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…

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.”

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

Commentaire de : Cestmonopinion Etjelarespecte

Je ne suis jamais allé à la messe avec un phoque, ni à l’école avec un! Ma première blonde n’était pas un phoque de bonne famille, Mon boucher n’est pas un phoque! A bien y pensé je n’ai jamais touché un phoque. Je ne souffre pas de phoquophilie non plus. Je n’en ai pas élevé, je ne suis pas battu avec un phoque. C’est juste une grosse bibitte! C’est tout! Sa chasse permet à des gens de vivre. On ne peut pas tous cultiver du soja engraissé avec ses propres déjections pour éviter la cruauté envers des animaux mis en cage pour le fumier! Bien voyons donc, il y a une limite à ne pas s’assumer! La nature est faite de prédateurs et de proies, ok, c’est pas trop méchant de dire ça?

J’ai des proches qui pleurent quand ils voyent une mouffette écrasée mais qui sont prêts à égorger le zouave qui a passé sur ses skis à la montagne. Bien voyons donc, on doit avoir du coeur pour les humains, les animaux domestiques, je comprend facilement l’attachement qu’on peut avoir envers eux mais ils sont deuxième, les domestiques s’entend! Mais faire passer une moufette ou un phoque dans ses priorités, c’est un peu dérangé, non? C’est très moumoune radical comme comportement. Un peu comme l’autre qui dit: Moi je suis contre la violence, lui n’est pas d’accord, il faudrait lui donner une bonne volée pour qu’il comprenne!? J’essaie d’être bon avec mon entourage, de me préoccuper de leurs besoins, de les écouter, de les encourager, de les soutenir, de les aimer. C’est ma place, prenez donc tous la vôtre et laissez-nous tranquille avec vos besoins existentiels dénaturés!

Céline Hervieux-Payette, Leader of the Opposition in Canada’s Senate, has made a strong appeal to President Sarkozy of France to allow science to dictate his nation’s policy towards the import of seal products.

Referring to an earlier letter sent by Sarkozy to animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot in April, Hervieux-Payette wrote, “I know you are sensitive to the rational, sciencebased approach.” Sarkozy had told Bardot that species management should be conducted on a scientific basis and that “the status of the conservation of species is all that counts.”

The most extensively hunted seal in Canada, the Harp, has tripled in number over the last thirty years to around 5.5 million animals. Hervieux-Payette said that to state this species is in danger would be an “intellectual shortcut” that no scientist is taking.

Summarizing the situation, she wrote: “Mr. President, as you can see, defending the seal hunt is not simply a matter of defending a hunt, a culture, a way and place of life or a means of subsistence for modest populations. It also means defending the truth against manipulation and disinformation, defending the spirit of democracy and freedom from the imposition of a moral order, and defending the language of science against extremism and anthropomorphism.”

Sarkozy’s predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had stated in May that France would ban seal products from Canada to “preserve the species in a context in which there have been changes in habitat as a result of climate warming.” There is no evidence, however, that global warming will significantly impact Harp seals and Hervieux-Payette referred to a scientific assessment that stated climate change will have numerous positive and negative effects on the ecology of seals, with the net impact being the result of a complex weighting of various effects.

Lettre en français

The English Letter

OTTAWA, 20 déc 2007 (AFP) – Le gouvernement canadien a estimé jeudi qu’une étude de l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) validait la légitimité des techniques utilisées pour la chasse au phoques au Canada.

L’autorité européenne basée à Parme a adopté mercredi une opinion scientifique sur les différentes méthodes utilisées pour tuer et écorcher les phoques.

“Nous sommes heureux de constater que les recommandations de l’EFSA confirment que les pratiques et les techniques de chasse utilisées, réglementées et prescrites par la loi pour la chasse commerciale du phoque au Canada sont légitimes et sans cruauté”, a déclaré le ministre des Pêches et des Océans Loyala Hearn.

“Nous croyons donc que les pratiques actuellement en vigueur au Canada sont conformes aux recommandations générales de l’EFSA, et nous avons déjà commencé à prendre un certain nombre de mesures pour remédier à certains des problèmes soulevés dans l’étude”, a-t-il ajouté.

