Nudist v. Clothing-Optional

[redlevin908]

I am very new to the whole concept of "social nudism". I have been to nude beaches plenty of times (both alone and with my wife). We enjoy it quite a bit, but always had a feeling that there was something a little "sketchy" about the organized nudist thing. I went to a "premier" AANR club (not Caliente) recently and was surprised that 90% of the attendees were clothed in the evening. All of the men were either clothed or wearing bathrobes. All of the women were either clothed or wearing lingerie and high heels. Hanging around with a bunch of guys in bathrobes watching a bunch of women in lingerie and high heels dance with each other was not really what I had envisioned as a non-sexual, family-oriented environment. I have a very hard time explaining to my wife after this visit that nudism at AANR clubs is a family-oriented activity.

I don't care if the people at nudist clubs are 18 or 80; 100 lbs or 400 lbs - but I am much more comfortable with them if they are dressed appropriately for the weather -- naked if warm; clothed in some reasonable way if it is cold. Lingerie parties can be fun - - if I am at a bachelor party. I don't think it belongs at an AANR resort.

For this reason, I think I am more inclined in future visits to only frequent nudist rather than clothing-optional venues.

Any thoughts?

[Nude in the North]

I've never been to a nudist resort, but I have to agree that it sounds a little more like a swingers club when you get into the whole "dressing sexy" thing for parties and dances.

If it's cold put on a sweater or whatever. Sexy night clothes are not all that warm anyway.

[Journeyman]

I've found that resorts I have visited in France (Euronat), Spain (Costa Natura) and Denmark (Solbakken), people *do* dress in the evenings, even at times dressing up for dinner. Sometimes it's because it can get rather cool; other times people want to wear their new sportwear or holiday outfits.

Bathrobes and lingerie would be laughed at as wholly inappropriate at these European places.

Resorts in the Caribbean - such as Sorobon Beach Resort on Bonaire - have a 50% North American and 50% European clientele. At dinner, the Europeans tend to dress; the North Americans tend not to. The weather is warm enough to be nude 24/7, which is what I prefer after spending the time and the money to get there.

I've been to Lake Como, Paradise Lakes and Caliente (all in Florida, for our international readers) also for visits, in 2008. What you describe is what you'd probably see at the latter two, but not Lake Como, from what I experienced. I'm also not a fan of the bathrobe/lingerie set - in my opinion, take all your clothes off or none at all.

[Pete Knight]

Bathrobes and lingerie would be laughed at as wholly inappropriate at these European places.
You haven't been to Cap d'Agde then!

I'm also not a fan of the bathrobe/lingerie set - in my opinion, take all your clothes off or none at all.
Mmmmm, I can agree with the concept, but there comes a time when you need some sort of cover up for protection against the cold. I have an Arabic style Dish-dash that I purchased in Spain, it is my favourite cover up of all (And I have a few other ethnic robes.), it can be carried when I go out for an evening, used to sit on, and worn, if necessary, on my return trip to my RV.

People joke about my range of slip over cover ups, but I think they're great, I may try a fashion parade to get you some photos, if I feel that way inclined.

Pete Knight

[txvic]

I never quite figured out why anyone would go somewhere to be nude and not be.

[mmacdonaldca]

This is an interesting subject for me. I am not new to being nude, but am a novice when it comes to social nudity. A couple of years back I finally had the chance to visit what I would call a nudist resort. I will admit, I was very nervous before going. Up to that point, I had only been nude in front of one or two friends at a time or small groups on the beach. And I really don't think a beach visit was going to prepare me for the "resort".

My friend (Thanks BB!) assured me that where we were going was clothing optional, except for the beach. This eased my mind. When we arrived, I was still a bit nervous. See others in various stages of undress helped! Some were nude, some were covered, some were in between :)

In my mind, it was exactly what I had hoped for (but figured did not exsist), a place where everyone could be as comfortable as they wanted to be...clothed or nude...it just didnt matter.

[NudonyII]

My first nudist experiences were at nude beaches, surrounded by the nude, the partially nude and the completely dressed. That type of environment works well for a lot of people; but it was never my idea of the nudist way of life.
My first real resort experience was at a C/O facility. The entire staff was dressed, the only nudity was around the pool. After hours everyone was at least partially clad. Again; that works well for a lot of people. But my philosophy was: "We're dressed all day everyday. We usually vacation dressed unless it's a nudist vacation. This is the one place where we don't have to be dressed. So, notwithstanding being new, cold or sunburned, why would anyone want to keep clothes on here?"
The next resort I visited, I actually didn't know whether they were nude or C/O. I arrived at the main office. The office lady was completely nude. I saw people arriving, disrobing completely by their car and walking through the entrance - completely nude. The resort manager was also completely nude. Throughout the day there, there was only one teenager that occasionally wore a simple T-shirt. That was the only worn garment I saw that day. Even after hours, as a simple dinner was prepared and we sat and ate, most of the people dining were still nude. And I thought to myself: "Now that's nudism!"

But that's just me; and I know a lot of people still prefer the option that a C/O environment provides. I recommend trying out all three venues, and determining which one suits you best.

[barenaked1]

I never quite figured out why anyone would go somewhere to be nude and not be.

Thank You! I often wonder that when I see people at my resort and it's a very comfortable temperature, why would you pay to be clothed? I admit there are times that you might want to cover up, but I see people in full dress. Kinda takes away from the environment.

[David77]

Sometimes the husband is a nudist but the wife is not a nudist, so she does not take off all her clothes but he does.

Some states have a law that all service personnel must be clothed, so the resort employees must be clothed.

The one who gave me a professional massage at a nudist resort was without any clothes when not giving massages. He explained that most states have a law that the one giving the massage must be clothed, so he put on his shorts for the massage.

He stated that most state laws state that the one getting a massage must have some minimal covering on, but he ignored this at the resort.

Teen-age boys often wear shorts as they are embarrased by frequent erections.

Women sometimes wear bakini bottoms when they are having their period.

[TVNude]

I'll agree with Journeyman and his observations to a point. Having been to Sorobon in July and December (different years) I will agree that the resort has more Europeans than other resorts. What I found is that the decision to dress or not dress for meals was more of an individual thing rather than by country. I've seen dressed Americans and nude Dutch people both times. Likewise, at Eden Bay (oops, Caliente Caribe) most of the women wear some type of pareo or other garment at dinner to eliminate the need to carry a towel. The men may or may not wear anything. As for me, I fall into the nude 24/7 category - have towel, will go anywhere.

I too feel that the bathrobe/lingerie scene is not what I would consider nudism. If you're cold or looking for protection from bugs (Bonaire in the rainy season!) that's one thing. After that, it becomes just a bit tawdry.

[Fresh Air]

....well, that's what people normally wear in FL. We all go shopping in bathrobes and lingerie.

No, that's pretty messed up.

[Nude in the North]

....well, that's what people normally wear in FL. We all go shopping in bathrobes and lingerie.


I wish I had known that when I was there last month. I would have done a lot more shopping. LOL!

[NudistMike10]

If its a nudist resort then everyone should be naked all the time, as long as its practical to do so. C/O facilities just make it possible for people to never experience being nude and they usually get taken over by textiles. Theyre good sometimes for people who are squeamish about jumping into going completely nude right away but otherwise theyre just places where undesireables can lurk. Nudist resorts generally keep those people away and most are not inclined to get naked just to get a cheap thrill anyways.

[Agde]

One good reason for a C/O policy of course is to encourage the notion that you don't have to be a nudist yourself to be ok with others' choosing to be nude. I'm very happy to include in the naturist movement anyone who doesn't care what other people wear or don't wear. Anti-nudists often point to how few people are nudists to "prove" that a majority of people disapprove of nudity, but I think there just aren't enough opportunities for people to demonstrate tolerance, that in fact they are happy to live-and-let-live.

Supporting expanded clothing-optional opportunities is not necessarily in conflict with supporting places where naturist principles are in full force. Public beaches, for instance, should be for everybody, which implies everybody being tolerant and respectful, without imposing textile or nudist views. This doesn't prevent private beaches or resorts being organized by textiles or nudists unwilling to be tolerant or wishing to be among like-minded people.

(The issue of "undesirables" is a different matter -- really a behavioral issue -- and there of course should be zero-tolerance for bad behavior regardless of the prevailing dress-code.)

[Running Bear]

I am strongly against Draconian nudist rules. Clothing should always be optional and appropriate. I am entirely happy to accept textiles who are naturist friendly. I do not think this is a slippery slope to being taking over by textiles but a move towards the greater acceptance of nudity.

