DUE TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION SEAL PRODUCTS BAN PROPOSAL LAST JULY 23rd, BLEU DE TERRE IS WORKING ON A NEW APPROACH TO SUPPORT SEAL HUNT. THEREFORE, THIS BLOG IS CLOSED NOW.

CLICK HERE to read the more recent article in French related with the issue 

EN RAISON DE LA PROPOSITION DE LA COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE DU 23 JUILLET DERNIER DE BOYCOTTER LES PRODUITS DU PHOQUE, BLEU DE TERRE TRAVAILLE SUR UNE NOUVELLE APPROCHE POUR SUPPORTER LA CHASSE AU PHOQUE. PAR CONSÉQUENT CE BLOG EST DÉSORMAIS CLOS.

CLIQUER ICI pour lire le dernier article en français concernant le sujet

La Presse – Agence France Presse, Paris

Deux mois de prison avec sursis et 15 000 euros (24 000$ CAN) d’amende ont été requis mardi devant le tribunal correctionnel de Paris à l’encontre de l’ancienne actrice française Brigitte Bardot, poursuivie pour incitation à la haine envers la communauté musulmane.En décembre 2006, la star mythique du cinéma français avait adressé une lettre à Nicolas Sarkozy, alors ministre de l’Intérieur, où elle réclamait que les animaux tués par les musulmans lors de l’Aïd el Kebir soient étourdis avant d’être saignés. Ce courrier avait été publié dans le magazine Info-Journal distribué aux sympathisants de la Fondation Brigitte Bardot.

Dans cette lettre, elle écrivait: «Il y en a marre d’être menés par le bout du nez par toute cette population qui nous détruit, détruit notre pays en imposant ses actes».

Ces propos avait provoqué l’indignation de plusieurs associations anti-racistes (Mrap, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme et Licra).

Absente à l’audience, en raison de ses «difficultés à se déplacer», Brigitte Bardot, 73 ans, qui souffre d’arthrose de la hanche, avait adressé une lettre au tribunal: «Je suis écoeurée par le harcèlement que me portent» ces associations.

«Je ne me tairai que lorsque les étourdissements seront pratiqués» sur les animaux avant l’abattage rituel, y ajoutait-elle, se disant «fatiguée et lasse».

«Moi aussi, je suis fatiguée et lasse», lui a répondu la procureure de la République, rappelant les quatre condamnations de Brigitte Bardot pour des propos similaires depuis 1997.

Le tribunal doit rendre sa décision le 3 juin.

Brigitte Bardot, qui se consacre depuis vingt ans à la défense des animaux, avait été notamment condamnée en 2004 à 5000 euros (8000$ CAN) d’amende pour avoir tenu des propos incitant à la haine raciale dans son livre intitulé «Un cri dans le silence».

«On n’a plus le droit d’être scandalisé quand des clandestins ou des gueux profanent et prennent d’assaut nos églises pour les transformer en porcheries humaines, chiant derrière l’autel, pissant contre les colonnes, étalant leurs odeurs nauséabondes sous les voûtes sacrées des choeurs», a-t-elle écrit.

En décembre 2006, M^me Bardot avait adressé une lettre à Nicolas Sarkozy, alors ministre de l’intérieur, pour réclamer que les animaux tués par les musulmans lors de l’Aïd el-Kébir soient étourdis avant d’être saignés. “Il y en a marre d’être menés par le bout du nez par toute cette population qui nous détruit, détruit notre pays en imposant ses actes”, écrivait-elle dans ce courrier publié par le journal de sa fondation.

DES PEINES “PLUS MARQUANTES”

Depuis qu’elle a quitté le cinéma dans les années 1970, M^me Bardot a embrassé la cause de la défense des animaux, notamment à travers la fondation Brigitte-Bardot, mais a également fait parlé d’elle en épousant un sympathisant du Front national, bien qu’elle ait toujours démenti soutenir le parti d’extrême droite.

Depuis 1997, M^me Bardot a été condamnée à quatre reprises pour des propos ou écrits similaires, à des amendes allant de 1 500 à 5 000 euros. C’est sa tendance à la récidive qui a conduit le parquet à demander une condamnation plus lourde cette fois. “Je suis fatiguée et lasse, a expliqué la procureure, il est temps de prononcer des peines qui sont plus marquantes.”

The Ottawa Citizen – April 15th, page A12

Red blood. White ice. The stark imagery has made seal hunting one of the most controversial jobs in the world. It has also focused negative attention on Canada, where most of the world’s seal hunting takes place. Pictures of puppy-eyed seals struck and bleeding understandably elicit emotional responses; those images have been used extensively by the anti-sealing lobby for just that reason. The images also tend to draw political action, such as the European Union’s prospective ban on seal products — but that is not as easy to understand.

Decisions that affect peoples’ livelihoods (the seal hunt currently employs upwards of 5,000 Atlantic Canadians) should be based on more than just emotion. While the seal hunt is not pretty, numerous studies have concluded that it is quick and painless and at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses.

