• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Ok, so enough about fish oil. What about seal oil?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 kottke

  • Guest
  • 246 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lynchburg VA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 08:33 PM


Ive been reading alot on seal oil and how it may have even better benefits then fish oil including having the rare n-3 DPA (docosapentaenoic acid). Theres some studies on pubmed (which everyone knows how to find) on it and it looks quite promising. Plus theres a nice excerpt i got here from a previous thread http://www.omega3sea...hapter4_4a.html. Has anyone had any expereinces with it? Thinking about it now i shouldve searched the threads first for this topic, but oh well.

#2 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 08:35 PM

poor little seals [cry]
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 08:44 PM

Seals are too intelligent and too cute. The health benefits would have to be extraordinary and far exceed any alternative for me to consider using seal oil.
  • like x 1

#4 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 04 August 2006 - 10:00 PM

I've been taking trips in P. Diddy's yacht to hunt dolphins for the past few years. Damn good oil.

#5 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 10:33 PM

I just use humpback whale oil

#6 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 August 2006 - 10:35 PM

thats disgusting...we need to have some sort of moral standard when deciding what animals we will slaughter and ingest.

why not use puppy oil... or pre-pubecent virgin oil?

#7 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 10:40 PM

or pre-pubecent virgin oil?

I already am using that.

Also, I eat a baby brain at least twice a week because I heard it increases virility.

Another thing I have found is if you drink the blood of kittens, puppies, and baby deer, it can improve your blood workup levels by 1-2%. I generally try to kill at least 15 animals a day to keep in practice.
  • like x 1

#8 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 10:43 PM

why not use puppy oil... or pre-pubecent virgin oil?


the omega 3 ratio in those isn't so good

#9 kottke

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 246 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lynchburg VA

Posted 04 August 2006 - 11:35 PM

or pre-pubecent virgin oil?

I already am using that.

Also, I eat a baby brain at least twice a week because I heard it increases virility.

Another thing I have found is if you drink the blood of kittens, puppies, and baby deer, it can improve your blood workup levels by 1-2%. I generally try to kill at least 15 animals a day to keep in practice.


You need to eat at least 20 to get all your amino acids. This is important because not only acid, but aminos are important for the brain as well.

#10 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 August 2006 - 12:13 AM

best thread ever [lol]

#11 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 06 August 2006 - 05:14 PM

oink, oink

#12 ikaros

  • Guest
  • 334 posts
  • 5
  • Location:EU

Posted 06 August 2006 - 05:28 PM

Ah now I know why seals are becoming endangered species.

#13 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 07 August 2006 - 12:44 PM

Instead of this reaction. It would be good to at least discuss the proposed benefit, the science, and maybe potential alternative sources if one is so opposed. The DPA is fasciniating and is not present in Fish Oil and further the bioavailability of the seal source is greater due to terninal positions with organic chemistry. Maybe we can search for DPA if one is diametrically opposed to the killing of animals or at least cute ones. The eskimoes still eat seal meat. The endangered seals are protected and are not the species discussed here, BTW. Let's stay on track for science's sake. Their is compelling research that can benefit us and is worth at least discussing or comparing.


As early as 1960, a doctor in Halifax, Nova Scotia gave seal oil to his patients to improve their blood lipids. He did not know at the time about the good health of the Arctic Eskimos who ate a diet rich in seal meat and oil, and as it was later discovered, seldom suffered heart attacks. The publicity of this discovery, in 1979-80, indicated that the Eskimo benefited from the three long chain Omega-3 Fatty Acids, commonly known as EPA, DHA and DPA.