I am walking with a naturist man who has a textile wife. They both join our walks and are good members of our group. Should I ban the textile wife who is very happy walking with all us naked men. The presence or absence of clothes makes no difference. She is a fellow walker. We are walkers primarily who just happen to have a liberal clothing sense.

[Noodlebug]

Running Bear is right, having a one-size-fits-all rule that you MUST always be naked is as dogmatic and unreasonable as the textile convention requiring people to be dressed all the time.

Two assumptions here must be blown out of the water: firstly, there should be no distinction between nudist and clothing optional, it is not an either/or situation. Nudism is about having the right and opportunity to be naked when you wish, it is not about pressuring anyone to be naked all the time.

The second assumption (from NudistMike10's post) is that "undesirables" are only ever textile. Why is there this belief that oglers, gawkers, prowlers and lurkers are firmly in the textile camp? Why is it ok to have some sleazy guy staring at you or your wife as long as he is naked, but bang out of order if he is clothed?

Being naked is not automatically a badge of authenticity, which excludes someone from being a pervert. The average textile would generally believe the opposite - people who get naked are more likely to be perverts of some kind. And while it is obviously a misapprehension as far as most genuine nudists are concerned, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they are otherwise correct.

[Fitz1980]

Clothing optional rules have helped me get many friends to try going to a nude beach or resort. At first they aren't sure and than I say "it's clothing optional so you don't have to take off anything that you don't want to." Of course once we get there they usually do strip soon after entering but if they didn't know that they had the option of staying dressed I never would have gotten them through the door in the first place.

[FireProf]

We have become somewhat conflicted ont his subject over the past few years. We prefer "nude" resorts and clubs to clothing optional. We following the rule; Nude when possible, clothed when practical." We've been to some of the resorts mentioned and also been to many others that have not.

Caliente is a beautiful resort but has a different philosophy about naturism then we would have hoped for. Will we ever visit again.......sure but with a group of friends that are like minded so we are not singled out or feel we've invaded someone's private party. I'd also like for Caliente to be upfront and honest when you book a reservation. I'd like them to tell new visitors, returning visitors what is in store during our stay. They could have let us know that "this" particular group was going to be at the resort and let us make the decision to either go or find another place to visit.

We vacation at Club Orient each year. There are few that dress, completely, for dinner. Most women and men wear some sort of pareo or sarong to eliminate the need for a towel. Some just think that you should be dressed while around food. (?) Not sure why but I've always thought it was easier to whip off dropped food from skin than clothing!!

The conflict, we face, comes into play because the Prof has had several surgeries to remove skin cancers from her body. She prefers being nude but is not taking to kindly to numerous trips to the dermatologist and plastic surgeon and the scars she has had to live with. So...we do prefer "nude" resorts and clubs but with her history she needs to cover after she's had enough sun. This presents a problem with the rule of "mandatory" nudity around the pool area.

For sometime, Desert Shadows, now Desert Sun, didn't provide any type of shade around the pool area...so if you covered, as my wife does, she would be asked to leave the pool area because the pool area was nude only. If she had an umbrella to provide shade she would have remained nude and poolside. This made it difficult to go to DS with this rule.
Since then the resorts owners have changed and umbrellas are provided so we could return and stay poolside and nude all the time.

Our club, Glen Eden Sun Club, has the same rule but don't see it being enforced. We visited on a weekend recently and we chose to sit up on the upper grassy area instead of the pool deck, under a large oak tree. Most everyone was nude around the pool but we did see several women cover after a while so my thinking is that the management has understood the need for this and is less strict about the "mandatory" nudity rule.

C/O resorts and clubs are great for first timers. I think the problem is that many of those that either belong, live or visit these resorts/clubs have become more comfortable nude and expect this particular place to be that way but in actuallity...the place is still C/O. Another issue is that some of the C/O places we've visited have become lax in their rule of "getting used to" being nude and there are many how remain clothed all the time, everytime they visit. That shouldn't be the case and the norm.

We much prefer "nude" resorts and clubs but...with a little understanding that some, like my wife, need to be able to cover, once in a while, to eliminate the sun exposure and trips to the dermatologist and plastic surgeon.

FP

[London Joe]

Noodlebug,

I'm liking what you say my friend - my sentiments exactly. I reckon you have hit the nail firmly on the head.

Here's hoping for some decent weather this summer in the UK eh!!?? We deserve some proper sun this year so that I can get down to Fairlight Glen near Hastings and soak it all up. Best little secluded naturist beach I have had the pleasure to visit - check it out if you can.

[Keith58]

Nudism is about having the right and opportunity to be naked when you wish, it is not about pressuring anyone to be naked all the time.

The freedom of choice. I like that; that's a fine response....

Regards....

[naturistoftheyear]

I'd prefer to be naked all of the time. People who don't want to be completely naked rightaway can first try topless beaches, then visit 'free' beaches, and when they finally get used to it, head for the naturist resorts.
If I were staying at a resort, I wouldn't want too much 'clothing optional' around me. But of course still being realistic, letting people cover up if they're afraid of burns, etc.

Some naturist resorts do not allow people to be naked inside their restaurants or supermarkets - which I find rather odd for a naturist resort.

[Paul]

Common nudity equates to a sense of trust, a shared view of living, openess as to "this is who I am", honesty and comfort within an area where others share a common desire and comfort to be clothing free.

If one does not want to be clothing free then 99.9% of the world follows in your footsteps, you have many many options as to when and where to be dressed when warm weather or indoor facilities would otherwise not have restricted your choice.

Nudity in a public area or even a public pool would offend many and make others very uncomfortable, so one generaly remains dressed or otherwise covered up from possible public view (keep the blinds of our home closed).

So when one goes to a naturist / nudist park or resort one would expect that all those there are also there to enjoy being clothing free. To do otherwise (to elect to remain clothed when temperature is not the issue) could be viewed by some as an intrusion to a shared common equal dress code... and offend others.

One talks about their spouse remaining clothed and then disrobing when she is ready... seeing other women or men dressed could in many cases make it even more difficult to disrobe... if they are dressed then perhaps I should remain dressed.

From a personal expereince... when my 3 kids reached the age of 12 or so, if other children at a park that we travelled to (even a few) kept their clothes on other then in the pool then they often followed suit (pardon the pun)... but when we travelled to a park with a clothing free required policy in place and all where nude, then they happily took off their clothes and remained happily clothing free for our entire stay.

A nudist park is a place to go to be clothing free with like minded others, if you don't want to be unclothed at a nudist park weather allowing then do us all a favour and stay home that day.

[Oldman]

A nudist park is a place to go to be clothing free with like minded others, if you don't want to be unclothed at a nudist park weather allowing then do us all a favour and stay home that day.

That would remove the opportunity for many men to introduce their wives to social nudism.
Most women who come to our club and stay dressed only do so for the first hour or so, and then get accustomed and are comfortable with getting nude. If not for that grace period, you wouldn't get them past the gate.
Rather than being hard-assed about nudism, it would be nice to help nudism grow. If you check the spring issue of Going Natural, the presidents column bemoans the drop in nudism in Canada. Getting militant isn't going to win converts.

[Paul]

Bare Oaks a naturist park near Toronto is rapidly growing its "couple and family" membership base ever since it introduced a clothing free strandard and not a clothing optional one.

Visit http://www.bareoaks.ca/Bare-Oaks/About_Naturism.html
to understand why.

Another friend a single mother of three has said that she will come and give the naturist experience a try because everyone will be in the same state, clothing free, and not dressed thus ensuring a level playing field and not wondering why some males and females are dressed when there is no logical reason to be dressed.

Others have found clubs that expect those on the grounds to be clothing free to be more true to the INF and FCN ideals than those who are clothing optional for all who are on the grounds.

Lastly when I took my then girlfriend (now wife) to our first naturist park she told me afterwards that it was easier to disrobe because everyone else was clothing free.

[Procrastinator]

From the Bare Oaks Dress Code(dress code?!?!):

6. Be careful how you wrap towels and sarongs around yourself as it might suggest you are ashamed of parts of your body.

That's just plain strange. Who determines if someone is ashamed of parts of their body by the way their towel is wrapped? Is there a committee for that? Are there guidelines?

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the live and let live attitude at Naturist Society Gatherings. There, it's nobody's business but your own how you want to be dressed or undressed. That's true body freedom.

Joe

[NudeAl]

I myself subscribe to the live and let live attitude. I have encountered nudist nazis who seem to be on a mission to enforce the nude code of conduct and I find it distasteful. My wife is a reluctant spouse and she will disrobe in stages as she adjusts to the situation. If she is faced with an ultimatum, as in get undressed or leave, well then we hit the road. She also realizes that certain areas are nude use only like the pool ad hot tub and has no problems with that. Once she adjusts she will enjoy the pool nude, in fact that is one of her favorite pastimes when we go.