Which is more than can be said for the production of foie gras, for example, so dear to European palates, in which geese are restrained and force-fed. The production of veal, which was also developed to feed European tastes, has long been criticized as cruel and unusual punishment of animals. In a world of factory farming, seals at least get to spend their lives in the wild.

The closely-watched seal harvest is conducted in a controlled fashion. The survival of the seal industry is important for Atlantic Canada; Canadian governments continue to ensure that this traditional hunt is carried out responsibly and humanely.

Some critics will say that the words “humane” and “hunt” are mutually exclusive, no matter the animal. But that’s an argument for another day. In the meantime, humans continue to use and consume animals, and Europe has no business lecturing Canada about it.

Voici reproduit ci-dessous le texte d’une interview de Vera Weber, fille de l’animaliste Franz Weber.

Bleu de Terre prend Vera Weber en flagrant délit de mensonges. Le mensonge, la calomnie, la désinformation, les moyens de pressions de toutes sortes sont les moyens habituels avec lesquels focntionnent ces extrémistes de la cause animale.

Vera Weber : “Le gouvernement canadien a refusé jusqu‘à ce matin de nous délivrer les permis d’observer la chasse qui nous sont pourtant dus”, rapporte Vera Weber depuis Charlottetown sur l’Isle Prince Edward dans le Golf St. Laurent.

Commentaire de Bleu de Terre : depuis quand le Canada DOIT donner des permis d’observation à des étrangers sur son territoire ? Est-ce que l’Angleterre a donnée des permis d’observation de la chasse à cours ? Est-ce que l’Allemagne donne des permis d’observation de la chasse au chevreuil ? Est -ce que la France donne des permis d’observation de la chasse au sanglier ? Est-ce que les pays européens donnent des permis d’observation pour aller vérifier comment les animaux sont tués en abattoir ? Le gouvernement du Canada donne des permis d’observation pour montrer qu’il gère la chasse au phoque dans le respect de l’espèce et de la biodiversité. Ce n’est pas un du. C’est une décision souveraine d’un État qui n’a rien à cacher.

Vera Weber : Ce n’est qu’aujourd’hui, alors que le temps vient de changer et que les vols d’hélicoptères et les expéditions en bateau pneumatique sont devenus impossibles, que mon équipe a enfin reçu quelques permis. Visiblement, il s’agit pour le gouvernement canadien,” accuse Vera Weber, de tenir secrète par tous les moyens la cruauté inhérente de la chasse aux phoques!” [...] Ce massacre barbare de jeunes animaux sans défense et effectué en une inimaginable précipitation, ne dure que quelques jours et se déroule à huis-clos, afin de maintenir la fiction d’une chasse ordonnée, humaine devant l’opinion mondiale et notamment devant la Commission européenne.”

Commentaire de Bleu de Terre : Cela fait 30 ans que Bardot peut se promener sur la banquise, que les Mc Cartney au mépris de l’écologie se font photographier avec des jeunes phoques blancs qui ne sont plus chassés depuis 1987, que les hélicioptères de la IFAW et de la Humane Society survolent sans arrêt  la banquise, que les bateaux des Paul Watson peuvent venir prendre toutes les photos du monde, que les journalistes sont invités à grands frais par toutes ces organisations et que les chasseurs se font écoeurés par des soit-disant écologistes qui vivent dans le confort des grandes métropoles le reste de l’année et qui polluent la planète de leur activité qui n’a pour seul objectif que de gagner du fric grâce à leur site Internet et la Vera Weber à le culot et l’ignominie de nous dire que le gouvernement du Canada veut  ”tenir secrète par tous les moyens” la chasse au phoque pour qu’elle “se déroule à huis-clos” ????

C’est la goutte de trop qui fait déborder le vase déjà plein de la bêtise sans fond des Vera Weber de ce monde.

Le torchon texte est consultable au www.ffw.ch/content/view/186/57/lang,fr_FR/

Breaking News
April 4, 2008

Residents of St. Pierre have revolted against members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and have driven them from the refuge of St. Pierre Harbour. Fishermen on the island are upset with actions of the group and some statements they are making regarding the seal hunt. More than a hundred fishermen converged on the wharf in St. Pierre Harbour this morning to let members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society know that they were not welcome on the French island. After cutting the mooring ropes of the Farley Mowat, the crew was told to leave the French island and not come back.

Paul Watson, célèbre ami des animaux de l’organisme Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, vient de dire tout haut ce que les autres extrémistes qui aiment davantage les bêtes que les hommes écrivaient depuis quelques jours sur des forums Internet : il vient de dire que les chasseurs des Îles-de-la-Madeleine décédés dans l’accident maritime que l’on sait est moins grave que la mort des bébés phoques.

Vous avez bien lu.   

J’ai horreur des extrémistes. Watson est un extrémiste. S’il était musulman, il se ferait probablement exploser dans des cafés. S’il était amateur de soccer anglais, il serait probablement un hooligan. S’il était souverainiste québécois, il ferait probablement exploser des boîtes à lettres (avant de kidnapper des diplomates britanniques). S’il était un politicien américain, il serait probablement le frère siamois de Dick Cheney.