Dans l’étude, l’EFSA considère que “les hakapiks et autres gourdins peuvent assurer un abattage efficace” des jeunes phoques “lorsqu’ils conçus de façon adéquate et utilisés correctement”.

Le Canada compte plus de 5,5 millions de phoques du Groenland le long de ses côtes est et ouest et établit des quotas annuels, rappelle le ministre en soulignant que la chasse au phoque permet à des milliers de chasseurs canadiens et à leur famille de toucher un revenu substantiel.

En 2007, le Canada a autorisé la chasse de 270.000 phoques, soit 65.000 de moins que l’année précédente, une pratique vivement dénoncée depuis des années par les organisations de défense des animaux ainsi que plusieurs vedettes.

Ottawa avait lancé en septembre dernier une action devant l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) à la suite des mesures prises en Belgique et aux Pays-Bas pour interdire la vente de produits dérivés du phoque et avait mis en garde d’autres pays de l’Union européenne envisageant de faire de même.

Join Up the Anti! coalition on Facebook and be ready for the second counter-demonstration of the history of Canada!

… on March 15, 2008

www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8116010991

Le Comité des pêches rencontre des membres du Parlement européen : La communauté internationale doit mieux comprendre ce qu’est réellement la chasse aux phoques

Ottawa, le jeudi 23 novembre 2006 – Le porte-parole du Bloc Québécois en matière de Pêches et député de Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Raynald Blais, profitera d’une rencontre entre les membres du Comité permanent des pêches de la Chambre des communes et une délégation du Parlement européen pour livrer un plaidoyer en faveur du maintien des activités de chasse aux phoques, une activité traditionnelle et historique pour les pêcheurs des Îles-de-la-Madeleine et qui leur procure une source de revenu indispensable, a-t-il souligné.À l’initiative du député, deux chasseurs de phoques des Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Paul Boudreau ainsi que Jean-Claude Lapierre, participeront à la rencontre et témoigneront à l’effet que les phoques constituent une importante ressource naturelle qui, lorsqu’elle est exploitée de façon responsable et donc durable, leur a permis de subvenir aux besoins de leur famille lors des saisons mortes pour les différents types de pêche.

Une activité économique importante

« La valeur de la chasse aux phoques peut sembler négligeable aux yeux des parlementaires Américains ou Européens, mais elle a une valeur extrêmement importante pour les habitants des collectivités rurales éloignées pour qui il s’agit de l’unique source de revenus durant des périodes où les perspectives économiques sont extrêmement limitées dans leur région. Plusieurs chasseurs estiment que la chasse aux phoques peut représenter plus de 25 pour cent de leur revenu annuel », explique Raynald Blais.

« Par ailleurs, l’industrie a développé au fil des ans une philosophie visant à exploiter à peu près toutes les parties de l’animal. On commercialise ainsi dorénavant autant la viande que l’huile, une source d’acide oméga-3 utile pour combattre de nombreux malaises tels l’hypertension, le diabète et l’arthrite. Plusieurs parties sont récupérées pour des fins d’artisanat. Enfin, le traitement des peaux amène une activité non négligeable en créant elle aussi plusieurs emplois », poursuit Raynald Blais.

Une industrie à l’écoute des préoccupations

Le porte-parole du Bloc Québécois rappelle que plusieurs des préoccupations qui sont fréquemment évoquées concernant la chasse aux phoques ont été aplanies au cours des dernières années qui font que cette activité se compare à plusieurs activités similaires sur toute la planète.

« Le Canada interdit la chasse aux blanchons depuis vingt ans et la chasse aux phoques a reçu l’assentiment d’un panel de vétérinaires qui s’est penché sur l’aspect “humain” de la question. Par ailleurs, le gouvernement canadien a mis aux subventions à cette industrie depuis 2001 », rappelle toujours le député.

Une population qui doit être contrôlée

Raynald Blais fait enfin valoir qu’en dépit des moratoires qui perdurent depuis plusieurs années les stocks de plusieurs espèces de poisson de fond ne se sont guère redressés et qu’une partie appréciable de la faute en revient aux phoques, qui sont particulièrement friands de morue.