[Oldman]

Bare Oaks a naturist park near Toronto is rapidly growing its "couple and family" membership base ever since it introduced a clothing free strandard and not a clothing optional one.

Visit http://www.bareoaks.ca/Bare-Oaks/About_Naturism.html
to understand why.

Another friend a single mother of three has said that she will come and give the naturist experience a try because everyone will be in the same state, clothing free, and not dressed thus ensuring a level playing field and not wondering why some males and females are dressed when there is no logical reason to be dressed.

Others have found clubs that expect those on the grounds to be clothing free to be more true to the INF and FCN ideals than those who are clothing optional for all who are on the grounds.

Lastly when I took my then girlfriend (now wife) to our first naturist park she told me afterwards that it was easier to disrobe because everyone else was clothing free.


From my experience managing a nudist club(over 5 years), I have found that allowing some time to acclimate for newbies doesn't hurt. We only had two women coverup for an the first hour and then they disrobed. They said that it made it easier than being told right off the bat to strip it off.

Except for weather or people who have gotten to much sun on their shoulders, you won't see clothed people on the grounds at Lilly Valley.

[Oldman]

From the Bare Oaks Dress Code(dress code?!?!):

6. Be careful how you wrap towels and sarongs around yourself as it might suggest you are ashamed of parts of your body.

That's just plain strange. Who determines if someone is ashamed of parts of their body by the way their towel is wrapped? Is there a committee for that? Are there guidelines?

Maybe I'm just spoiled by the live and let live attitude at Naturist Society Gatherings. There, it's nobody's business but your own how you want to be dressed or undressed. That's true body freedom.

Joe

When I first saw the dress code, I thought that it was kind of strange. But then, I am not into playing the Nudie Nazi. "Achtung, you vill strip immediately and enter zee showers."

[Oldman]

I myself subscribe to the live and let live attitude. I have encountered nudist nazis who seem to be on a mission to enforce the nude code of conduct and I find it distasteful. My wife is a reluctant spouse and she will disrobe in stages as she adjusts to the situation. If she is faced with an ultimatum, as in get undressed or leave, well then we hit the road. She also realizes that certain areas are nude use only like the pool ad hot tub and has no problems with that. Once she adjusts she will enjoy the pool nude, in fact that is one of her favorite pastimes when we go.

That is why we allow a grace period. Usually it takes less than an hour for the newby or unsure spouse to disrobe, and our members are gracious enough and understanding enough that it doesn't bother them to see someone in a wrap or tee shirt.
We want people to feel comfortable. After all, it is a nudist camp we run, not a prison camp.

[usuallylurk]

Likewise, Oldman ... the park I belong to is a NUDIST park, and not "clothing-optional".

But it doesn't mean that you cannot grant a grace period for someone to acclimate to the idea of going clothes-free. If a lady wore a long t-shirt or robe, that would be acceptable in nearly every environment.

What I get awfully confused at, is that some clubs still enforce a "hazing introduction" -- where you have to be nude to take the tour. I don't know what the purpose of that is.

At the park I belong to, there's an area known as "shy beach" ... away from the areas of the park that are used for social and sport gathering.

Most progressive places will allow the reluctant to adapt -- of course, however, there are no bathing suits permitted in the lake, or hot tub, or sauna, but I think that's understandable.

You also have to remember -- clothing optional policies are not without their problems, either. "Clothing optional" also means you can come in and never disrobe -- and that often makes nudists uncomfortable.

[Oldman]

Likewise, Oldman ... the park I belong to is a NUDIST park, and not "clothing-optional".

But it doesn't mean that you cannot grant a grace period for someone to acclimate to the idea of going clothes-free. If a lady wore a long t-shirt or robe, that would be acceptable in nearly every environment.

What I get awfully confused at, is that some clubs still enforce a "hazing introduction" -- where you have to be nude to take the tour. I don't know what the purpose of that is.

At the park I belong to, there's an area known as "shy beach" ... away from the areas of the park that are used for social and sport gathering.

Most progressive places will allow the reluctant to adapt -- of course, however, there are no bathing suits permitted in the lake, or hot tub, or sauna, but I think that's understandable.

You also have to remember -- clothing optional policies are not without their problems, either. "Clothing optional" also means you can come in and never disrobe -- and that often makes nudists uncomfortable.

The idea of forcing someone to be nude while you show them around is ridiculous. If someone is nervous, you're not going to make them feel any more comfortable by doing that.
We have mandatory nude areas...pools, hot tubs, sauna etc, and we have an area of the camp that is away from the main crowd where couples can be fairly private and get used to being nude before they have to mingle.

WHere you never have to disrobe, I agree, is problematic.

I actually had to kick out a nudist guest who harassed a couple be insisting that the wife get nude right away. I saw him approach them a couple of times and finally went over and told him to leave them alone. When he told me that he objected to people being clothed, I told him of our policy wrt newbies. 10 minutes later, he was at it again. I tossed him out. Permanently!

[Noodlebug]

I'm far less experienced than most of the posters here, and of course I live in a far less forgiving climate. But at both indoor and outdoor events and locations I have been to, I have never experienced a "nudity mandatory" policy. And I have never seen anyone wearing clothes when they don't need to.

Very occasionally there has been a young kid with a suit on, or a woman wearing bottoms, and as far as I can see no-one was mad or upset or even mildly annoyed about it. I don't think I have ever seen an adult male wearing anything beyond the changing areas.

I don't think you have to enforce a nudity-mandatory policy. I think peer-pressure is a sufficient motivating force for anyone who for whatever weird reason wants to come to a nudist club without wanting to be nude. Failing that, the organisers usually have discretion about who they allow in (for clubs and events at least, not so much public beaches) and if someone's behaviour gives reason for concern, they're entitled to ask for an explanation and ask that someone to leave.

For kids, and shy wives, I think there is a lot of tolerance and understanding, but I find it hard to believe they would set off a trend for more and more people to choose to cover up. It's a nudist club, the primary reason people come here is to be naked! You expect people to WANT to be naked, you don't have to force anyone. It's like ordering people to eat chicken at KFC, or ordering people to go on a ride at the fairground!

[Oldman]

For kids, and shy wives, I think there is a lot of tolerance and understanding, but I find it hard to believe they would set off a trend for more and more people to choose to cover up. It's a nudist club, the primary reason people come here is to be naked! You expect people to WANT to be naked, you don't have to force anyone. It's like ordering people to eat chicken at KFC, or ordering people to go on a ride at the fairground!

Agreed. That is what we have found.People look at the shy ones with understanding, not with a desire to emulate them.
I think the primary reason that people and clubs get into this "Naked or Else!" is that they worry that they will have clothed people coming to gawk at the nude people. Gawkers can be easily discerned whether nude or clothed.

[Ren]

I've been to clothing optional beaches, so it's a swimsuit or nothing and all is well with the world. If that were the mandatory, that would be fine. When I've heard about these lingerie parties, etc., it just seems odd to me. If nudism is about the fact that the body can be bare without sexualizing it, what is the message we're sending at a nudist venue if we have lingerie dances? It seems to me that such a set-up will ultimately bring nudism to its knees if we don't quell this now. We must differentiate what is nudism and what is something else entirely masquerading (literally?) as nudism.

[usuallylurk]

We are working toward that, and many parks prohibit the wearing of lingerie or provocative clothing.

I think the point that's made is "nudist" (versus clothing-optional) policies tend to keep the park a venue that's truly nudist. Discretion and leniency have to be applied on a case-to-case basis.

However, an open "clothing optional" policy is more likely to lead to situations that make nudists uncomfortable. In another thread, I heard one guy discuss his wife's reluctance, at Cypress Cove.

Now - let me put it this way = Cypress Cove is likely one of the BEST places on this planet for a reluctant wife's first visit. However, nudity is expected in / around the pool. They stayed on the beach, because of her reluctance. If, after one or two or three days, someone can't get used to the idea of being nude at a nudist resort -- MAYBE THEY DON'T BELONG THERE.

[richo]

There's a dichotomy here that I don't understand - why would someone else being clothed make a nudist nervous or uncomfortable? I've seen this brought up in a few threads, and frankly, I just don't follow the reasoning.

[Running Bear]

I am often naked in the company of textiles on clothing optional walks and clubs and am certainly not made nervous that they are textile. They are either naturists wearing clothes or textiles who are naturist friendly. Fine by me. This slippery slope analogy does not work. Yes, you may find more people remain dressed because you see several dressed but it also works the other way, some may move towards an undressed state.