Un phoque, plus important qu’un homme ? Non, mais il faut être sérieusement mongol…

Je ne dis pas que les extrémistes de la chose animale devraient sortir leurs kleenex pour pleurer ces chasseurs. Mais ils pourraient faire une chose très simple, une chose honorable quand quelqu’un qu’on déteste meurt et qu’on n’a rien d’intelligent à dire sur la chose. Il pourrait se fermer la gueule.

Pour Paul Watson, la vie d’un animal vaut celle d’un homme. Probablement qu’il considère aussi que la luzerne a une valeur aussi grande que l’homme et la bête.

Animaliste ? Le terme est de Louis-Gilles Francoeur, du Devoir.

Certains commentateurs, sur ce blogue, m’ont reproché d’avoir voulu discréditer les amis des animaux, en parlant des propos de Paul Watson. Mais non, j’ai seulement attaché le grelot à des propos extrémistes prononcés par un extrémiste, c’est tout.

Vous aimez les animaux ? Vous voulez les défendre ? Fort bien. Je suis contre la cruauté envers les animaux. Mais la question est plus complexe que « J’aime les animaux, ne leur faites pas mal ».

Je ne suis pas contre la chasse. Je ne suis pas contre la consommation de viande d’animal. Même de la viande de chien ! Je n’en mangerais pas. Mais si j’étais Asiatique, j’en mangerais peut-être. Je ne tuerais pas un phoque, mais je ne pense pas que les chasseurs sont cruels avec eux. Eh oui, le geste de lui briser le crâne est brutal. Mais ce n’est pas de la cruauté. Pas plus que tirer un orignal à la carabine. Et des fois, je le crains, l’orignal agonise plus longtemps qu’un phoque frappé par un gourdin…

Je vous raconte ça mais je crois qu’il est impossible de parler de cruauté envers les animaux avec des végétariens…

Vous voulez défendre les animaux ? Fort bien. Mais il faut garder un sens des perspectives. Je vais toujours traiter de nono (ou pire) quelqu’un qui croit que la vie d’un homme vaut celle d’une bête à poil. Et je vais toujours envoyer au diable quelqu’un qui fait un parallèle entre un génocide et la chasse ; entre l’Holocauste et le gavage des oies. Ne riez pas, j’ai reçu de ces courriels, il y a quelques mois.

Demain, dans le journal, j’écris sur Paul Watson et la chasse aux phoques, c’est décidé…

Cliquer sur l’image pour l’agrandir

Canadian Press, March 26, 2007

Magdalen Islands – Greek cardiac surgeons are interested in the plentiful supply of harp seals for heart-valve transplantation purposes.

In the Magdalen Islands, TAMASU, a company supplying harbour-seal products, yesterday announced a partnership agreement with Greek cardiac surgeons as part of a research and development project.

If the project achieves the desired results, this company from the Cap-aux-Meules area would have the exclusive right to supply the medical market with harp-seal heart valves.

The Director of cardiac surgery at the Medical Centre in Athens, Dr. Andreas Agathos, explains that research that he conducted some ten years ago on common seals from Nova Scotia showed that valves from the hearts of harbour seals are less likely to be rejected than mechanical valves. He explains that they are more resistant than valves from pigs or cows, which are commonly used in the medical field.

However, it will be another six months before we find out whether the experiment was a success and whether the way will then be open for an application to be made to permit transplantation of these valves into humans.

Bernard Guimont, the President of TAMASU, confidently predicts that such a break-through would make a major impact on the public image of the seal hunt. Last week, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) authorized the harvesting of 200 harp seals. The cost of the operation was to be shared between TAMASU and the hunter, Denis Éloquin.

Research will be conducted on the transplantation of pig valves in French, Swiss and Swedish laboratories.

Worldwide demand for mechanical valves and those of animal origin for medical transplantation purposes amounts to 300,000 per year, according to Dr. Agathos.

Biological valves apparently cost between $4,000 and $5,000 each.

Allison Hanes, National Post Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

When Canada’s seal hunt gets underway on the ice floes of the northeast Atlantic coast within the next month, a new set of federal standards will be in place that attempts to ensure the young animals are killed as quickly and humanely as possible after being clubbed or shot.

The key element will be for hunters to palpitate the seal’s skull to gauge whether it is unconscious or whether its head has been fatally crushed before proceeding with bleeding out or skinning the animals. If the seal is still alert, hunters will have to cut the main artery to ensure imminent death.

But both sealers and anti-slaughter activists say the new regulations, following the recommendations of a panel of veterinary experts, are not that much different from how the seal harvest is currently conducted, raising questions about how far the measures will go in blunting international criticism of a controversial enterprise that is considered a mainstay of the East Coast economies.

An independent group of veterinarians assembled by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 2005 proposed “a three-step method of stunning, checking and bleeding seals [that] can result in rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness and death, and thus can be a humane process.”

While the new rules have not been officially posted on the department’s Web site, seal hunters are preparing for their implementation when the season opens late this month or early next.

Frank Pinhorn, managing director of the Canadian Sealers Association, said the organization will be touring Newfoundland over the next few weeks, using an instructional video to brief its members on the new expectations.

But he said the new requirements are mostly in line with current sealing practices.

“By and large, most of the procedures are already in place,” he said.