« Le phoque n’a pas vraiment de prédateur naturel, ce qui fait que sa population s’est accrue de façon importante au fil des ans, même en dépit de la chasse. Or, un phoque consomme à lui seul environ une tonne de morues et d’autres produits marins chaque année. L’accroissement de la population des phoques a ainsi contribué à la diminution des inventaires de morues des grands bancs de Terre-Neuve, avec toutes les conséquences néfastes que l’on connaît pour les pêcheurs », a conclu
Raynald Blais.

Ottawa, 15 March 2005: IWMC, the world’s leading pro-sustainable use conservation group, today praised Canada’s harp seal harvest for being science-based and criticized a protest campaign and potential boycott of Canadian fisheries for being overly simplistic and self-indulgent.

With a burgeoning harp seal population of 5 million, and a clear imbalance in the eco-system between seals and other wildlife such as fish, whales and seabirds, Canada authorized an expanded three-year quota of close to one million harp seals beginning in 2003. Seal harvests are regulated by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the basis of stock assessments and sustainable yields. Contrary to the claims of protestors, this harvest does not threaten the harp seal with extinction.

The sealing industry in Canada dates back to the 18th century and has been regulated since 1961, with quotas first being introduced in 1971. Annual harvests of harp seals averaged approximately 170,000 before an import prohibition was introduced by the European Union in 1983. Deprived of its main market for seal products, annual harvests dropped to an average of only around 39,000. Today, Canadian fishermen sell seal pelts, seal fat and seal oil to consumers in the Far East.

The seal hunt protest is being conducted by some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The animal rights campaign groups fail to acknowledge that the Canadian harp seal harvest is sustainable or that it benefits other species by controlling the rapid growth of one of the region’s main predators. The protestors are hoping to orchestrate a boycott of Canadian fisheries, which was valued at $4.5 billion in 2004 and is the country’s largest single food export.

Eugene Lapointe, President of IWMC, said: “The best way for consumers to encourage conservation is to buy products from countries like Canada that promote the sustainable use of wildlife. The type of boycott being promoted by the protestors is pointless and could actually be counter-productive if it discourages the scientific management of wildlife in international conservation programs.”

IWMC accepts the campaigners’ right to peaceful protest but believes the groups should be more open about their overall objectives. The NGOs driving the campaign either aim to stop the hunting of all wildlife, irrespective of abundance, or to end the human consumption, or use, of animals. IWMC believes that much of the protestors’ publicity material is also deliberately misleading and emotive. One of the most outrageous claims is that all marine mammals are faced with extinction. Another is the use of the term “seal war” to describe the protest campaign.

Mr. Lapointe added: “The protestors are living in the past. To facilitate change these days, advocacy groups need to have solid facts and offer workable solutions. You can’t just rely on a mix of emotion and spin, topped with a boycott. This campaign is outdated, simplistic and self-indulgent and deserves to be firmly rejected.”

IWMC supports the right of Canadian fishermen to support their families and protect their livelihoods by harvesting abundant seals and believes Canada’s seal management program provides a model for other countries to follow.

For further information, contact Eugène Lapointe
Florida: +1(727) 734-4949 or email: iwmc@iwmc.org

Ottawa, le 15 mars 2005: L’IWMC, groupe mondial de conservation leader en ce qui concerne la promotion de l’utilisation durable des ressources naturelles, tient aujourd’hui à louer le fait que la chasse au phoque du Groenland entreprise par le Canada est fondée sur une base scientifique. En revanche, il condamne la campagne de protestation et le boycott possible des produits canadiens de la pêche, en raison de leur caractère des plus simplistes et complaisant.

Avec une population florissante de 5 millions phoques du Groenland et un déséquilibre évident au sein de l’éco-système entre les phoques et d’autres espèces comme les poissons, les cétacés et les oiseaux marins, le Canada a autorisé, pour une période de trois ans ayant démarré en 2003, un quota total accru de près d’un million de ces animaux. La chasse au phoque est réglementée par le Département des pêches et des océans du Canada, sur la base d’estimations des populations et de rendements durables. Contrairement à ce que prétendent les protestataires, cette chasse ne menace nullement le phoque du Groenland de disparition.