I would suggest that if you want to be part of a herd and only be nude when others are nude you really have issues with your nudity. You are still not truly liberated from that feeling that the naked body is shameful.

The presence or absence of clothes makes no difference. That is the mantra not "get naked or else" which to me suggests naked is kinky if all you want is to see naked people.

[Oldman]

I am often naked in the company of textiles on clothing optional walks and clubs and am certainly not made nervous that they are textile. They are either naturists wearing clothes or textiles who are naturist friendly. Fine by me. This slippery slope analogy does not work. Yes, you may find more people remain dressed because you see several dressed but it also works the other way, some may move towards an undressed state.

I would suggest that if you want to be part of a herd and only be nude when others are nude you really have issues with your nudity. You are still not truly liberated from that feeling that the naked body is shameful.

The presence or absence of clothes makes no difference. That is the mantra not "get naked or else" which to me suggests naked is kinky if all you want is to see naked people.


At our club in the woods or in the evening around the fire pit, you will often see people ranging from fully nude to fully dressed. That depends on their comfort level. If you are out in the sun all day, the evening breeze can make you feel chilled to the point where you have to dress. In the woods, rather than cover yourself with bug juice, some would rather dress if the mosquitos are bad.
That they are dressed, as you say, should not make people nervous. I agree with your statement about questioning how liberated you are if you are nervous over the presence of textile wearing people while nude.

[nimrod]

There's a dichotomy here that I don't understand - why would someone else being clothed make a nudist nervous or uncomfortable? I've seen this brought up in a few threads, and frankly, I just don't follow the reasoning.

I believe that the reason one would be nervous or uncomfortable nude in a clothing-optional setting is that the one that is dressed my not be there for pure reasons, a gawker rather than someone who is just comfortable with others nudity.

[Oldman]

I believe that the reason one would be nervous or uncomfortable nude in a clothing-optional setting is that the one that is dressed my not be there for pure reasons, a gawker rather than someone who is just comfortable with others nudity.

And that should make a nudist nervous, why? And how would one determine the thought processes of the dressed person?

[stomper69]

I too often wondered why you would go to resort and not be nude.Then I visited Sandy Terraces in Cape Cod in early June for the beach clean up and realized that it gets a bit chilly at night even with a fire going.(no to mention the moquitos).So I went back to my tent and got a tee shirt.

[NudonyII]

I would suggest that if you want to be part of a herd and only be nude when others are nude you really have issues with your nudity. You are still not truly liberated from that feeling that the naked body is shameful.


While I feel there is some truth to what you're saying; I also think think that you're painting with a wide brush. For some people, nudism is primarily an internal experience (how "I" feel when I'm nude). For others, it is primarily an external experience (how "I" relate to my nudist surroundings).
When the drive is external, there is going to be a natural inclination to seek out like-minded individuals, who share the same philosophy and quality of complete undress. When the drive is internal, then the natural inclination will be to apply nudity to ordinary, everyday situations; regardless of who is present - and as long as no one is offended (hopefully.) It's a little like being into fitness: some people hit the gym to look a certain way and be a part of an environment where people take care of their body; some people work out solely for health and to feel good about themselves. Would you say that one "gets it", but not the other?

I admittedly prefer being one of the "herd", as you put it. That simply means I prefer the directness, complete honesty and likeness of a person(s) just as nude as me. Although I definitely will -and have - gone nude when others chose to remain partially clad; but that is not my preference. My wife, on the other hand, would go nude in front of clothed relatives whenever the opportunity arose; because being nude brought her inner peace and comfort. Sitting down and chatting with her Mother, as she did often - she completely nude and her Mom completely dressed - was an exercise in positive self-affirmation for her.

And that should make a nudist nervous, why? And how would one determine the thought processes of the dressed person?
That's the thing: we don't know. I had an experience where my nudity distressed a clothed friend; and she didn't share this with me until after the fact; and it changed our relationship. The thought process is usually unreadable, unless the person shows physical signs, such as blushing or stuttering. But when dealing with someone who has confronted those fears and surmounted them, that's when an understanding and connection can occur.

[Running Bear]

While I feel there is some truth to what you're saying; I also think think that you're painting with a wide brush. ...
My statement was clearly a baiting technique, what a nice way to say so :-)
Of course social science is difficult to put in words and there are always exceptions. As a theory my idea works. It would not work if you have issues with your nudity or the nudity of others or your own perception by others scenarios.

I admit to liking my herd (naturists) but also like to mingle with the naturist tolerant textiles. This presupposes a mutual respect. I do not fear Meerkats either. If I take my clothes off it may provide some entertainment but they will soon get bored. Nothing worse that wearing a silly hat at Ascot. (Edit: Horseracing event with major Fashion display of ladies hats in case that does not mean anything internationally)

I think we are confusing two aspects here. Naturists dress when it is cold. The other is being dressed when it is more practical to be nude. The latter seems to be the main subject for debate. Where it is the psychological structure determining the state of dress not the environment. I would discount the textile voyeur idea. That is a red-herring as is unlikely to be of major concern.

[Mosquito_Bait]

The first time that I saw people nude on a beach, I was with a group of friends. I kept my clothes on because my friends wouldn't have approved. What impressed me about the nudists on the beach is that they didn't seem to care that clothed people were present. I had assumed that nudists operated under a quid pro quo of "You show yours and I'll show mine". The nudists on the beach that day obviously didn't think that way. They were nude simply because they enjoyed being nude. That is the attitude that I've tried to emulate. I can remember being nude in the evening at the restaurant in Cypress Cove when most of the other patrons were dressed. In my mind, it was a point of honor to be nude. Let the others be dressed as long as they don't hassle me for being nude.

The one exception that I would make to the above is if the venue functions as a meat market. My impression is that establishments that cater to swingers tend to be clothing optional rather than mandatory nudist. Of course, I recognize that the converse is not necessarily true. Not all venues that are clothing optional cater to swingers. Swingers make me feel uncomfortable. My wife demands that we leave if she senses that swingers are present.

[Mosquito_Bait]

I wonder if there is some compromise between clothing optional and mandatory nudist that would better accommodate most people. Women have issues with their monthly cycles. Teenage kids have issues with being self-conscious about their bodies. There is also the issue of the reluctant spouse, usually the female partner. Perhaps the rule should be that adult men must be nude and others should dress according to their level of comfort. That might also be effective in avoiding a venue becoming a meat market full of clothed men who want to see nude women.

[NudonyII]

I think we are confusing two aspects here. Naturists dress when it is cold. The other is being dressed when it is more practical to be nude. The latter seems to be the main subject for debate. Where it is the psychological structure determining the state of dress not the environment. I would discount the textile voyeur idea. That is a red-herring as is unlikely to be of major concern.

Ok. Now I'm getting confused!:o
If we're strictly talking about a nudist context, be it the beach or resort, then I agree with your initial statement. There are two possible scenarios behind a textile presence at a clothesfree venue: inclement weather or a clothing-optional setting. Personally, although I prefer the uniformity of a nude setting, I'm going to go nude anyway. My personal philosophy is all nude, and I'm going to apply it wherever it's tolerated. I will naturally gravitate towards those people who are nude as me; but that doesn't mean I'll be skeptical or leery of those that aren't (unless their behavior proves otherwise.)
But I agree; if one goes to a nude beach and finds him/herself unable to undress due to a textile presence, then there's still psychological work to be done.

[usuallylurk]

I wonder if there is some compromise between clothing optional and mandatory nudist that would better accommodate most people. Women have issues with their monthly cycles. Teenage kids have issues with being self-conscious about their bodies.


Nearly every facility that is "nudist" allows for both of those situations.

There is also the issue of the reluctant spouse, usually the female partner. Perhaps the rule should be that adult men must be nude and others should dress according to their level of comfort. That might also be effective in avoiding a venue becoming a meat market full of clothed men who want to see nude women.

First of all, I can tell that some people in this thread have not experienced social nudism. Anyone who has been in a "Nudist and NOT clothing-optional" environment would know that they make exceptions for monthly cycles, AND teens.

Second, why would a woman or man really want to go to a nudist place and stay dressed, if it were practical to be nude? That's where the psychological analysis should begin, not on nudists who prefer nudist atmospheres.

I have held house gatherings, and some nudists prefer to be clothed, others nude -- and that's fine. But if you go to a nude setting -- designed specifically for nudism - like a pool at a nudist resort -- WHY WOULD ONE STAY CLOTHED?