“Seals are always checked to see if they’re dead…. Sealers want to do the job properly as well. We’ve been in this business a long time and we always take pride in doing our work in a right and proper fashion.”

Sealing, however, is a dangerous occupation in which hunters often navigate their boats through frigid oceans laden with ice.

During DFO consultations in St. John’s this year, sealers were in agreement with the new regulation in principle, but had concerns that if not worded correctly it could seriously endanger human life, according to www.thesealfishery.com, an information resource on industry practices.

“The sealers are concerned about the instances where the ice is thin and you can’t get out on it. Then you got to retrieve your seal and check them in your boat,” Mr. Pinhorn said. “They got to be retrieved by the hakapik or whatever. The alternative is to shoot the animal again. That is practised in some instances.”

Canada is facing increasing pressure to end or limit the annual seal hunt, a tradition that dates back commercially to the 1700s in Newfoundland and Labrador, the North Shore of Quebec, the Magdalene Islands and the Maritimes, and further among aboriginal and Inuit peoples.Celebrities such as Brigitte Bardot and Sir Paul McCartney and his former wife have campaigned against sealing internationally, using the iconic image of the adorable white pup.

Belgium and the Netherlands have passed laws banning the import of seal products such as fur, meat and oil, which is known for its Omega 3 fatty acid content. Now the European Union is poised to consider similar legislation, which could devastate the Canadian industry.

There are about six million harp seals off the east coast of Canada — triple the population of 30 years ago. Last year, Canada’s seal cull was 270,000. This year’s quota has not been announced yet, according to the sealers.

ahanes@nationalpost.com

Close

Presented by
Reader Discussion

Le Canada assure des activités de chasse sans cruauté.

Le monde entier continue d’utiliser les ressources animales pour se nourrir et se vêtir. Grâce à une réglementation sévère, le Canada s’assure que les animaux chassés sur son territoire sont abattus rapidement et sans cruauté. Dans le cas des phoques, le Canada a étudié les méthodes de chasse utilisées – le fusil et l’hakapik, issus des traditions autochtones et inuites – afin de veiller à ce qu’elles soient comparables aux méthodes utilisées pour chasser tout autre animal
sauvage ou domestique.

Le Canada exige qu’on détermine clairement la mort de l’animal (test du réflexe de clignement) avant la transformation des phoques. Selon une étude réalisée par des membres indépendants de l’Association canadienne des médecins vétérinaires, la quasi-totalité des phoques chassés ont été abattus sans cruauté

LE MONDE | 17.01.08 | 15h09  •  Mis à jour le 17.01.08 | 15h09

MADRID ENVOYÉE SPÉCIALE

Les envahisseurs sont parmi nous. L’histoire ressemble à un film de science-fiction, mais elle se passe en Europe, sous l’oeil inquiet des scientifiques, qui observent depuis longtemps cette vague d’invasions, sans avoir imaginé qu’elle ait atteint une telle ampleur.

Près de 10 670 espèces animales et végétales viennent d’être répertoriées dans la catégorie des “espèces exotiques envahissantes”, après trois ans de travail mené dans le cadre d’un programme baptisé Daisie (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe). Le chiffre a été rendu public lors d’une conférence consacrée au sujet, mardi 15 et mercredi 16 janvier, à Madrid, sous l’égide de l’Union européenne (UE). Quelque 200 spécialistes y participaient.

Lexique Les espèces exotiques envahissantes (EEE) désignent les plantes, animaux, micro-organismes introduits de façon intentionnée ou non hors de leur milieu naturel et dont l’extension est une menace pour l’écosystème local. Dans 80 % des cas, l’introduction est volontaire.La convention sur la biodiversité biologique reconnaît depuis 2002 que les espèces exotiques envahissantes sont une menace grave pour la biodiversité mondiale. Elle demande à ses signataires de prendre des mesures au niveau national et régional pour enrayer le phénomène.

“Nous avions sous-évalué le phénomène, reconnaît David Roy, coordinateur de Daisie. Le rythme d’introduction de nouvelles espèces n’a cessé d’augmenter au cours des dernières années.” Aucune liste n’existait jusqu’à présent au niveau européen. Une fiche signalétique a été établie pour chaque prédateur : description, comportement, aire de colonisation, impacts observés… 15 % des espèces recensées produisent des dégâts avérés sur l’environnement, l’économie ou la santé.

“En apparence, ces espèces peuvent paraître inoffensives, voire plaisantes, comme ces jacinthes d’eau aux fleurs violettes venues d’Amérique du Sud, mais nous savons qu’elles sont une des principales sources de perte de la biodiversité et qu’elles peuvent être le vecteur de nouvelles maladies”, a rappelé Ladislav Miko, directeur de la direction de l’environnement à la Commission européenne.