Effect of supplementation with dietary seal oil on selected cardiovascular risk factors and hemostatic variables in healthy male subjects
The average daily consumption of seal oil by the Inuit people is approximately 8-9 g, yet there is very little information on the effect of seal oil consumption on cardiovascular disease risk factors. In this study, 19 healthy, normocholesterolemic subjects consumed 20 g of encapsulated seal oil containing eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; 20:5n-3), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3), and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA; 22:5n-3) or 20 g of vegetable oil (control) per day for 42 days. Levels of selected cardiovascular and thrombotic risk factors as well as fatty acid profiles of serum phospholipid and nonesterified fatty acid (NEFA) were determined. EPA levels in serum phospholipid and NEFA increased by 4.3- and 2.7-fold, respectively, in the seal oil supplemented group. DHA levels rose 1.5- and 2.1-fold, respectively, and DPA levels rose 0.5- and 0.7-fold, respectively. Arachidonic acid (AA) levels dropped by 26% in both serum phospholipid and serum NEFA.

There was a significant decrease in the ratio of n-6 to n-3 fatty acids in serum phospholipid from 7.2 to 2.1 and a significant increase in the ratio of EPA/AA in NEFA. Ingestion of seal oil raised the coagulant inhibitor, protein C, values by 7% and decreased plasma fibrinogen by 18%. No alterations in other hemostatic variables, including plasma activity of Factors VII, VIII, IX, and X and antithrombin, or in the concentrations of von Willebrand Factor, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, glucose, Apo A-1, or lipoprotein(a) were observed in either group. Other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including hematocrit, white blood cell count, plasma viscosity, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, heart rate, and platelet aggregation after stimulation with ADP or collagen did not change. Our results indicate that seal oil supplementation in healthy, normocholesterolemic subjects decreased the n-6/n-3 ratio and increased EPA, DHA, and DPA and the ratio of EPA/AA and DHA/AA in the serum phospholipid and NEFA, while exhibiting a modest beneficial effect on fibrinogen and protein C levels.

Fish oils were used in medical research in the USA and Europe, and thousands of medical studies have shown that the EPA and DHA of these oils have clinical benefits. In that work, the DPA was ignored because fish oil contains very little. However, it has always been important in human milk fatty acids, now an important research area for DHA in connection with infant brain development and the continued good health of the mother. In ten thousand years, human society has changed from a hunting diet, emphasizing animals and fish, to one dependent on large-scale farming.

Our body biochemistry, based on a model perfected at least a million years ago, will take thousands of generations to adapt to this new lifestyle based on agriculture. The so-called "essential" fatty acids produced by farm products are of a shorter chain length than the Omega-3 fatty acids of seal oil. Our bodies do make the truly essential long-chain fatty acids from the farm products, but slowly, and the Omega-3 type may suffer from competition from the excess of Omega-6 type in them. It is time to go back to enriching the diet of the entire family with all three Omega-3 fatty acids. Seal oil provides an easy solution to re-balancing our fatty acid intake.

#14 roof01

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 1

Posted 07 August 2006 - 01:07 PM

I'm all for science, but the jokes were worth it.

#15 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 07 August 2006 - 02:47 PM

Fair enough. You have my seal of approval.

#16 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 07 August 2006 - 02:53 PM

Below I found a Japanese patent process using bacteria (read: not seals) to create DPA, which much of the research and supplementation comes from the Asian countries.
http://www.freepaten...om/6509178.html

Title: Process for preparing docosahexaenoic acid and docosapentaenoic acid with ulkenia
Document Type and Number: United States Patent 6509178
Link to this Page: http://www.freepaten...om/6509178.html
Abstract: A process for preparing lipids which contain docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and/or docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) is disclosed. The process includes the steps of cultivating in a medium a microorganism which belongs to the genus Ulkenia having the ability to produce DHA and/or DPA and recovering the lipids from the culture. The process may further include the step of separating DHA and/or DPA from the lipids.