L’exploitation industrielle des phoques au Canada remonte au XVIIIe siècle et elle est réglementée depuis 1961, les premiers quotas ayant été introduits en 1971. Les prises annuelles de phoques du Groenland s’élevaient en moyenne à 170 000 avant l’introduction de l’interdiction d’importation des bébés phoques par l’Union européenne en 1983. Suite à la suppression du principal marché des produits de phoques, les prises annuelles sont tombées à une moyenne de l’ordre de 39 000 seulement. Aujourd’hui, les pêcheurs canadiens vendent des peaux, de la graisse et de l’huile de phoque aux consommateurs de l’Extrême Orient.

Les protestations contre la chasse au phoque sont conduites par certaines des organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) parmi les plus riches et les plus puissantes du monde. Les groupes activistes de défense des droits des animaux omettent de reconnaître que la chasse au phoque du Groenland est durable et qu’elle favorise les autres espèces en contrôlant la croissance rapide des populations d’un des principaux prédateurs de la région. Les protestataires espèrent orchestrer un boycott des produits canadiens de la pêche, dont la valeur était estimée à 4,5 milliards de dollars en 2004, le Canada étant le plus grand exportateur au monde de produits alimentaires.

Eugène Lapointe, président d’IWMC, a déclaré: “pour le consommateur, la meilleure façon d’encourager la conservation de la nature est d’acheter des produits de pays comme le Canada, qui promeuvent l’utilisation durable des espèces sauvages. Le boycott que soutiennent les protestataires est absurde et pourrait être contre-productif s’il en venait à décourager la gestion scientifique dans le cadre de programmes internationaux de conservation de la faune sauvage”.

L’IWMC reconnaît le droit des protestaires de manifester pacifiquement mais estime que les groupes devraient être plus transparents quant à leurs objectifs de base. Les ONG qui mènent la campagne visent soit à mettre un terme à toute forme de chasse, quelle que soit l’abondance des espèces, soit à stopper la consommation ou l’utilisation humaine des animaux. L’IWMC estime par ailleurs qu’une grande partie du matériel publicitaire des protestataires est délibérément mensonger et chargé d’émotion. L’un des plus outranciers de leurs arguments est que tous les mammifères marins sont en voie d’extinction. L’utilisation de l’expression “guerre du phoque”, pour décrire la campagne de protestation, est un autre exemple d’outrance.

M. Lapointe a ajouté: “Les protestataires vivent dans le passé. Pour faciliter les changements, les groupes en question, à l’heure actuelle, devraient avancer des faits solides et offrir des solutions viables. Vous ne pouvez vous fonder sur un mélange d’émotions et de pirouettes, couronné par un boycott. Cette campagne est obsolète, simpliste et complaisante, et ne mérite que d’être fermement rejetée”.

L’IWMC soutient le droit des pêcheurs canadiens de subvenir aux besoins de leurs familles et de protéger leurs moyens d’existence en chassant le phoque qui est abondant, et estime le programme canadien de gestion des phoques constitue un modèle que d’autres pays peuvent suivre.

Pour plus d’informations, veuillez contacter E. Lapointe en Floride
Tél/fax: +1(727) 734 49 49 ou courriel: iwmc@iwmc.org

The Book PETA and HSUS Don’t Want You to Read
9/10/07

We never thought we’d wade into the politics of pet shelters, but the decidedly unethical treatment of a van-load of pound puppies in 2005 by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) employees radicalized us. Despite PETA’s habit of killing upwards of 90 percent of the dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens it takes in, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk conceded in 2000 that her organization “could become a no-kill shelter immediately.” (Such a shift of budget priorities, of course, would require the jettisoning of some of PETA’s more obnoxious campaigns and obnoxious campaigners.) The image of PETA blissfully slaughtering adoptable pets is a fair definition of hypocrisy. But just when we thought we had heard the worst of it, along comes Nathan Winograd.

Winograd’s book, available for purchase this month, is titled Redemption. He argues, quite effectively, that the concept of “pet overpopulation” in the United States — that bogeyman that PETA and the Humane Society of the United States constantly use to justify an inordinate focus on dispatching dogs and cats to the great beyond — is a myth. Every year, Winograd claims, there are actually more Americans looking for pets than animals needlessly killed in shelters.