La berce des prés (Heracleum mantegazzianum), introduite à des fins ornementales, prolifère de façon incontrôlée partout en Europe. Au contact de la peau, elle provoque de graves brûlures. En République tchèque, de nombreux enfants en sont victimes. Depuis plusieurs années, la prolifération de la méduse Rhopilema nomadica en Méditerranée – probablement arrivée d’Asie dans des eaux de ballast de navires empruntant le canal de Suez – perturbe l’activité des stations balnéaires. En Grande-Bretagne, en Italie, de charmants écureuils gris venus d’Amérique du Nord sont devenus l’ennemi numéro un des entrepreneurs forestiers…

LISTE NOIRE

La facture à mettre sur le compte de ces espèces serait de plusieurs centaines de millions d’euros par an pour l’économie européenne. L’Espagne se montre particulièrement préoccupée. “Le phénomène se développe de façon exponentielle, il est urgent d’organiser une riposte collective. Un Etat seul ne peut lutter”, a mis en garde la ministre de l’environnement espagnole, Cristina Narbona. Madrid a dressé une liste noire de 69 espèces à éradiquer.

Parmi elles : la moule zébrée. Originaire de la Caspienne et longue de 3 cm, elle colonise depuis le début de la décennie le bassin de l’Ebre, éliminant sur son passage tout ou partie de la faune locale. La densité de ses colonies perturbe la navigation et les usines installées au bord des cours d’eau voient leurs canalisations bouchées par le mollusque. L’Irlande, la Grande-Bretagne, la Finlande, l’Allemagne et l’Italie sont aussi confrontées à ce fléau à des degrés divers.

La globalisation des échanges est le principal vecteur de la prolifération des espèces envahissantes. Mais alors que d’autres pays, comme les Etats-Unis ou la Nouvelle-Zélande, eux aussi victimes de ces espèces, se sont dotés de plans d’action et de législations restrictives, les Vingt-Sept ne disposent d’aucune stratégie, et leur arsenal commun est très limité. “Si nous voulons parvenir à donner un coup d’arrêt à la perte de biodiversité d’ici à 2010, comme les pays membres (de l’UE) en ont pris l’engagement, il est urgent de prendre des mesures”, insiste Patrick Murphy, de la direction de l’environnement.

Mais personne ne se berce d’illusions. “Beaucoup de pays membres sont réticents à un plan d’action qui aura forcément un coût. Les règles d’importation devront être durcies”, ajoute M. Murphy. D’ici à l’automne, la Commission devrait néanmoins mettre sur la table des propositions, mais aucune décision ne sera prise avant… 2010. Soit après les élections européennes et le renouvellement de la Commission. Les envahisseurs ont encore de beaux jours devant eux.

Fur business green or mean? Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaign
by Ann Marie McQueen, Sun Media

Fur business green or mean? Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaign Fur business green or mean? Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaignA slick new advertising campaign aims to reframe the fur industry as a friend of the environment.

The Fur Council of Canada launched print ads last week calling fur “eco-fashion” in an effort to reassure consumers about their product and counter anti-fur campaigns of the past.

The Montreal-based council represents about 70,000 members, most of them trappers, said Alan Herscovici, the council’s executive vice-president.

“It was important to explain the real story of the fur industry,” said Herscovici. “And that is ‘if you care about nature and protecting the environment, fur is an excellent choice.”

Dernières nouvelles

11 janvier 2008

Les chasseurs de phoque se disent prêts à revoir leurs méthodes d’abattage. Le sujet a été au coeur des discussions cette semaine, à Terre-Neuve, lors de la rencontre annuelle entre les chasseurs de phoque et les représentants de Pêches et Océans Canada.

Certaines recommandations de vétérinaires internationaux pourraient être mises en application dès le printemps. Il y a deux ans, des vétérinaires indépendants ont recommandé que les chasseurs vident les phoques de leur sang avant de récupérer leurs peaux.

Le président des chasseurs de loups-marins des îles de la Madeleine, Jean-Claude Lapierre, approuve la recommandation. « On veut se responsabiliser et justement devenir de vrais professionnels », fait-il valoir.

Depuis 30 ans, les opposants à la chasse se sont beaucoup servi des images de phoques ensanglantés sur la banquise pour faire la promotion de leurs idées. Jean-Claude Lapierre croit que cela améliorera l’image de la chasse: « Personne ne pourra dire qu’il n’est pas mort. Un animal ne peut pas vivre sans qu’il ait du sang dans le corps. »

La modification des méthodes d’abattage demandera une formation précise et la diffusion de nouvelles informations, estime la gestionnaire de Pêche et Océans Canada Sylvette Leblanc. Elle rappelle que 7000 personnes participent annuellement à la chasse au Canada.

Le ministre des Pêches et des Océans, Loyola Hearn, devrait annoncer d’ici quelques semaines si la saignée sera obligatoire au printemps ou en 2009.

Le Canada appuie la tradition de la chasse

Le Canada réglemente la chasse en fonction de ses populations animales abondantes et en santé. La chasse au phoque n’y est pas pratiquée comme sport ou comme loisir. Les phoques sont considérés comme une ressource naturelle importante, à l’origine de nombreux produits – peaux, huile industrielle, artisanat, nourriture pour la consommation humaine et animale, capsules d’huile de phoque riches en oméga-3. La réglementation canadienne exige l’utilisation maximale des ressources du phoque.