Inventors: Tanaka, Satohiro; Yaguchi, Toshiaki; Shimizu, Sakayu; Sogo, Tsutomu; Fujikawa, Shigeaki;
Application Number: 230212
Filing Date: 1999-05-03
Publication Date: 2003-01-21
View Patent Images: View PDF Images
Related Patents: View patents that cite this patent


Export Citation: Click for automatic bibliography generation
Assignee: Suntory Ltd. (Osaka, JP); Nagase & Co., Ltd. (Osaka, JP); Nagase Chemtex Corporation (Osaka, JP)
Current Classes: 435 / 134, 435 / 135, 435 / 170, 435 / 254.1, 435 / 257.1
International Classes: C12P 007/64
Field of Search: 435/134,135,170,257.1,254.1
US Patent References: 5340742 Aug., 1994 Barclay.
5397591 Mar., 1995 Kyle et al.

Foreign Patent References: 09030962 Feb., 1997 JP.
WPI 97-161410 Feb., 1997 WO.

Other References: Shimada, et al., J. Ferment. Bioeng. (1996), 81(4), 299-303.*
Yadwad et al., Biotechnol. Bioeng. (1991), 38(8), 956-9.*
Gaertner, Alwin, Veroff. Inst. Meeresforsch, Bremerh., Revision of the Thraustochytriaceae (Lower Fungi) I. Ulkenia nov. gen., with Description of Three New Species, 16, 1977, pp. 139-157.
Moss, Stephen, The Biology of Fee-living Heterotrophic Flagellates, Thraustochytrids and Other Zoosporic Marine Fungi, Special Volume No. 45, 1991, pp. 415-25.
Moss, S.T., The Biology of Marine Fungi, Biology and Phylogeny of the Labyrinthulales and Thraustochytriales, 1986, pp. 105-129.
Singh, A. et al., World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) Production by Thraustochytrium sp. ATCC 20892, vol. 12, 1996, pp. 76-81.
Akoh, C., Inform, Structured Lipids-Enzymatic Approach, vol. 6, No. 9, Sep. 1995, pp. 1055-1061.

Primary Examiner: Marx; Irene
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Howrey Simon Arnold & White

Claims:
What is claimed is:

1. A process for preparing lipids containing docosahexaenoic acid and/or docosapentaenoic acid, the process comprising:

providing a culture, the culture comprising a culture medium and the microorganism Ulkenia sp. SAM 2179, FERM BP-5061;

cultivating the microorganism in the culture medium under conditions suitable for the production of lipids containing docosahexaenoic acid and/or docosapentaenoic acid; and

recovering said lipids from the culture.

2. A process for preparing docosahexaenoic acid, the process comprising:

cultivating in a nutrient medium the microorganism Ulkenia sp. SAM 2179, FERM BP-5061;

recovering lipids from the medium;

hydrolyzing said lipids to prepare docosahexaenoic acid; and

recovering said docosahexaenoic acid.

3. A process for preparing docosapentaenoic acid, the process comprising:

cultivating in a nutrient medium the microorganism Ulkenia sp. SAM 2179, FERM BP-5601;

recovering lipids from the medium;

hydrolyzing said lipids to prepare docosapentaenoic acid; and

recovering said docosapentaenoic acid.

4. A process for preparing structured lipids containing docosahexaenoic acid or docosapentaenoic acid, the process comprising:

cultivating in a nutrient medium the microorganism Ulkenia sp. SAM 2179, FERM BP-5061;

culturing the microorganism for a sufficient time to produce lipids containing triacylglycerol having long chain fatty acids at positions 1 to 3 of its glycerol backbone, wherein the long chain fatty acid of at least position 2 comprises docosahexaenoic acid or docosapentaenoic acid;

recovering said lipids from the medium;

treating said lipids with fungal lipase and a source of medium chain fatty acids to convert the long chain fatty acids at positions 1 and 3 of said glycerol backbone of the triacylglycerol into medium chain fatty acids; and

recovering said structured lipids.

Description:
TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to a process for preparing lipids containing docosahexaenoic acid (hereinafter, also referred to as "DHA") and/or docosapentaenoic acid (hereinafter, also referred to as "DPA") by cultivating a microorganism, as well as a process for preparing DHA and/or DPA from the lipids. The present invention also relates to a microorganism belonging to the genus Ulkenia having the ability to produce the lipids.