We read Redemption and we absorbed Winograd’s prescriptions for change. We were touched. We asked the author to answer some tough questions about his claims. And he said yes.

Click here to read the Consumer Freedom interview with Nathan Winograd. And click here to buy his book. It’s the one thing PETA and HSUS are hoping you won’t read this year.

May 8, 2007

$150 Million Vegan Behemoth “Basically PETA With A Nicer Wristwatch”

WASHINGTON — During an animal-welfare hearing today on Capitol Hill, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) urged members of Congress to be skeptical of animal-rights activists from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Farm Sanctuary, who discourage Americans from eating meat no matter how “humanely” it is raised. The $150 million HSUS and Farm Sanctuary both promote a vegan diet (completely meat- and dairy-free).

CCF Director of Research David Martosko testified before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry: “When the topic of discussion is how to make livestock farming better, the complaints of radical vegans should be seen for what they are: an attempt to dismantle animal agriculture, not improve it. Thinking people should instantly recognize their ulterior motives.”

Last week HSUS ranked U.S. cities according to what it called a “Humane Index.” Its “Humane Eats” scorecard judges how “humane” a city’s dining options are by counting only the “number of vegetarian restaurants per capita.” Congress, Martosko said, should be alarmed at HSUS’s apparent judgment that only meatless eating can be called “humane.”

CCF’s message to Congress: No matter how much farmers take animals’ welfare into account, animal-rights leaders won’t be satisfied until all animal protein disappears from the human diet. “HSUS and PETA share the same long-term goals,” Martosko added. “No meat. No dairy. No animal agriculture. Period. HSUS is basically PETA with a nicer wristwatch.”

“Congress,” Martosko continued, “could require U.S. farmers to supply every pig, chicken, duck, and cow with private rooms, daily rubdowns, video iPods, and organic meals catered by Wolfgang Puck. But even this wouldn’t satisfy activists who actually believe farm animals have the ‘right’ not to be eaten.”

Martosko pointed out that family veal farmers bear the brunt of constant animal-rights attacks. And HSUS is working to completely outlaw foie gras, which is raised on a very small scale.

“I’ve never tasted foie gras,” Martosko conceded. “But who are these people to decide I shouldn’t have the chance to try it? When zealots ban books because of their politics, millions of people rise up. Why isn’t banning food for political reasons viewed the same way?”

Complete text of Mr. Martosko’s testimony is available. Contact J.P. Freire at 202-463-7112 for an interview.
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.

For media comment, contact our media department at 202-463-7112 ext. 115

By: David Martosko
Newspaper: The Toronto Star

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is misleading consumers with its claim that a large number of American restaurants are boycotting Canadian seafood. (“Sir Paul pitches seal ’solution,’” March 25)
Research conducted by the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that less than one-seventh of the businesses listed on HSUS’s boycott website are actually shunning Canadian seafood. And a full 62% were unaware that HSUS was publicly describing them as part of its campaign. In fact, one of the supposed “boycotters” was a vegetarian restaurant that had never served seafood.
Consumers in Canada and the U.S. should view the animal rights group’s future claims with a jaundiced eye.

Here We Go Again

By Agent Orange

Rebels Without a Cause

It seems that every ten years or so celebrities discover the seal hunt. If memory serves, they’re often ‘washed-up’, and looking to jump start their careers. Finding a cause seems to be the easy way of boosting their images. In this case it’s as if they were hoping that the appeal of those warm, fuzzy little creatures would rub off on them.

The latest is former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney, and his new wife Heather. I can’t help feeling that this is more Heather’s project, than Sir Paul’s. Heather’s the woman lost her artificial leg during an ugly scuffle with some of JLo’s staff, while leading a PETA protest. A bystander would’ve been unsure who to root for in that particular contest.

Sir Paul has always been supportive of his wive’s projects, no matter how kooky. He was solidly behind the late Linda McCartney’s vegetarianism, thought he would ’sneak cheeseburgers’ behind her back. Linda’s issues were more serious and lifestyle related, compared to Heather’s wild activism. However Paul and Heather are celebrities, so I’m sure that the interest will fade, as soon as something more fashionable comes up, anyway.