En 2003, la valeur des produits dérivés du phoque s’est élevée à plus de 40 millions de dollars. Le Canada exporte ces produitssous trois formes: viande, huile et peaux. La chasse au phoque constitue une activité économique importante, rapportant des millions de dollars en revenus directs à de petites communautés côtières, économiquement désavantagées.

Le Canada, en plus d’être conscient des retombées économiques de la chasse pour des milliers de familles vivant dans les communautés rurales côtières de l’est du Canada, prend en compte les droits des Autochtones et des Inuits, pour qui la chasse au phoque est un droit important, une source de nourriture, une culture et une tradition.

A suivre…

Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth. HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

Read more

By Christopher Aust
August 2004, published on June 13, 2007 in san diego dog blog

I was rather amazed at the number of people who wrote to me about my opinions regarding the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) when I did my last few articles. Then again, maybe I shouldn’t be. Before about two weeks ago, I myself was rather ignorant as to the real goals of HSUS, and where their, (actually your) money goes. As I always do though, I decided to educate myself about them.

I also conducted a poll of 100 average people. Just the average Joe in the street. 94% of the people thought HSUS ran the local shelters in their community. 4% knew about their other programs and the remaining 2% had no idea who they were. Of the 94% all said they would donate to HSUS based on what they knew about them. I’m betting HSUS is banking, literally, on these types of individuals.

I also went online and found some rather interesting, at times quite scary, information on several web sites. I would have interviewed a HSUS representative, but after last week’s newsletter, I got an email from one that was little more than hate mail and very offensive!

Founders Coleman Burke, then president of the American Bible Society, Cleveland Amory and Helen Jones, founded HSUS in 1954. As far as I have been able to tell, Mr. Burke served as their President until 1970 when John Hoyt, a Presbyterian minister, took over as President and CEO until 1996.
Until just a few months ago, the President and CEO was Paul Irwin, a Methodist minister. The current CEO and President is Wayne Pacelle who admittedly has had ties with some radical (and I mean radical) animal rights groups in the past.

Now, is it important I mention the religious background? Maybe and maybe not. What I noticed though is the organization, at least to me, has an evangelical feel. Is this a bad thing? No. I don’t see why unless you are running the finances in a manner similar to Jim and Tammie Faye Baker! That sure is the way it looks to me.

Officers and Directors
HSUS is an organization with their primary focus being animals. As I reviewed the names and titles of the Board Officers and Directors, I found it curious they had no DVM’s (vets) on either. They have three MDs’, three PhDs’ and six attorneys. Am I the only one that finds this odd? Plenty of lawyers, but no vet.

When I conducted my interview with Kathy Bauch a few weeks ago, she refused to answer any questions regarding HSUS’ finances for a “newsletter. ” She did offer to send me their 2003 financials though. This is what they send whenever some one has questions about their finances. As I mentioned last week, if it was similar to what they have online, it would be vague and difficult to decipher. What I got was much more.

What I received is their 2003 Annual Report. It is a twenty-one page “report” that was obviously very expensive to print. Tucked way in the back is exactly what I expected. A vague and difficult to read one page financial report. The rest appears to me to be a very expensive sales letter and nothing more, complete with a postage paid envelope to send in your donation.

Now you might say, “So what? They have to promote themselves.” I agree. However, this publication has six pages of calendar quality photos of nothing but animals. Two and a half pages of self-glorifying articles from HSUS staff, none of which was necessary. How much donor money could have been saved by deleting this junk from the thousands and thousands of these reports they printed?

According to the Comparative Financial Operations Report for 2003, the HSUS has $116,205,882. 00 in total liability and net assets. Over $5,000,000 of that is in cash and cash equivalents, and another nearly five and a half million in receivables. They also have nearly $93,000,000 in market value investments. Not too bad.

In 2003, in revenue, additions and transfers, HSUS made $6,923,670. Of that amount, sheltering programs received $10,551,527 and it was shared with animal habitat and wildlife programs. Now, assuming it was an even split, sheltering programs received $3,517,175.66 Now that’s a lot of money, but not when you consider a good sized shelter can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to run, three million is really a drop in the bucket. They spent $21,145,769. 00 in fundraising and membership development.

Six times what they put into their shelter programs, which is what most people I talked to think HSUS does with the money donated to them.

Providing Help or Selling It
I’m not sure what they spent the money on for their shelter programs, but I will assure you they didn’t fund any shelters. In fact, they charge shelters and Animal Control offices for their assistance and instructional material. I have been able to find little and or nothing HSUS doesn’t charge for when it comes to helping a shelter and their educational programs.

For instance, lets say you or your town runs an animal shelter that is struggling for one reason or another, which most are, HSUS is ready to come in and help. For between $4000.00 and $20,000.00 they will send their experts to your shelter through their Animal Services Consultation Program. The fee depends on the size of the agency and the complexity of its programs, charged on a sliding scale based on your agency’s resources. In other words, the more you have, the more they’ll take.

Youth Programs
Now, lets go back to our youth. You’re in middle or high school and want to start a club to promote rescue and do things to help companion animals. HSUS can help you with that, too. Just go to humaneteen.org. There you can buy a package full of all kinds of propaganda and learn to be a full-fledged animal activist. They will sell your child a club starter kit for $22.00 and then give activity suggestions like their “Fight Fur” program.