BACKGROUND ART

DHA is contained in oil from fish belonging to the group of blue fish. Particularly, DHA is contained in the oil from sardines or tuna, in which DHA is contained in an amount of around 20%.

Recently, due to the discovery of fish material containing a high concentration of DHA such as the orbital fat of tuna, or due to the progress in technology for producing highly purified fatty acids, intensive efforts have been made to elucidate the physiological functions of DHA, and to investigate its practical use. It has become apparent that the physiological functions of DHA include an effect of lowering cholesterol, an anticoagulant effect and a carcinostatic effect. In relation to the metabolic system of brain, it has also become apparent that DHA is effective in improving memory and learning, preventing senile dementia, and treating Alzheimer's disease. In addition, it has been proved that DHA is an essential fatty acid for the growth of fry. For the reasons mentioned above, DHA is used in various foods, feedstuffs and baits.

DPA is also known to be contained in fish oil, although the content is extremely low. Most of the physiological functions of DPA are still unknown. The only function known for DPA is its usefulness as a carrier for transporting pharmaceutical agents into brain [Japanese Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 61-204136 (1986)]. It is expected, however, that DPA may play a physiological role in the animal body, since it is known that DPA increases in compensation for a lack of DHA in an animal body [Homayoun et al., J. Neurochem., 51:45 (1988); Hamm et al., Biochem. J., 245:907 (1987); and Rebhung et al., Biosci. Biotech. Biochem., 58:314 (1994)].

If one intends to obtain DHA and/or DPA from fish oil, several disadvantages exist, for example; the low content of the desired fatty acids, the inability to maintain a stable source of fish oil due to the migration of fish, or the offensive odor inherent in fish oil. In addition, it is difficult to obtain lipids with reliable quality, since fish oil additionally contains unsaturated fatty acids such as arachidonic acid (ARA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), which makes the lipids susceptible to oxidization.

Besides fish oil, lipids accumulated in cultured cells of a microorganism having an ability to produce DHA and/or DPA is considered as a source of DHA and/or DPA. For example, the following microorganisms are known to produce DHA and/or DPA: Vibrio marinus ATCC 15381, a bacterium isolated from the deep sea; Vibrio bacteria isolated from an intestines of a deep-sea fish; flagellate fungi such as Thraustochytrium aureum ATCC 34304, Thraustochytrium sp. ATCC 28211, ATCC 20890 and ATCC 20891, Schizochytrium sp. ATCC 20888 and ATCC 20889 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,340,742), Thraustochytrium SR21 strain (Nippon Nogei Kagaku Kaishi, vol.69, extra edition. Jul. 5, 1995), and Japonochytrium sp. ATCC 28207 [Japanese Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 1-199588 (1989)]; micro-algae such as Cyclotella cryptica, Crypthecodinium cohnii [Japanese Patent Publication (Kohyo) No. 5-503425 (1993)], and Emiliania sp. [Japanese Patent Publication (Kokai) No. 5-308978 (1993)].

In using any of the above-mentioned microorganisms, however, several problems exist, for example, a low yield of DHA and/or DPA, a requirement of a prolonged culture period for obtaining a sufficient amount of DHA and/or DPA, or a requirement of a specific medium or culture condition for production. When an alga such as Emiliania sp. is utilized for the production, a high yield of DHA may be accomplished, although there may exist a disadvantage that the culture steps are complicated due to the requirement of light for cultivation. Consequently, such a process is not suitable for industrial production.

Thus, the present invention described herein makes possible the advantage of providing a process which can produce DHA and/or DPA as well as lipids containing DHA and/or DPA using an inexpensive and conventional medium and simple steps for production, in a short period and in a high yield.

#17 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 141
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 07 August 2006 - 03:12 PM

Is non-seal derived DPA available yet?

#18 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 07 August 2006 - 04:31 PM

Duke - I am looking. Apparently the patent and process is there, but I am unsure as to it's availability.