[Oldman]

Nearly every facility that is "nudist" allows for both of those situations.



First of all, I can tell that some people in this thread have not experienced social nudism. Anyone who has been in a "Nudist and NOT clothing-optional" environment would know that they make exceptions for monthly cycles, AND teens.

Just look at all the endless threads on erections and other nonsense on this and other forums, and you <b>know</b> that many people posting have never been in a social nude setting.


Second, why would a woman or man really want to go to a nudist place and stay dressed, if it were practical to be nude? That's where the psychological analysis should begin, not on nudists who prefer nudist atmospheres.

In many cases, the man has finally convinced his spouse/girlfriend to come with him, but she hasn't reached the point psychologically where she is ready to give it a try.
Given some time, and it really doesn't take long, she will. Unless the Nudist Nazis insist that she disrobe immediately. In which case, the man will be attending as a married single for the rest of his life.


I have held house gatherings, and some nudists prefer to be clothed, others nude -- and that's fine. But if you go to a nude setting -- designed specifically for nudism - like a pool at a nudist resort -- WHY WOULD ONE STAY CLOTHED?


See above.

I cut people slack, after all, isn't the object to get people into nudism, rather than show nudism as fundamentalist as your average Taliban?

[Running Bear]

Ok. Now I'm getting confused!:o...
... I will naturally gravitate towards those people who are nude as me; but that doesn't mean I'll be skeptical or leery of those that aren't (unless their behavior proves otherwise.)
But I agree; if one goes to a nude beach and finds him/herself unable to undress due to a textile presence, then there's still psychological work to be done.
Me to! I am getting confused at the range of scenarios so tried to exclude some.

I was trying to exclude this idea that allowing textiles results in a voyeur tendency. This would be the odd incident. We are talking about naturists and naturist tolerant people not undesirables. We are not talking about the textile world. It is in the textile world that voyeurs exist they cannot live in a naturist world [think about that :-)].

Your latter scenario is the freedom to be yourself idea. If more people are textile then there is more strength of spirit needed to do otherwise.

As an example of a clothing optional case. I took my mother (textile) to a naturist club while I remained naked and she remained dressed. She is (was she died last Nov) naturist tolerant but not a naturist. I am sure we can all come up with similar scenarios. Also in most Draconian nudist clubs there are always clothing optional cases. Life is rarely black-and-white.

[Mosquito_Bait]

...
First of all, I can tell that some people in this thread have not experienced social nudism. Anyone who has been in a "Nudist and NOT clothing-optional" environment would know that they make exceptions for monthly cycles, AND teens.
...

My wife and I have been to:

Cypress Cove
Paradise Lakes
White Tail Resort
Avalon
Bar-S Ranch
Sunburst Resort
Vritomartis
Club Orient

...and probably a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head. Bar-S Ranch is nude mandatory throughout the property. All the others are nude mandatory in the pool area except for Club Orient, which doesn't have a pool, and Paradise Lakes. We didn't care for Paradise Lakes. It felt like a meat market. At Vritomartis and Cypress Cove, I witnessed people being warned to get undressed or get out of the pool area. If there was an exception for menstruating women and teens, I wasn't aware of it. We have always timed our visits not to coincide with my wife's special time of the month simply because it wouldn't be fun for her.

[Oldman]

My wife and I have been to:

Cypress Cove
Paradise Lakes
White Tail Resort
Avalon
Bar-S Ranch
Sunburst Resort
Vritomartis
Club Orient

...and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head. All are nude mandatory in the pool area except for Club Orient, which doesn't have a pool, and Paradise Lakes. We didn't care for Paradise Lakes. It felt like a meat market. At Vritomartis and Cypress Cove, I witnessed people being warned to get undressed or get out of the pool area. If there was an exception for menstruating women and teens, I wasn't aware of it. We have always timed our visits not to coincide with my wife's special time of the month simply because it wouldn't be fun for her.

We make such allowances here, and I know that the Pond, 4 Seasons, Glen Echo and every other club in Ontario does.

[usuallylurk]

Just look at all the endless threads on erections and other nonsense on this and other forums, and you <b>know</b> that many people posting have never been in a social nude setting.

Yes! My favorite question is "why do nudists dress for meals?" (for those not familiar with it, we generally DON'T). The question / myth is rooted in an old TV sitcom gag that has been used at least three times. Once it was a show called "Good Morning, World", an obscure but very good show about two radio DJs; another in a not-so-great show called "On Our Own", and finally in a "Golden Girls" segment.

The gag goes like this = two or three non-nudists find themselves in a nudist park. They fear going nude, and stay cooped up in their rooms. But, they do have to go out to eat. So they get up their courage, disrobe, head to the resort's restaurant where all the nudists are clothed and they learn "Oh, we dress for meals."

But, let's be fair. One of the reasons this board exists is to educate others about clothes-free / clothing optional recreation. I think what saddens me more than anything else, is seeing people post in here for years, and then they say "gee, I want to try it out, but...." There are a large number of people, most of them adult single men, who are in here, and have yet to try it out because they "need a helping hand".

My response to that is, if you don't have the courage to pick up the phone and call clubs in your area and can't bring yourself to getting in the car and driving out to an area club or gathering for a day, you don't belong in our world of social nudism anyway. But that's a different topic.

"In many cases, the man has finally convinced his spouse/girlfriend to come with him, but she hasn't reached the point psychologically where she is ready to give it a try.

Given some time, and it really doesn't take long, she will. Unless the Nudist Nazis insist that she disrobe immediately. In which case, the man will be attending as a married single for the rest of his life.


Which is why most nudist parks cut some slack ... for most situations. But they are also observe things. If the wife stays hidden in the cottage or cabin, or on a number of visits never disrobes, then it raises questions.

If they're a couples/family oriented park -- then there's some social hesitation about a man coming out, socializing with folks, while the wife stays hidden away out of fear.


One nudist park operator insists that both persons come into the office. If the wife is hesitant -- or, in one case, is crying and scared, she won't admit them.

In the case of the park I belong to -- Cedar Waters -- one of the most conservative in the country -- and it is NUDIST -- you take the tour clothed.

And, because it is couples only, they do not give "I want to check out the place before bringing up my wife" tours. Husband and wife, or man/woman take the tour TOGETHER. The argument = you take the tour together, and decide AS A COUPLE if you want to stay.

Of course, they would be spending every summer weekend doing nothing but giving "husband checking it out tours" if they allowed them.

[Oldman]

Yes! My favorite question is "why do nudists dress for meals?" (for those not familiar with it, we generally DON'T). The question / myth is rooted in an old TV sitcom gag that has been used at least three times. Once it was a show called "Good Morning, World", an obscure but very good show about two radio DJs; another in a not-so-great show called "On Our Own", and finally in a "Golden Girls" segment.

The gag goes like this = two or three non-nudists find themselves in a nudist park. They fear going nude, and stay cooped up in their rooms. But, they do have to go out to eat. So they get up their courage, disrobe, head to the resort's restaurant where all the nudists are clothed and they learn "Oh, we dress for meals."

I remember the GG episode. It was funny but then, the cast was great at pulling off such things.


But, let's be fair. One of the reasons this board exists is to educate others about clothes-free / clothing optional recreation. I think what saddens me more than anything else, is seeing people post in here for years, and then they say "gee, I want to try it out, but...." There are a large number of people, most of them adult single men, who are in here, and have yet to try it out because they "need a helping hand".

My response to that is, if you don't have the courage to pick up the phone and call clubs in your area and can't bring yourself to getting in the car and driving out to an area club or gathering for a day, you don't belong in our world of social nudism anyway. But that's a different topic.


Yeah, I have people that phone the club regularly each year... "I'm going to come out next weekend" and never show.


Which is why most nudist parks cut some slack ... for most situations. But they are also observe things. If the wife stays hidden in the cottage or cabin, or on a number of visits never disrobes, then it raises questions.

That should raise a question in the mind of management. Never seen it happen, but I have heard of it.


In the case of the park I belong to -- Cedar Waters -- one of the most conservative in the country -- and it is NUDIST -- you take the tour clothed.

And, because it is couples only, they do not give "I want to check out the place before bringing up my wife" tours. Husband and wife, or man/woman take the tour TOGETHER. The argument = you take the tour together, and decide AS A COUPLE if you want to stay.

Of course, they would be spending every summer weekend doing nothing but giving "husband checking it out tours" if they allowed them.