I’m not saying that I support the east coast seal hunt. However I can help getting the feeling that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion by performers seeking attention. Celebrities spend their lives working on their image. Pretending to care is good PR. It’s the same impulse that motivates them to get collagen injections and Botox treatments. It motivates them to attend award shows and kiss ass for a chance to win something bright and shiny, too.

Now I’m not calling the motives of self centered and insincere people into question. I just can’t help thinking that if some Beverly Hills plastic surgeon discovered that seal blubber eliminated wrinkles and cellulite, the east coast seal herds would become ‘endangered species’ overnight.

Today’s blog is dedicated to Paris Hilton, the “Harp Seal” of celebrities. She’s warm and cuddly, plus I’m told she smells like fish!

Nos amis les animaux

Louis-Gilles Francoeur
Édition du mercredi 07 avril 2004

Sur la banquise, les animalistes ont remplacé les écologistes

Photo: Agence Reuters

Pas un seul groupe écologiste ne fait campagne contre la chasse aux phoques à Terre-Neuve ou aux îles de la Madeleine, y compris Greenpeace, un mouvement qui affirme ne plus voir de menace écologique pour le troupeau de loups marins du golfe Saint-Laurent.

«Il y a des lustres qu’on n’a plus personne là-bas car, tout simplement, Greenpeace ne fait plus de campagne contre la chasse aux phoques. L’espèce n’est pas en danger, contrairement à d’autres mammifères marins — ce qui est le cas de plusieurs espèces de baleines, notamment — que nos organisations essaient de protéger et de défendre sur d’autres océans. Mais il y a des gens aux Îles qui voient encore des militants de Greenpeace dans chaque adversaire de la chasse aux phoques. Les gens de la région l’avaient vraiment mal pris à l’époque, ce qui explique encore la confusion qui perdure dans l’esprit de certains», explique Steven Guilbeault, de Greenpeace-Québec.Le premier à corroborer les dires de ce militant écologique est nul autre que le directeur régional de Pêches et Océans Canada, Daniel Caron, qui confirme lui aussi que le troupeau de phoques du Saint-Laurent n’est «absolument pas menacé» et qu’effectivement, on ne voit plus le moindre écologiste en chasse contre les chasseurs de phoques.

«Les militants écologistes, explique M. Caron, ont compris que cette chasse a même une fonction écologique car elle sert à empêcher le troupeau d’atteindre une taille problématique dans l’écosystème marin. C’est une chasse qui correspond à tous les critères du développement durable: le cheptel n’est pas menacé et peut subir une exploitation durable. Or les écologistes reconnaissent fondamentalement la nécessité de maintenir les équilibres écologiques et c’est pourquoi ils ne s’opposent pas à cette chasse. Ce n’est pas le cas cependant des organisations animalistes présentes aux Îles, qui s’opposent à la chasse non pas pour des raisons écologiques mais au nom de valeurs morales.»

Manipulation

Effectivement, depuis quelques années, ce sont de grands groupes animalistes internationaux qui s’opposent ouvertement à la chasse aux phoques, au nom de valeurs morales et non écologiques. Il s’agit principalement de l’International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), de Sea Shepperd du militant radical Paul Watson (qui avait engagé Greenpeace dans la voie animaliste dans les années 70 avant d’être renvoyé du mouvement) et, plus récemment, People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (TETA).

Certains tentent depuis quelques jours de mobiliser l’opinion américaine avec, notamment, la publication très remarquée, il y a quelques jours, d’une annonce dans le New York Times, qui publiait aussi une photo montrant une mare de sang bien découpée sur fond de banquise bien blanche, publiée hier aussi par un quotidien montréalais.

«Je peux comprendre que des journalistes qui arrivent ici et qui ne connaissent rien à la chasse puissent se faire manipuler par des groupes animalistes. Je comprends moins que des médias d’ici s’engagent dans une couverture aussi émotionnelle. On parle de carnage dans le cas des phoques mais tout le monde trouve normal le même jour qu’on abatte 19 millions de poulets en Colombie-Britannique, sans la moindre goutte de sang pour illustrer les articles», ajoute le directeur régional de Pêches et Océans.