This is an interesting study...this time say EPA is not effect with Coronary risk factors, it is DPA, and DHA (low mercury content) allowed for 67% decrease in risk!

http://ahavj.ahajour...aha;102/22/2677

Methods and Results—We studied this association in the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study, a prospective population study in Eastern Finland. Subjects were randomly selected and included 1871 men aged 42 to 60 years who had no clinical coronary heart disease at baseline examination. A total of 194 men had a fatal or nonfatal acute coronary event during follow-up. In a Cox proportional hazards’ model adjusting for other risk factors, men in the highest fifth of the proportion of serum DHA+DPA in all fatty acids had a 44% reduced risk (P=0.014) of acute coronary events compared with men in the lowest fifth. Men in the highest fifth of DHA+DPA who had a low hair content of mercury (2.0 µg/g) had a 67% reduced risk (P=0.016) of acute coronary events compared with men in the lowest fifth who had a high hair content of mercury (>2.0 µg/g). There was no association between proportion of eicosapentaenoic acid and the risk of acute coronary events.

#19 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 07 August 2006 - 07:48 PM

BTW, for those that think seal oil is wrong (as you should with fish oil if you are vegetarian/vegan) there is a vegan omega-3 DHA/EPA supplement. It'd be nice if it did have DPA too. http://www.water4.net/why-v-pure.htm

#20 kottke

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 246 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lynchburg VA

Posted 07 August 2006 - 07:58 PM

Aright so i ordered some seal oil...and i feel bad about it...but.. im thinking with my heightened brain capacitcy ill find a way to save the seals AND kill the hunters at the same time. Im sure the hunters have a quite a high level of DPA [sfty]
  • dislike x 1

#21 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 07 August 2006 - 08:09 PM

kottke, this is your conscience speaking... [tung]

Typical seal:
Posted Image

Result of your seal-oil purchase:
Posted Image
  • like x 1

#22 meatwad

  • Guest
  • 196 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:16 AM

I thought Canada had rules to make sure X amount of seals are slaughtered each year so it won't be overcrowded.

I am not going to look for sources, but somebody has to club 'em.

#23 stephen

  • Guest
  • 202 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:31 AM

Of course, those of us interested in "saving the seals" desparately want this supplement to take off!

After all, the best way to get a surplus of some animal is to have a large market demand.

Posted Image

Bring on the seal farms!

#24 kottke

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 246 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lynchburg VA

Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:32 AM

Thanks Funk for permanently imbedding those pictures into my mind...asshole ;)

#25 Da55id

  • Guest
  • 436 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Springfield, va
  • NO

Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:31 PM

Is there an empirical or objective difference between eating fish, sheep, cows, pigs, chickens, deer, dog (asia), seals etc. etc?

#26 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:39 PM

Aright so i ordered some seal oil...and i feel bad about it...but.. im thinking with my heightened brain capacitcy ill find a way to save the seals AND kill the hunters at the same time. Im sure the hunters have a quite a high level of DPA [sfty]


Kottke, what brand did you purchase? Some look decent, others look fairly shady.

While I fully understand the concept of don't kill animals...I still don't understand the concept of don't kill CUTE animals. That is grossly hypocritical. Sort of like Lisa Bonet Ramsey being cute or the girl that disappeared on spring break last year that was white and cute...but the Killing Fields of Pol Pot or some abducted inner-city african american teenage boy beat to death or an asian girl forced in to a drugs and prostitution ring is NOT newsworthy. America cares far more based on cute or "looks like it could be my daughter or my pet or she could be a prom queen or the next American Idol". I hate to be a little political here, but really. For those that are vegan/vegetarian...a very valid lifestyle that I fully understand, you certainly have a right to avoid this product and maybe be angered by it. That is logical to me and I am taking step to find alternatives. If you eat meat and believe one shouldn't kill deer (even though they are overpopulated) or this type of seal (even though they are not endangered) because of cuteness, but you don't care about about an endanged three toed sloth...well...that's hypocritical.