Never could see the point in making people who are "on the edge" strip off as soon as they reach the office. If they are new, they already are nervous, why ratchet up the anxiety level? I figure, make it easy to adjust. I want them to stay, and come back. From a manager's perspective, having people relax and feel that they want to come back (many times) is the goal, or should be. I'm in the business of getting butts through the gate, not getting my jollies watching people sweat with fear.
It's always a judgement call. The owner of Lilly Valley says managing is part business-man and part psychologist. You learn to read people, and give them a little rope. Don't be looking for ways to exclude them. If they are bad eggs, they will show themselves sooner or later and then you can deal with them.

If a guy shows up " to check it out for the wife" we suggest he come back with her. If he says he is single, we ask him if he is planning on staying and then sign him in. I don't give tours to singles. Otherwise, as you say, I would be touring single guys around all day for their little thrill.

[nimrod]

And that should make a nudist nervous, why? And how would one determine the thought processes of the dressed person?

I was thinking in terms of the reluctant wife, or newcomer. Yes they are nervous to start, but to have some-one there gawking would make something that they feared, and why they are nervous, into a reality and turn them off from nudism.

You really cannot determine thought processes of any person dressed or not just by looking at them, but you are able to tell by their actions what might be on their mind.

[NudonyII]

Never could see the point in making people who are "on the edge" strip off as soon as they reach the office. If they are new, they already are nervous, why ratchet up the anxiety level? I figure, make it easy to adjust. I want them to stay, and come back. From a manager's perspective, having people relax and feel that they want to come back (many times) is the goal, or should be. I'm in the business of getting butts through the gate, not getting my jollies watching people sweat with fear.

Ditto. I think it was Fireprof (where is he?) that described his visit to a resort that had a "nude tour" policy. Not only was he told that him and his wife were expected to be nude for their tour; but to add insult to injury, very few of the actual members present that day were nude themselves! It made me think of a sort of "hazing" ritual, rather than a wholesome approach to introducing new members.
I totally agree that the resort owner/manager should be a bit of a psychologist too - in assessing the needs and levels or readiness of visitors. It doesn't take a genius to read body language: nervously pacing back and forth, clutching the spouse's arm, stuttering and blushing are clear indications of nervousness. Why in the world would a manager tell a person exhibiting such signs: "Okay, as soon as you all undress, I'll give you a tour"?

Whenever I've seen newbies getting a tour at the various resorts I've visited, they are usually dressed; I expect and understand it. Allowing them to assess their surroundings within their own comfort zone is ultimately more beneficial for everyone. Every now and then, I've also seen nude couples/families being given a tour. That is usually because filling in the paperwork has indicated that they already have visited other nudist venues; which then opens the door for the manager to ask if they would like to take the tour nude. Whenever my wife and I visited a nudist resort, we would clearly indicate that we were experienced nudists; and then the manager would ask if we wanted to go nude right away (unless we were already standing in the office nude, which has also happened). That just makes it easier for everyone.

[Oldman]

Ditto. I think it was Fireprof (where is he?) that described his visit to a resort that had a "nude tour" policy. Not only was he told that him and his wife were expected to be nude for their tour; but to add insult to injury, very few of the actual members present that day were nude themselves! It made me think of a sort of "hazing" ritual, rather than a wholesome approach to introducing new members.
I totally agree that the resort owner/manager should be a bit of a psychologist too - in assessing the needs and levels or readiness of visitors. It doesn't take a genius to read body language: nervously pacing back and forth, clutching the spouse's arm, stuttering and blushing are clear indications of nervousness. Why in the world would a manager tell a person exhibiting such signs: "Okay, as soon as you all undress, I'll give you a tour"?


You can also sort out the potential gawker or troublemaker. The guy who can't keep his eyes off the women, or youngsters. Or even the men :)
We have one guy on our Do Not Admit list, who we found one day wandering around laser-staring at the crotches of every male in the place, the younger the harder the stare. He kept coming back too, after being tossed, until we finally got the police and border people involved. Now they stop him at the US/Canada border.

But yes, I have seen women come in, staring at the ground, clutching their mate's arm, white as a ghost. I know that they are not going to make it past the office and usually am right. Once in a while one keeps going and lasts the day, but we never see them back as a couple.

[Stu2630]

Oldman

But yes, I have seen women come in, staring at the ground, clutching their mate's arm, white as a ghost. I know that they are not going to make it past the office and usually am right. Once in a while one keeps going and lasts the day, but we never see them back as a couple.

In other words, women often get cajoled and dragged to nudist places by their men - men who won't take 'no' for an answer. Nudism would do well to recognise this phenomenon and discourage it.

Nudism is, and always will be, a specialist interest. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be acknowledged and the feelings of those who do not want to practise it, or even to be among others who are practising it, should be respected rather than dismissed as prudes.

Stu

[Boreas]

Oldman



In other words, women often get cajoled and dragged to nudist places by their men - men who won't take 'no' for an answer. Nudism would do well to recognise this phenomenon and discourage it.

Nudism is, and always will be, a specialist interest. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be acknowledged and the feelings of those who do not want to practise it, or even to be among others who are practising it, should be respected rather than dismissed as prudes.

Stu

Or perhaps she thought she was ready and found that she was terrified when the time actually came.

There is a difference between merely uncomfortable and prude. In fact someone could chose not to practice social nudity and not be considered a prude. A prude would be someone who is obsessed with nudity and not having to see it. A prude takes steps to make sure others do not practice it, at least within the prude's world. A prude is generally very uncomfortable with their own nudity.

[Oldman]

Or perhaps she thought she was ready and found that she was terrified when the time actually came.

For the most part that is the case. I've had many of the type tell me so. That they thought they were ready, and only panicked upon walking into the office. Only rarely do we get the idiot who springs it on his wife as a "surprise" by taking her for a drive that ends up at our club. We have no sympathy for him and hope he gets what he deserves when they return home.

We have had the clothed frightened female stay dressed and visit with us at our table in the yard while hubby does his thing, and get her feeling secure. It might not make her any more ready for a nudist experience but it does help her get through the visit. At least we can give her some support and make her experience that day less traumatic.
And that seems to be enough. That she smiles, contributes to the conversation and starts to relax. We might never see her again, but one never knows. It has worked out that the next time her hubby wants to bring her, she comes and gets closer to being nude. She might never become a nudist in heart, but will come to support and be with her husband and still enjoy the day.

[Sanslines]

Ditto. I think it was Fireprof (where is he?) that described his visit to a resort that had a "nude tour" policy. Not only was he told that him and his wife were expected to be nude for their tour; but to add insult to injury, very few of the actual members present that day were nude themselves! It made me think of a sort of "hazing" ritual, rather than a wholesome approach to introducing new members.
I totally agree that the resort owner/manager should be a bit of a psychologist too - in assessing the needs and levels or readiness of visitors. It doesn't take a genius to read body language: nervously pacing back and forth, clutching the spouse's arm, stuttering and blushing are clear indications of nervousness. Why in the world would a manager tell a person exhibiting such signs: "Okay, as soon as you all undress, I'll give you a tour"?

Whenever I've seen newbies getting a tour at the various resorts I've visited, they are usually dressed; I expect and understand it. Allowing them to assess their surroundings within their own comfort zone is ultimately more beneficial for everyone. Every now and then, I've also seen nude couples/families being given a tour. That is usually because filling in the paperwork has indicated that they already have visited other nudist venues; which then opens the door for the manager to ask if they would like to take the tour nude. Whenever my wife and I visited a nudist resort, we would clearly indicate that we were experienced nudists; and then the manager would ask if we wanted to go nude right away (unless we were already standing in the office nude, which has also happened). That just makes it easier for everyone.

The reason for giving nude tours are generally to determine if a person or persons belong in the park. This is a screening process to keep the undesireables out of the park. When a person goes on a nude tour, you can be certain that that person or persons are being observed as to how they respond to a nude environment. If they automatically gawk or stare are nude people within the park, then they most probably will not be good for the park. The only legitimate reasons for ever wearing clothing within a nudist park are weather (ie cold), medical reasons, or a brief period of time to allow a textile to transition to a nude environment.

One club here has a couple of days per season that are open house. Many people will come to the club for a tour. Most of these individuals will not stay. Many seem to be only interested in coming into the park to 'check out the naked people' and then they leave. This can be very annoying to legitimate nudists within a park who do not want to be put on display for textiles who really have no sincere interest in nudity.

In my experiences, I have found that single men are expected to be nude when they initially come to a club for a tour. Exceptions to this (un)written rule will be made for single women and couples - given that women are in the definite minority in most clubs and also deal with more society stigmas concerning nudity.

