tristin Hopper provides two different view on the EU’s seal ban.
Butterworth insists that seal hunting is cruel and grisly, the seal ban must be remained. Hopper argues that the seal ban is unfair and unreasonable.
Although Butterworth is convincing because of his use of emotional appeal, I found Hopper’s evidence is more impressive because he considers from multiple perspectives for both Inuit and seals.
In Butterworth’s article “The moral problem with commercial seal hunting,” originally published in Nature, he argues that the World Trade Organization (WTO) should reject the appeal filed by Canada and Norway, and keep the seal ban.
The European Union (EU) banned commercial seal products since 2009. Canada and Norway want to overturn the seal ban.
Butterworth explains the reason why he thinks the seal ban should remain by describing what he has seen as an official observer and a veterinary scientist. To illustrate, he emphasizes seal pups are adorable but also desperate when abandoned by older seals. Then, he specifically describes the whole process of seal hunting to justify this is a cruel activity. In addition, Butterworth brings forward scientific evidence to prove some seals bleed and suffer for a period time before being killed.
In conclusion, he restates his suggestion that the appeal of Canada and Norway should be denied by the WTO.
In his article, Butterworth effectively uses descriptive language to illustrate that seal pups are weak, poor and helpless, and therefore successfully prove how cruel hunters are.
“When they are born, seal pups have white fur. They are suckled, weaned and then abandoned by their mothers at about 12 days of age. Stranded on the unstable ice, they remain alone and unfed for up to six weeks, and during this time their fur changes from white to grey — and the hunters arrive”.
In this quotation, Butterworth uses descriptive details to help the reader to view the appearance of seal pups abandoned by their mothers. By focusing on “suckled”, “weaned” and “stranded”, he effectively convinces readers to empathize these seal pups. Furthermore, Butterworth describes them “shot”, “injured”, “conscious” and “reactive” before they are being taken by hunters. The evidence here reveals the grisly details of seal hunting.
Above all, Butterworth successfully uses descriptive details to vividly portray how pathetic the seals are, which emphasizes how cruel the seal hunting is.
According to “The hunt Canada loves: Why seal clubbing will never die”, Hopper argues the seal ban is not only unfair to Inuit but also unreasonable.
First, Hopper states that Inuit rely on seal hunting to survive. It is impossible to ban commercial seal hunting while keeping Inuit’s subsistence. Besides, Inuit people never killed baby seals. All the anti-sealing organizations’ propaganda of baby seals killed by Inuit are lies. Similarly, seals are usually killed by a bullet to the head. Most of the time, practiced hunters kill seals quickly to ensure they suffer little. Moreover, he clarifies hunters are more regulated by humane practices after 1970s.
In fact, Canada’s seal hunting does not reduce seal populations. Certainly, Hopper articulates there are some downside of seal hunting. For example, many carcasses ended up tossed into the ocean. However, compare to other poultry’s situation, it’s no need to make a fuss. In contrast, he accuses the worst excesses of animal husbandry to illuminate seal hunting is not even close to be labelled cruel.
In other words, the seal hunting is just a normal activity to Inuit and Canadian for survival.
In Hopper’s article, he successfully uses logos and ethos to persuade readers to believe seal hunting is nothing different from other animal husbandries.
“This is a reference to the fact that the vast majority of harp seals killed are between one and 3.5 months old. […] Those rotisserie chickens at the grocery store were likely alive for only 40 days. The average pack of bacon comes from a pig that was only on earth for four months”.
In this section, Hopper uses statistical date to establish credibility to readers. His uses of “one and 3.5 months”, “40 days” and “four months” clearly and confidently helps reader to understand Inuit don’t kill baby seals. In addition, through logos strategy, Hopper compares seals to “rotisserie chickens” and “pack of bacon comes from a pig” logically explains that for Canadian, seal is a kind of poultry, same as chicken and pig. Thus, he justifies that seals died in seal hunting are considerably old enough to be killed.
To conclude, Hopper successfully uses logos and ethos to illustrate seal hunting is neither cruel nor inhuman, it is a normal activity like other animal husbandries.
In contrast, Butterworth only focused on seals are adorable, we should never kill seal. He didn’t realize seals are not pets. No matter how adorable seals are, people don’t keep seals in their home. But Inuit needs seal hunting to keep alive. When it comes to life or death questions, the answer is obvious.
On the whole, as a reader, I appreciate Butterworth’s emotional appeal to show me the details of seal hunting. My own view, however, is Hopper’s logical appeal helps me understanding better the situation that Inuit are facing, which is much crueler than seals are facing.
