Add:

> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:526Pj.1143$XI1.220@edtnps91...

> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically"
> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with his
> own words.

This wasn't observed:

'The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" before
slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to "bleed out"
before it can be skinned.'

It takes time for bleeding out to occur, so don't try claiming it was done.

"pearl"  wrote in message 
news:fukmma$is$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> Add:
>
>> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message 
>> news:526Pj.1143$XI1.220@edtnps91...
>
>> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically"
>> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with 
>> his
>> own words.
>
> This wasn't observed:
>
> 'The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" 
> before
> slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to 
> "bleed out"
> before it can be skinned.'
>
> It takes time for bleeding out to occur, so don't try claiming it was 
> done.

If Danny observed that the hunter didn't check then it is fair criticism. 
However, you cannot determine intent from casual observation, i.e. did the 
hunter intend to cause suffering to the animal?  The part you left out is 
the hunter clubbed the seal three more times after the first miss.  If the 
hunter's intention was cruelty, then he wouldn't have bothered with 
additional effort beyond what is necessary to immobilize the animal.

So you see pearlie, even your demonization tactics have hit a brick wall. 
For the actions of the hunter to be considered cruel then an intent to be 
cruel has to be proven.  The hunter demonstrated the opposite by striking 
the seal three more times.  Just one blow properly placed is enough to 
render the animal unconscious and insensible... if anything the hunter was 
being thorough.

"Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message news:BBpPj.1237$PM5.1178@edtnps92...
>
> "pearl"  wrote in message
> news:fukmma$is$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > Add:
> >
> >> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
> >> news:526Pj.1143$XI1.220@edtnps91...
> >
> >> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states "categorically"
> >> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with
> >> his
> >> own words.
> >
> > This wasn't observed:
> >
> > 'The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" before
> > slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to "bleed out"
> > before it can be skinned.'
> >
> > It takes time for bleeding out to occur, so don't try claiming it was
> > done.
>
> If Danny observed that the hunter didn't check then it is fair criticism.
> However, you cannot determine intent from casual observation, i.e. did the
> hunter intend to cause suffering to the animal?  The part you left out is
> the hunter clubbed the seal three more times after the first miss.  If the
> hunter's intention was cruelty, then he wouldn't have bothered with
> additional effort beyond what is necessary to immobilize the animal.
>
> So you see pearlie, even your demonization tactics have hit a brick wall.
> For the actions of the hunter to be considered cruel then an intent to be
> cruel has to be proven.  The hunter demonstrated the opposite by striking
> the seal three more times.

Three more times ... after being smashed in the face FIVE times, and
being hooked and dragged.  What the hell's wrong with you, nomsky?

> Just one blow properly placed is enough to
> render the animal unconscious and insensible... if anything the hunter was
> being thorough.

'Effective stunning (i.e. loss of consciousness) will be achieved by focal
damage to the brain stem or diffuse and severe damage to the cerebral
cortices.

The most efficient way to render an animal unconscious by a blow to the
head, is a blow to the brain stem. The brain stem in mammals is the most
highly protected part of the central nervous system. It is located ventrally
within the calveria, beneath the cerebellum and overlying skull.
Furthermore, in seals, flexion of the neck places a thick layer of blubber
over the base of the skull. Therefore, the only target area available in a
seal is the skull overlying the cerebral cortex. Delivering a blow to this
area and the underlying cortex is a much less efficient way of rendering
an animal unconscious.

Diffuse and severe damage only to the cerebral cortices can result in
significant disruption of the ascending reticular activating system,
resulting in unconsciousness, which may be temporary i.e. conscious
sensation may return.

A large blow to the cerebral cortex is unlikely to result in immediate brain
stem herniation. Cerebral oedema can elicit herniation but only after a
considerable time period (potentially hours). Massive cerebral
haemorrhage associated with a blunt external trauma would be unlikely to
occur and result in immediate death.
..'
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf

What is the point of debating the methods?  I already exposed that you 
oppose the hunt under any circumstances, and that this issue is REALLY about 
your personal philisophical viewpoints on animals.  It's completely 
disingenuous (and a waste of time) to debate humaneness when it's clear it 
is about your "personal beliefs."  If you're a Hindu, cows are sacred, it 
pointless to debate a Hindu on the humaneness of killing a cow because it 
just isn't done.  Your beliefs are religious-like... no different than 
Hinduism... your agenda is basically faith-based activism


"pearl"  wrote in message 
news:fungv5$9po$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message 
> news:BBpPj.1237$PM5.1178@edtnps92...
>>
>> "pearl"  wrote in message
>> news:fukmma$is$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > Add:
>> >
>> >> "Chom Noamsky"  wrote in message
>> >> news:526Pj.1143$XI1.220@edtnps91...
>> >
>> >> Danny admits he can't see if the seal is dead but states 
>> >> "categorically"
>> >> that the rules are being ignored.  He shoots his credibility down with
>> >> his
>> >> own words.
>> >
>> > This wasn't observed:
>> >
>> > 'The fisherman then has to check that an animal is fully "insensible" 
>> > before
>> > slicing open the arteries near its flippers, allowing the creature to 
>> > "bleed out"
>> > before it can be skinned.'
>> >
>> > It takes time for bleeding out to occur, so don't try claiming it was
>> > done.
>>
>> If Danny observed that the hunter didn't check then it is fair criticism.
>> However, you cannot determine intent from casual observation, i.e. did 
>> the
>> hunter intend to cause suffering to the animal?  The part you left out is
>> the hunter clubbed the seal three more times after the first miss.  If 
>> the
>> hunter's intention was cruelty, then he wouldn't have bothered with
>> additional effort beyond what is necessary to immobilize the animal.
>>
>> So you see pearlie, even your demonization tactics have hit a brick wall.
>> For the actions of the hunter to be considered cruel then an intent to be
>> cruel has to be proven.  The hunter demonstrated the opposite by striking
>> the seal three more times.
>
> Three more times ... after being smashed in the face FIVE times, and
> being hooked and dragged.  What the hell's wrong with you, nomsky?
>
>> Just one blow properly placed is enough to
>> render the animal unconscious and insensible... if anything the hunter 
>> was
>> being thorough.
>
> 'Effective stunning (i.e. loss of consciousness) will be achieved by focal
> damage to the brain stem or diffuse and severe damage to the cerebral
> cortices.
>
> The most efficient way to render an animal unconscious by a blow to the
> head, is a blow to the brain stem. The brain stem in mammals is the most
> highly protected part of the central nervous system. It is located 
> ventrally
> within the calveria, beneath the cerebellum and overlying skull.
> Furthermore, in seals, flexion of the neck places a thick layer of blubber
> over the base of the skull. Therefore, the only target area available in a
> seal is the skull overlying the cerebral cortex. Delivering a blow to this
> area and the underlying cortex is a much less efficient way of rendering
> an animal unconscious.
>
> Diffuse and severe damage only to the cerebral cortices can result in
> significant disruption of the ascending reticular activating system,
> resulting in unconsciousness, which may be temporary i.e. conscious
> sensation may return.
>
> A large blow to the cerebral cortex is unlikely to result in immediate 
> brain
> stem herniation. Cerebral oedema can elicit herniation but only after a
> considerable time period (potentially hours). Massive cerebral
> haemorrhage associated with a blunt external trauma would be unlikely to
> occur and result in immediate death.
> ..'
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_95.pdf
>
>
>