[Oldman]

The reason for giving nude tours are generally to determine if a person or persons belong in the park. This is a screening process to keep the undesireables out of the park. When a person goes on a nude tour, you can be certain that that person or persons are being observed as to how they respond to a nude environment. If they automatically gawk or stare are nude people within the park, then they most probably will not be good for the park. The only legitimate reasons for ever wearing clothing within a nudist park are weather (ie cold), medical reasons, or a brief period of time to allow a textile to transition to a nude environment.

They can stare and gawk even if nude. The removal of clothing does nothing to interfere with one's vision, and does not change one's mindset. If they are there to gawk, they will gawk whether dressed or not.

Yet you say, <i>" a brief period of time to allow a textile to transition to a nude environment</i>. Which is why we do not force a newcomer to strip immediately. I see a certain problem with nude tours. Typically they are given to newcomers to a club. Forcing a newcomer to strip, clashes with your reasoning above.

Since a gawker can be determined by his physical manners whether nude or clothed, and that you agree that a grace period can be given, it would appear that forced nude tours would seem inappropriate.

[nudenwv]

having been to a nudist resort and a nudist lodge, the only times folks or kids were clothed is if it got cool in the evening. us die hard nudist just kept our close off and built a bond fire to sit around. i'm surprised they allowed that many scantly clothed poeple around.

[Oldman]

having been to a nudist resort and a nudist lodge, the only times folks or kids were clothed is if it got cool in the evening. us die hard nudist just kept our close off and built a bond fire to sit around. i'm surprised they allowed that many scantly clothed poeple around.

We generally dress once the evening chill and dampness comes on, but then we(the missus and I) both find that if we have been out in the sun all day, it doesn't take much of a drop in temp to make us feel chilled. Course, where we are, it can be 90F at 4pm and drop to 65F by 9pm. That sort of change really is noticeable. We both used to stay nude throughout that sort of drop, but the last few years we don't seem to tolerate it as well.

[Mosquito_Bait]

In other words, women often get cajoled and dragged to nudist places by their men - men who won't take 'no' for an answer. Nudism would do well to recognise this phenomenon and discourage it.
...

The presumption that women need to be dragged to nudist places is a sexist generalization. My wife absolutely does not need to be dragged to nudist places. She grew up skinny dipping in her family's pool. When we travel, she seeks out opportunities for us to visit nude beaches and resorts. She does this because she enjoys going nude just as I do. I consider myself very fortunate to be married to her.

[Oldman]

The presumption that women need to be dragged to nudist places is a sexist generalization. My wife absolutely does not need to be dragged to nudist places. She grew up skinny dipping in her family's pool. When we travel, she seeks out opportunities for us to visit nude beaches and resorts. She does this because she enjoys going nude just as I do. I consider myself very fortunate to be married to her.

Stu does have point. I have seen men bringing their wives to the club when it is obvious that the wife would rather be undergoing anesthesia free root canal surgery than be at the club. If women were more receptive to nudism, we wouldn't have men showing up at the club with their golf clubs in the trunk and telling their wives from their cell phone that they are on the back nine and will be home in a hour or so. Both of which I have seen and heard at the club.

[Stu2630]

Boreas

Or perhaps she thought she was ready and found that she was terrified when the time actually came.

I'm sure that happens, too. In fact, because people are different, you will find every conceivable permutation if you look hard enough. That doesn't take away certain inescapable facts, which have been stated on here many times, that 1. the majority of nudists are male, and 2. it is a far more common experience for a nudist man to try to encourage his female partner to try nudism than the reverse.

There is a difference between merely uncomfortable and prude.

Again this is scalable - a continuum in which every conceivable permutation exists from the extreme nudist activist, to people who are far more prudish than me! That's why, when returning to the original question, I think there should be opportunities and venues for all three possibilities, i.e. strictly nudist, clothing optional and strictly textile.

As an aside, I think some useful and interesting research could be done into whether, and why, there is a different perception of the naked body by males and females. Why does nudism attract far more men than women? If you think about it, men ought to be the ones who have something to hide rather than women as males have external genitalia! And why are almost all flashers male?

Mosquito_Bait

The presumption that women need to be dragged to nudist places is a sexist generalization.

Yes, it is a generalization and, as such, there are always exceptions that prove the rule. It's not a matter of me being 'sexist', though, because I have gained my perception in this respect from my years visiting this forum and reading what nudists say. Oldman is frank enough to to say that what I have highlighted is a real phenomenon in nudism and I think it is futile to be in denial about it.

Stu

[Mosquito_Bait]

...
Yes, it is a generalization and, as such, there are always exceptions that prove the rule. It's not a matter of me being 'sexist', though, because I have gained my perception in this respect from my years visiting this forum and reading what nudists say. Oldman is frank enough to to say that what I have highlighted is a real phenomenon in nudism and I think it is futile to be in denial about it.
...


I seriously question whether a woman who is happy to be at a nudist venue is the exception. Most of the women I see at nudist parks seem happy to be there. It is my observation that the women tend to run around socializing and making sure food is available. Most of the men are content to alternate between cooling off in the pool and snoozing on a lounge chair.

[Stu2630]

Mosquito_Bait

I seriously question whether a woman who is happy to be at a nudist venue is the exception.

I wasn't saying that most women who go to nudist venues are unhappy to be there - I'm sure they are as comfortable as their male counterparts.

My point was that 1. men seem to take an interest in nudism far more often than women and, 2. it seems to be a common experience that, when couples go into nudism, it is initiated by the male partners and it is the women who more often have the inhibitions. On the one hand, I wonder why that is. On the other hand, I think that nudists have to recognise that nudism isn't for everyone: it will always be a minority interest and will generally appeal to men more than to women.

Stu

[Oldman]

Mosquito_Bait



I wasn't saying that most women who go to nudist venues are unhappy to be there - I'm sure they are as comfortable as their male counterparts.

My point was that 1. men seem to take an interest in nudism far more often than women and, 2. it seems to be a common experience that, when couples go into nudism, it is initiated by the male partners and it is the women who more often have the inhibitions. On the one hand, I wonder why that is. On the other hand, I think that nudists have to recognise that nudism isn't for everyone: it will always be a minority interest and will generally appeal to men more than to women.

Stu

Yet, once women get over their initial nervousness, they often become the driving force as they become involved in the social activities of the club. As Mosquito says, they drive the potlucks, the dances etc. I believe that the initial nervousness can be laid at the socialisation that women recieve through their lives about modesty etc. Once over the hump, they take to nudism quite readily.

[Boreas]

I believe that the initial nervousness can be laid at the socialisation that women recieve through their lives about modesty etc. Once over the hump, they take to nudism quite readily.

That was my experience. I have not had the occasion to visit a nudist club due to distance.......we will be in Ontario this summer, maybe it is time.

When a person is phobic about nudity, they are inclined to see all resistance as proof that people do not want to get over their discomfort with nudity. It is a very skewed view of the world.

[Oldman]

That was my experience. I have not had the occasion to visit a nudist club due to distance.......we will be in Ontario this summer, maybe it is time.

When a person is phobic about nudity, they are inclined to see all resistance as proof that people do not want to get over their discomfort with nudity. It is a very skewed view of the world.

One of the most frequent things I hear from women who try nudism is "why did I wait so long". If you get down to the Niagara area, drop in.

Stu is a special case, sadly. Perhaps by being here, he is attempting to face his fears and phobia.

At the same time we must, as nudists, be honest in recognising that all is not perfect in our world. We do have men who trick or drag unwilling spouses out to clubs; we do have problems with getting more women involved. Fortunately the numbers of the former are very small, more noticeable by their rarity.
I would love to see more women involved in coming out to clubs with their spouses and as singles. Nudism won't grow unless we can get women to come out in larger numbers.

[Stu2630]

Oldman

Yet, once women get over their initial nervousness, they often become the driving force as they become involved in the social activities of the club. As Mosquito says, they drive the potlucks, the dances etc. I believe that the initial nervousness can be laid at the socialisation that women recieve through their lives about modesty etc. Once over the hump, they take to nudism quite readilyI'm sure you're right, but that applies to practically any kind of inhibition ranging from amateur dramatics to swinging (and no, I'm not saying that nudism is like either of these two activities).

I think we still need to be a bit careful, though, about pushing our partners in directions which we would like them to go in, but which they re no so keen on. That can have three possible outcomes. Some may take to it like a duck to water, others may go along under sufferance and the last group may resist. Only one of those outcomes is really positive.