OK, I hope I don't open up a can of worms and get off topic, just making a point. I have listed a vegan omega-3 and I am searching for a vegetarian source for DPA, as there is a process for it, and trust me all bacteria is ugly. :) If an option is there, that would please all here that would be great and i would rather pursue a different option. Continue to look yourselves, maybe one of will stumble upon it. Nonetheless, the research is very, very compelling and worth discussing and probing, given the wealth of intelligence on this board.

Edited by neogenic, 08 August 2006 - 03:23 PM.


#27 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:55 PM

Is there an empirical or objective difference between eating fish, sheep, cows, pigs, chickens, deer, dog (asia), seals etc. etc?

Did you know there are farms in this country where dogs are raised for meat for the Asian population? Never heard that...it's not common, but its done. I saw a website on it once, very suprising, but true. I bet if they were Collies and people said Lassie is being raised for food...the scandal would be over all the newstations and on the cover of Time. "He's too cute to die". Again, it's only hypocricy that bothers me. Vegans (note: not hypocritical) have every right to be outraged about all of it.

Edited by neogenic, 08 August 2006 - 03:19 PM.


#28 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 08 August 2006 - 03:10 PM

http://www.dfo-mpo.g...2005/im01_e.htm

Number 8, should drive a point here.

ATLANTIC CANADA SEAL HUNT MYTHS AND REALITIES

March 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE TO EDITORS: The following points are intended to address the current myths and misconceptions surrounding the Atlantic Canada seal hunt.
Myth #1: The Canadian government allows sealers to kill adorable little white seals.

Reality: The image of the whitecoat harp seal is used prominently by seal hunt opponents. This image gives the false impression that vulnerable seal pups are targeted by sealers during the commercial hunt.

The hunting of harp seal pups (whitecoats) and hooded seal pups (bluebacks) is illegal – and has been since 1987. Marine Mammal Regulations prohibit the trade, sale or barter of the fur of these pups. Furthermore, seals cannot be harvested when they are in breeding or birthing grounds.


Myth #2: Seals are being skinned alive.

Reality: The most recent Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) Report and numerous reports mentioned by the Malouf Commission (1987) indicate that this is not true.

Sometimes a seal may appear to be moving after it has been killed; however seals have a swimming reflex that is active – even after death. This reflex falsely appears as though the animal is still alive when it is clearly dead – similar to the reflex in chickens.

Myth #3: Seals are not independent animals when they are killed – they still rely on their mothers and can’t even swim or fend for themselves.

Reality: Only weaned, self-reliant seals are hunted after they have been left by their mothers to fend for themselves.

The vast majority of harp seals are taken after more than 25 days of age, after their white coat has moulted. Harp seals have the ability to swim at this stage of development. They are also opportunistic feeders and prey on whatever food source in readily available to them.

Myth #4: Countless seals that slip off the ice after being clubbed or shot are lost and never accounted for.

Reality: "Struck and lost" data from at-sea observers as well as the CVMA indicate that this is not true. In fact, the record of struck and loss for the Canadian commercial seal hunt stands at less than five per cent.

For one thing, most of the harp seals taken in Canada are hunted on the ice rather than in the water and this makes losses much lower than in places like Greenland. Second, harp seals that are hunted have very high levels of body fat, making them quite buoyant. That, coupled with the buoyant qualities of salt water, make it quite easy for sealers to retrieve a seal should they slip into the water after being shot.

Myth #5: The Canadian government is allowing sealers to kill nearly one million seals to help with the recovery of cod stocks.

Reality: Several factors have contributed to the lack of recovery of Atlantic cod stocks, such as fishing effort, poor growth and physical condition of the fish, and environmental changes. Seals eat cod, but seals also eat other fish that prey on cod, therefore it is difficult to hold any one factor responsible for the decline in cod stocks.

In addition, there are many uncertainties in the estimates of the amount of fish consumed by seals. The commercial quota is established on sound conservation principles, not an attempt to assist in the recovery of groundfish stocks.

Myth #6: The club – or hakapik – is a barbaric tool that has no place in today’s world.

