I think it is hilarious on both sides. On the governments side, no matter what you do you are going to lose because somebody is going to sensationalize something. On the eco-support side they lobby for the saving of wildlife with wild claims that all private observations are incorrect save theirs.

Look at it this way, before any credible study done on the seal hunt, hunters and conservationists have been at odds, pissing each other off. So anything said by conservationists and hunters is up for open interpretation as to whether its truthful or not. The Canadian Vetrinary association did a study on the seal hunt and said it was a sustainable hunt, provided the killing of white-coated seals was abolished. This organisation has more credibility then any sea sheperd or pissed off seal hunter any day as they don't have the stake of lost jobs or "saving the animal world" to affect any statements.

I myself, being a hunter, support any sustainable hunt and have been on both sides of this argument in my location. I don't support over hunting of anything, and as much of the prey should be used as possible as to prevent waste. But their are those who beleive they can kill and take what they want. That is wrong. But any organization that believes in the concept we all should be vegitarians and that shooting deer in the province of Ontario is wrong based simply on the fact that "killing is bad" is a load of crap too. (quick fact: because of the lowering number of active hunters in Ontario and restrictive laws on what hunters can take, car accident deaths involving deer have spiked exponentially. Deer are also destroying habitat of other animals due to overpopulation.).

All I hear in the media is sensationalism on both sides. I tire quickly of this because how can you argue with someone whos heritage is threatened by the 1% of hunters who take too much and the extremism of some organizations who still show pictures of white seal pups(which havent been allowed to be hunted for years) and ask for donations of the rest of the world who know even less then they do about it.

The 99% of hunters that hunt legally and fairly and the conservationists need to come to some sort of middle ground where they can stop with the rhetoric and get down to the facts. Bottom line? A controlled hunt is sustainable and sensible. Over hunting AND harrassment is illegal and unfair. Just because some folk are sqeamish over the blood of the animal that may end up on their plate doesn't make them right in harrassing those whom it doesn't bother. If it sounds like Im biased to the side of the hunter, I am because at the end of the day its those guys that must live and die by the laws and legislation created by active studies done by conservationists. Sensationalism, inflated egos, and the idea that killing animals is "bad" does not support the people, it only supports a small few who cry every time they see a chicken on the plate.