Here they encourage kids to make flyers and hand them out in front of businesses to protest against shoppers buying fur. HSUS will also give your child cards to distribute at such events. They’ll show your child pictures of dead animals in traps and direct them to other sites where they can see pictures of hunters beating seals over the head.

They will also promote vegen/vegetarian lifestyles to your child. Just go to the message board for kids and you can read how many of the kids are distressed, after reading the material HSUS SOLD them, because their parents will not let them go vegen. You will also see posts promoting PETA!

Now I want to be fair here. They do have some decent material that is age appropriate and educational in nature. I think it’s overpriced; for instance, your child can rent a video to show their class for $25.00, but some of it is good material.

However, there is little promoting appropriate training, grooming or responsible ownership of companion animals. It seems to me the whole focus is turning our children into activists, vegens and extremists.

Now if I want my child to be a vegen, or an activist, I will make that decision and not HSUS. Our kids have enough on their plate without having to be weighed down with this information or agenda. Additionally, kids are kids and don’t always make appropriate decisions. When dealing with complex issues like activism and protesting, it would be easy for them to get into trouble or hurt.

Doesn’t PETA target children too?

Ethical Financial Practices
Let’s get back to the money: Former President John Hoyt once instructed his members on becoming more humane: “We begin, I suggest, by living more simply, more sparingly.” Let’s see how he did. He made around $200,000.00 in the late 1980’s running HSUS. In 1986, HSUS bought his house in Maryland for $310,000 and allowed him and his family to live there, free of rent, until 1992.
When he retired as CEO, HSUS gave him a $1,000,000.00 bonus.

Paul Irwin, another former President, while making $300,000.00 from HSUS, was given an $85,000.00 interest free loan to renovate his cabin in Maine. The cabin was held in trust by HSUS, however his family continued to use it until he died. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Makes me wonder.

Guilty by Association
Let’s look at some of HSUS’ associations: In April of 2000 HSUS sent J.P. Goodwin as its emissary on an anti-fur mission to China. Goodwin is not just any animal rights zealot, he was an avowed member of Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a group once called one of the biggest domestic terrorist organizations by the FBI. He had been convicted for vandalism of several fur retailers and their property. Less than a year later, he was formerly identified as a HSUS legislative staff member.

If you don’t know about ALF you should check them out. They truly scare the heck out of me. They are, in my opinion, every bit as much a threat to people as Al Quiada. I cannot believe HSUS would hire such a person. When asked questions about an arson fire at a slaughter house in Petaluma, California, and a Utah feed co-op that nearly killed a family, Goodwin stated, “We’re ecstatic!”

Then, there is the PETA connection …

HSUS has repeatedly hired PETA employees in their organization. Their head of investigations, several investigators, a computer programmer, just to name a few.

Sorry folks, my opinion is, once a terrorist, always a terrorist. When HSUS hires these people, they appear to support the crimes these individuals may have been involved in.

In 2003, HSUS VP Martin Stephens was asked to recommend three people to serve on an EPA “pollution prevention and toxics” panel. Two of his three choices were PETA employees.

All Talk and No Action
While HSUS will admit they don’t run or fund any shelters, you usually find it at the bottom of the page or tucked away somewhere near the end of a statement.
As I mentioned before, they don’t put their money where their mouth is.

In 1995, when the Washington DC animal shelter was going to have to close due to a budget shortfall, HSUS (based in DC) offered to build and operate a DC shelter at its own expense to serve as a national model. There were, of course, conditions. HSUS wanted the city to give it 3-5 acres of land and tax exempt status for all of its real estate holdings in the District of Columbia. (Remember, they buy some executives homes to live in among other property holdings.) The DC government offered a long-term lease but HSUS refused to proceed unless it would “own absolutely” the land. The district declined, and the only HSUS funded animal shelter never materialized.

HSUS, who makes and has enough money to fund a shelter in every state, as well as subsidize spay/neuter programs, declined to help the dogs in its own back yard. Why? Money is all I can think of. Perhaps they were afraid they would soil their Armani suits by actually working with a dog.
The New CEO Rather than go on a tirade about the new President and CEO of HSUS, I have
put some quotes from him below. Read them, and you decide.

“I think they wanted the aggressive approach,” he says. “They wanted someone who was going to think things up. And they got him.” June 2004, Washington Post when asked about his selection as CEO. “We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993

Overview
I could go on for days about HSUS, but I will stop here. In my opinion, they are little more than an organization whose main agenda is filling the coffers and pushing an extremist agenda through misinformation and exploitation.

Again, my opinion, they have done nothing but profit from the contributions of people who don’t know any better. I have tried to see it otherwise, I simply can’t. I highly recommend you go to activistcash. com and see what they have there about HSUS and their connection with PETA. There are several other sites I found interesting, as well as many stories about HSUS in the archive of
the Washington Post.