Reality: Clubs have been used by sealers since the onset of the hunt hundreds of years ago. Hakapiks originated with Norwegian sealers who found it very effective. Over the years, studies conducted by the various veterinary experts, and American studies carried out between 1969 and 1972 on the Pribilof Islands hunt (Alaska) have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely. A recent report in September, 2002, by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, had results that parallel these findings.

Myth #7: The methods used to kill seals are far less humane than those used to hunt or slaughter any other domestic or wild animal.

Reality: Hunting methods were studied by the Royal Commission on Sealing in Canada and they found that the clubbing of seals, when properly performed, is at least as humane as, and often more humane than, the killing methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, which are accepted by the majority of the public.
Myth #8: The hunt is unsustainable.

Reality: Since the 1960’s, environmental groups have been saying the seal hunt is unsustainable. In fact, the harp seal population is healthy and abundant. In excess of five million animals, the Northwest Atlantic seal herd is nearly triple what it was in the 1970s. DFO sets quotas at levels that ensure the health and abundance of seal herds. In no way are seals - and harp seals in particular – an "endangered species".

Myth #9: The "hunt" is simply a front for what is actually a cull aimed at reducing the population of harp seals.

Reality: The seal hunt is not a cull. It is a sustainable, commercially viable fishery based on sound conservation principles. In fact, the Department has adopted an Objective-Based Fisheries Management approach using control rules and reference points to establish management measures for the harp seal hunt. This process will facilitate a market-driven harvest that will enable sealers to maximize their benefits without compromising conservation. If the current three-year Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is fully taken, the population will still remain well above 70 per cent of its highest known abundance, found in the latest survey in 1996.

DFO takes a number of factors into consideration when establishing TAC levels for harp seals, including – ice conditions, pup mortality, natural mortality, incidental harvest or by-catch, the Greenland and Arctic hunts and commercial harvest levels.

Myth #10: The seal hunt provides such low economic return for sealers that it is not an economically viable industry.

Reality: The landed value of seals was $16 million in 2004. Pelt prices as high as $70 have recently been recorded. Seals are a significant source of income for some individual sealers. The money is earned over a very short period. Sealing also creates employment opportunities for buying and processing plants.

While sealing income may seem negligible by some US or European standards, sealers themselves have stated that their income from sealing can represent from 25-35 per cent of their total annual income. Sealing also represents benefits to thousands of families in Eastern Canada at a time of year when other fishing options are unavailable or limited at best, in many remote, coastal communities.

Myth #11: The Canadian government provides subsidies for the seal hunt.

Reality: The Government of Canada does not subsidize the seal hunt. Sealing is an economically viable industry. All subsidies ceased in 2001. Even before that time, any subsidies provided were for market and product development, including a meat subsidy, to encourage full use of the seal. In fact, government has provided fewer subsidies to the sealing industry than recommended by the Royal Commission on Sealing.

Myth #12: The seal hunt is not worth it - seals are only taken for their fur and the rest of the animal is wasted.

Reality: Seals have been harvested for food, fuel and shelter and other products for hundreds of years. The subsistence hunt is a valuable link to Canadian cultural heritage. Canada exports seal products in three forms: pelts, oil and meat. Traditionally, the pelts have been the main commodity, but production of seal oil for human consumption has grown substantially in recent years. Seal oil markets remain positive, and a large percentage of seal oil is finding its way into areas other than traditional marine and industrial oils.

DFO encourages the fullest use of seals, with the emphasis on leather, oil, handicrafts, and in recent years, meat for human and animal consumption as well as seal oil capsules rich in Omega-3. Any seal parts that are left on the ice provide sustenance to a wide variety of marine scavengers such as crustaceans, seabirds and fish.

Myth #13: The seal hunt is loosely monitored and DFO doesn’t punish illegal hunting activity or practices.