Ce dernier est révolté de constater que certains grands groupes animalistes internationaux se servent encore des bébés phoques sur leur site Internet pour attirer les généreux donateurs alors que, depuis plus de 15 ans, il est strictement interdit de tuer le moindre blanchon sur les banquises. La chasse légale se concentre maintenant uniquement sur les bêtes adultes, explique Daniel Caron, et les chasseurs ont subi une formation afin d’être extrêmement efficaces dans leur manière d’abattre les phoques.

Le plus efficace

L’usage artisanal du gourdin, qui en fait frémir plusieurs, est en réalité la manière la plus efficace jamais testée par les chercheurs. Une étude réalisée pour la commission Malouf, mise sur pied après la campagne orchestrée par Brigitte Bardot dans les années 70, avait testé différents moyens de mettre à mort. Le coup de gourdin qui détruit le cervelet, le centre des sensations et le siège du système sympathique qui régit les automatismes comme le coeur et la respiration, est de loin plus efficace que la mort par balles, par électrocution ou autrement, dit-il. La mort clinique est instantanée.

Le directeur québécois de Pêches et Océans convient que la vue de sang sur une neige blanche n’est pas un spectacle réjouissant pour personne. Mais c’est une chasse aux pratiques strictement contrôlées. Autant que dans n’importe quel abattoir. Et, comme vient de le démontrer une autre étude universitaire toute récente, ajoute Daniel Caron, les bêtes ne souffrent pas et n’ont aucune sensation même si certains décèlent des mouvements après la mort. Il s’agit de spasmes post mortem, comme tous les chasseurs et pêcheurs sportifs ont pu en constater et comme on le voit tous les jours dans les abattoirs.

Alors qu’autrefois on n’utilisait que la peau des phoques adultes, on utilise aujourd’hui de plus en plus leur gras, l’essentiel du poids utile, pour en extraire des Omega-3 d’une exceptionnelle qualité avec, en prime, dit-on, des propriétés qui ralentiraient le vieillissement du système nerveux. Sur la Basse-Côte-Nord, les familles des chasseurs consomment aussi la viande de phoque, une cuisine régionale assez méconnue.

Explosion de la population

Le responsable des pêcheries du golfe ajoute que la chasse aux phoques a l’avantage écologique majeur «de maintenir le troupeau en bas de six millions de têtes et surtout de l’empêcher de croître». L’arrêt de la chasse dans les années 70 a provoqué une explosion de la population de loups marins, qui est passée de deux à six millions de têtes aujourd’hui. Les pêcheurs commerciaux voudraient bien, dit-il, que le niveau des prises soit plus élevé car les phoques mangent des quantités considérables de morues et d’autres espèces commerciales de poissons marins.

«Les phoques ne sont pas responsables de la disparition des morues. Mais leur prédation croissante sur les espèces marines a ajouté aux stress qui en frappent plusieurs, dont la surpêche», explique Daniel Caron.

Le quota de chasse, fixé depuis l’an dernier à 350 000 têtes après avoir été gelé pendant des années à 278 000 têtes, est établi dans le cadre d’un plan triennal d’exploitation, un plan qui se termine l’an prochain. Le nouveau quota sera établi à partir d’un inventaire aérien, explique-t-il, qui aura cours prochainement. Ce quota est établi de concert avec la communauté scientifique et non pas sous l’effet des pressions de toutes sortes.

«Curieux de constater que la hausse du quota de chasse n’a pas suscité de campagne particulière l’an dernier de la part des groupes animalistes et que c’est tout d’un coup le cas cette année. Ce n’est pas pour rien que certains de ces groupes font campagne avec les phoques: c’est plus vendable en Angleterre que les campagnes contre la chasse à courre et, en Espagne, ça se vend mieux que la lutte contre les corridas. L’argent qu’ils amassent avec les phoques sert évidemment à financer des activités dans d’autres domaines. Cela semble très efficace», conclut le directeur régional de Pêches et Océans.