Would I give anything to the Humane Society of the United States? Yes I would. A pooper-scooper, they can use to go clean my yard. At least then we would know they actually have done something for a dog this year.
This article may be republished using the following attribution box:
—-
Copyright ©2004 Christopher Aust, Master Dog Trainer Creator:
The Natural Cooperative Training System (NCTS) for Dogs
The Instinctual Development System (IDS) for Puppies Subscribe to the
BARK ‘n’ SCRATCH Newsletter: _subscribe@Master- Dog-Training. com_
(http://us.f625.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=subscribe@Master-Dog-Training.com)
VISIT NOW: www.master-dog-training.com

Animal rights group falsely claimed it would “care for” Michael Vick’s dogs

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2, 2007 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today the nonprofit
Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) called on the Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) to return all the money it has raised in the wake of
the Michael Vick dogfighting scandal. CCF revealed today that beginning on
July 18 — the day after Vick’s criminal indictment — HSUS promised on its
website that financial contributions would be earmarked for helping it
“care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” But yesterday The New
York Times reported that HSUS is not, in fact, caring for the animals. And
HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group is recommending
that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than
adopt them out to suitable homes.

“Like most Americans, we can’t stand dogfighting,” said Center for
Consumer Freedom Director of Research David Martosko. “But we also can’t
stand animal-rights fundraising that smells this fishy.”
The Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with any
local “humane societies.” Although the organization runs no hands-on dog or
cat shelters anywhere, some of its fundraising materials hint at a direct
connection with pet rescue operations.

HSUS’s online fundraising pitch related to Michael Vick has now been
quietly altered to remove the claim that the group is caring for his pit
bulls. But there’s no reliable way to know how much money the group raised
on the basis of its earlier promises.

“As usual, HSUS is exploiting Americans’ emotions about dogs to build
its war chest for anti-meat, anti-dairy, and anti-medical-research
campaigns,” Martosko added. “These predatory activists should return every
cent and apologize for misleading the public.”

In a similar episode, HSUS raised a reported $32 million in the wake of
the Hurricane Katrina disaster, promising to use the funds to rescue and
reunite lost pets with their owners. But since March 2006, Louisiana
Attorney General Charles Foti’s office has been investigating what happened
to the majority of those funds, which HSUS does not appear to have used for
Katrina- related rescues.

– The New York Times article is online here
– HSUS’s false fundraising claim is preserved online here

For more information about the Humane Society of the United States,
visit www.ActivistCash.com/HSUS.

For an interview, call
202-463-7112.
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by
restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote
personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.
Media Contact: Sarah Longwell
202-463-7112

——————————————————————————–

Humane Society of the United States’ version of “Wayne’s world”; or how spending money on Vick’s dogs is a constant battle for H$U$…

August 3rd, 2007 by REXANO

REXANO Editorial by Zuzana Kukol, www.REXANO.org

Las Vegas, NV, August 3, 2007-Those of you who were hoping to read about the sequel to a movie or ‘Saturday Night Live” sketch to an original “Wayne’s world”, stop reading, Dana Carvey and Mike Myers are not here.

Our ‘Wayne” is Wayne Pacelle, an extremely well paid president of the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), a group calling themselves “the nation’s largest animal protection organization”.

HSUS has about $ 200,000,000 in assets, yes that is 200 millions, meaning, no animal should have to be killed in shelters with that kind of money laying around ( being donated by misinformed donors who don’t know the real H$U$).

Mr. Pacelle, who according to various news reports is a vegan who doesn’t even own a pet, was quoted on many occasions about his vision for the animal rights (AR) movement, and his personal objective of creating a ” National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.”

Our Wayne though, instead of being a star in a hot movie, has been sitting in a very hot seat lately.

In their August 2, 2007 press release: click here

” Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) called on the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to return all the money it has raised in the wake of the Michael Vick dog fighting scandal. CCF revealed today that beginning on July 18 – the day after Vick’s criminal indictment – HSUS promised on its website that financial contributions would be earmarked for helping it “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” But yesterday The New York Times reported that HSUS is not, in fact, caring for the animals. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group is recommending that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes.”

I wonder how long before we hear Wayne scream: “It’s Wayne’s World! Wayne’s World! Money time! Excellent!”, accompanied by him jumping up and down throwing dollar bills in the air.

HSUS is really an AR group that many confuse with local ‘Humane society’ shelters, however, Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with any of them. They are a powerful well funded AR group, who instead running shelters or helping animals directly, works hard on eventually removing pets from our homes, meat from our tables, leather goods from our closets and animals from zoos and circuses.

In his August 03, 2007 rebuttal “Dogfighting a Constant Battle for The HSUS”, Wayne brags: “We publish manuals and the key resources on the subject. And we produce videos, public service announcements, in-depth stories and other quality materials to educate the public and law enforcement authorities about this despicable underworld.”

What he conveniently ‘forgets’ to mention is that they charge money for these manuals, they don’t do this as free public service to help animals; they are in business of selling their agenda. So where do the multimillion donations go? WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMALS themselves, you know the ones in blood and flesh instead of the imaginary ones in their press releases and fundraisers?

There’s nothing like a big celebrity scandal like Vick to increase HSUS’s profile, publicity and income. I guess we are back to where the money is.

Kids’ class, 45 dollars:
click here

Stop dog fighting material (expensive):
click here

More stores:
click here