Reality: The seal hunt is closely monitored and tightly regulated. Canada’s enforcement of sealing regulations is thorough and comprehensive. Regulations and licensing policies stipulate hunting seasons, quotas, vessel size and methods of dispatch. Fishery Officers monitor the seal hunt in numerous ways to ensure sealers comply with Canada’s Marine Mammal Regulations. They conduct surveillance of the hunt by means of aerial patrols, surface (vessel) patrols, dockside inspections of vessels at landing sites and inspections at buying and processing facilities. In 2004, Fishery Officers spent approximately 8600 hours monitoring and enforcing the hunt. In the last five years, 94 charges were laid and convictions were upheld in 57 of those cases.

Sealers are well trained in humane hunting methods and are, as a group, responsible and law abiding. Assumptions that large numbers of sealers are violating the laws and regulations governing the hunt are unfounded.

Myth #14: If sealers take more than their allotted quota, DFO simply further raises the quota for them.

Reality: The Government of Canada has strict conservation measures in place, and is committed to the careful management of all seals to ensure strong, healthy populations in the years to come. 2005 is the last year of a three-year harp seal hunt management plan. The harp seal TAC was set at 975,000 for 2003-2005 and it has not been raised. This multi-year management plan was developed in consultation with more than 100 stakeholders, including conservation groups, at the 2002 Seal Forum in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.

There have been two instances when TACs were allowed to be exceeded to allow sealers disadvantaged by environmental conditions to have an opportunity to seal after good hunting in other areas had allowed the full TAC to be taken early.

These decisions were made only because the increased hunting would not jeopardize conservation and sustainability.

Myth #15: Anyone can get a licence – even those who have never hunted before, and there are no training requirements.

Reality: Before sealers can qualify for a professional licence they must obtain an assistant licence and work under the supervision of a professional sealer for two years. Individuals applying for a personal use licence must demonstrate they apply good sealing practices to ensure the seal is killed in a quick and humane fashion. Personal sealing licences will only be issued to individuals who had a licence, a valid hunter’s capability certificate, or big game licence the previous year and who have attended a mandatory training session.

Myth #16: The majority of Canadians are opposed to the seal hunt.

Reality: Animal rights groups currently campaigning against the seal hunt cite a 2004 Ipsos-Reid poll stating that 71 per cent of Canadians are opposed to the hunt. In fact, Canadians support federal policies regarding the seal hunt. An Ipsos-Reid survey conducted in February 2005 concluded that 60 per cent of Canadians are in favour of a responsible hunt. The survey methodology and results of this poll are available on request.

#29 FunkOdyssey

  • Guest
  • 3,443 posts
  • 166
  • Location:Manchester, CT USA

Posted 08 August 2006 - 03:41 PM

I still don't understand the concept of don't kill CUTE animals. That is grossly hypocritical.

Of course having an empathetic response that is triggered more strongly by things that are cute is completely illogical. That's not an American characteristic though -- its a human characteristic.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:36 PM

In theory, fish oil is better because they are thought to have much lower brain function than those seen as "higher up" (seals, cows, dogs, etc.). Of course, it could be argued that the higher up you go, the more inhumane it is. (in other words killing the "smartest" animals - monkeys, dolphins, etc. - is more inhumane than killing the "dumber" animals - fish, krill, etc.) It could also be argued that killing all animals is morally equivalent. (either bad or not-so-bad, depending on your perspective. I would have said "bad or good", but I don't think anyone would argue it to be morally good, just not a bad thing.)

In any event, Funk is correct, the cuter the species the more apt humans are to care about them. An ugly species is less likely to be protected than one deemed "cute". This translates, unfortunately, into the way we view other humans as well.

Also, the relationship you have to the animal is something that affects humans. Most people find it harder to eat an animal that has been considered a "pet" (on farms, pigs, cows, etc.) because they form an attachment to the animal. In fact, most people would find it repulsive to go meet a cow (pet it and stuff) and then have it slaughtered to feed them. People, by and large, don't want to know how their food gets to them, or what has to suffer to get it to them. I am not sure why this is, probably something to do with a primal need to feel attachment (and not do harm to those you are attached to) or something.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users