Many years ago, I loved taking part in plays and belonged to a keen amateur dramatics society, but my wife hated the whole scene so I had the choice to either keep trying to cajole her, which would have been a form of light-touch coercion, or go on my own. I chose the latter because I respect my wife too much to try to pressurise her into doing something she's not comfortable with. And there's no difficulty of socialisation and modesty when it comes to acting in plays. For a man to expect his wife to get naked in front of other men is, fo many women, asking a heck of a lot, and if they do and they get a negative answer, they should respect that answer.

Nudism won't grow unless we can get women to come out in larger numbers.

Why do you want nudism to grow?

Stu

[Oldman]

Oldman

I'm sure you're right, but that applies to practically any kind of inhibition ranging from amateur dramatics to swinging (and no, I'm not saying that nudism is like either of these two activities).

I think we still need to be a bit careful, though, about pushing our partners in directions which we would like them to go in, but which they re no so keen on. That can have three possible outcomes. Some may take to it like a duck to water, others may go along under sufferance and the last group may resist. Only one of those outcomes is really positive.

Many years ago, I loved taking part in plays and belonged to a keen amateur dramatics society, but my wife hated the whole scene so I had the choice to either keep trying to cajole her, which would have been a form of light-touch coercion, or go on my own. I chose the latter because I respect my wife too much to try to pressurise her into doing something she's not comfortable with. And there's no difficulty of socialisation and modesty when it comes to acting in plays. For a man to expect his wife to get naked in front of other men is, fo many women, asking a heck of a lot, and if they do and they get a negative answer, they should respect that answer.



Why do you want nudism to grow?

Stu

One no, and never revisit the issue again. People... many people do change their minds with gained knowledge and life experience. Very few people go through life with the same mindset as they had at the beginning of adulthood.

On two levels I would like to see nudism grow.
Just as any person that enjoys their lifestyle or hobby, I wish that more would participate in it so that they can gain the same enjoyment from it.
And as a manager of a club, from a purely commercial level, I would like to see more people involved.

[Boreas]

One of the most frequent things I hear from women who try nudism is "why did I wait so long". If you get down to the Niagara area, drop in.

That was my experience. I wasted a lot of time being uncomfortable in my own skin.

I have a good friend in NF, so will no doubt be down there. It seems to be on our path most of our recent trips to Ontario. My father grew up in Fort Erie, so I think I am due to see the old neighbourhood again. I have not been in FE for a very long time. It would be interesting to see my grandparent's old house, and the areas we used to explore......if they still exist!

[walter05]

Boreas;

While they are not nudist, there are some nice parks on the Niagra River in Fort Erie. It can be beautiful there.

Walter

[Noodlebug]

There are no statistics on such things, just anecdotal evidence, but I would suspect that shy-wife syndrome is probably exceedingly rare (and thus worthy of an anecdote of when observed!).

The number of women dragged along unwillingly to nudist clubs is surely dwarfed by both the number of women happily enjoying the nudist lifestyle and the number of unwilling women who wouldn't even make the journey. There are a lot of "nudism widowers" because nudism is more likely to be perceived as being unattractive by women (the ogled) than men (the oglers). That's just the way it is (the perception, not the actuality).

[Oldman]

That was my experience. I wasted a lot of time being uncomfortable in my own skin.

I have a good friend in NF, so will no doubt be down there. It seems to be on our path most of our recent trips to Ontario. My father grew up in Fort Erie, so I think I am due to see the old neighbourhood again. I have not been in FE for a very long time. It would be interesting to see my grandparent's old house, and the areas we used to explore......if they still exist!

Well, we arer located in Fort Erie. Out towards the north end away from the lake(couldn't afford to run a club along the lake given property prices. You'll find some major changes in the town.

[Oldman]

Boreas;

While they are not nudist, there are some nice parks on the Niagra River in Fort Erie. It can be beautiful there.

Walter

We are just about a mile off of the river. If anyone goes to the parks along the river, watch where you step. The goose problem is major league.

[Oldman]

There are no statistics on such things, just anecdotal evidence, but I would suspect that shy-wife syndrome is probably exceedingly rare (and thus worthy of an anecdote of when observed!).

The number of women dragged along unwillingly to nudist clubs is surely dwarfed by both the number of women happily enjoying the nudist lifestyle and the number of unwilling women who wouldn't even make the journey. There are a lot of "nudism widowers" because nudism is more likely to be perceived as being unattractive by women (the ogled) than men (the oglers). That's just the way it is (the perception, not the actuality).

You are correct. The number of "dragged out to the club" women is so small that they stand out in ones' memory. The number of nudist widowers is fairly significant, unfortunately. However, I would rather they come as widowers, than drag someone out.

[Sanslines]

They can stare and gawk even if nude. The removal of clothing does nothing to interfere with one's vision, and does not change one's mindset. If they are there to gawk, they will gawk whether dressed or not.

Yet you say, " a brief period of time to allow a textile to transition to a nude environment. Which is why we do not force a newcomer to strip immediately. I see a certain problem with nude tours. Typically they are given to newcomers to a club. Forcing a newcomer to strip, clashes with your reasoning above.

Since a gawker can be determined by his physical manners whether nude or clothed, and that you agree that a grace period can be given, it would appear that forced nude tours would seem inappropriate.

The last paragraph in my post clarifies between the genders. You may have missed reading this part of my post where I moved beyond generalizations about textiles and to gender specifics.

"In my experiences, I have found that single men are expected to be nude when they initially come to a club for a tour. Exceptions to this (un)written rule will be made for single women and couples - given that women are in the definite minority in most clubs and also deal with more society stigmas concerning nudity."

To clarify further, single males are expected to 'strip' when given a nude tour or else their motives will be somewhat suspect. I do not say that this is right or wrong, but it based upon my personal discusssions with club owners. Single females are generally given much more latitude and understanding for several reasons. Ond of those reasons is society's pressure and negative stigma against women who are nude. I again do not say that this is right or wrong - only that this is the way it generally is.

As for removal of clothing (and this is specific to males), a male who strips before going on a tour will have demonstrated that he is going to give nudism a try upfront A male who refuses to go nude will be suspect for he has demonstrated a certain adamacy against nudity upfront. Of course there are exceptions and exceptions will be made on individual case by case basis. Club owners are not fools and have a sixth sense about people and their intentions when they come through the front gate. In most cases, those sixth senses prove to be correct.

[Oldman]

The last paragraph in my post clarifies between the genders. You may have missed reading this part of my post where I moved beyond generalizations about textiles and to gender specifics.

"In my experiences, I have found that single men are expected to be nude when they initially come to a club for a tour. Exceptions to this (un)written rule will be made for single women and couples - given that women are in the definite minority in most clubs and also deal with more society stigmas concerning nudity."

To clarify further, single males are expected to 'strip' when given a nude tour or else their motives will be somewhat suspect. I do not say that this is right or wrong, but it based upon my personal discusssions with club owners. Single females are generally given much more latitude and understanding for several reasons. Ond of those reasons is society's pressure and negative stigma against women who are nude. I again do not say that this is right or wrong - only that this is the way it generally is.

As for removal of clothing (and this is specific to males), a male who strips before going on a tour will have demonstrated that he is going to give nudism a try upfront A male who refuses to go nude will be suspect for he has demonstrated a certain adamacy against nudity upfront. Of course there are exceptions and exceptions will be made on individual case by case basis. Club owners are not fools and have a sixth sense about people and their intentions when they come through the front gate. In most cases, those sixth senses prove to be correct.

Since it is easy enough to tell whether someone is there to gawk or not, we don't insist on anyone going nude for a tour. We greet people, give them the tour, and then let them decide if they are going to stay and get nude. By the time the tour ends, we have pretty well sussed out who is going to be a problem and who isn't. We are singles friendly, and we don't make a discrimination between males and females. A lot of our decisions are helped by our members who make a point of interacting with the people being given the tours. While we make the final decisions, the opinions of our members go a long way towards helping form those decisions. We prefer to let people throw themselves out by their actions rather than by guesswork.

[Noodlebug]

At the end of the day, clubs are private organisations and the management can set their own policies, and both approaches can work just as effectively. Some people prefer a relaxed, tolerant approach, others prefer the strict uncompromising approach. If they have a choice, people will gravitate to the type of club they prefer. Every club is unique, so you can't really generalise and say one type lacks friendliness and atmosphere, and the other type is vulnerable to infiltration by the wrong sort of people, because it just isn't that simple to predict.

Public beaches are a different matter, you can't keep anyone out and you can't enforce any rules, you are reliant on people to use common sense and follow good etiquette. And again, I'm relying on anecdotal evidence, but I understand there are some beaches where it can a particular problem but it certainly isn't an inherent characteristic of all nude beaches that they will automatically attract crowds of clothed people just there to look.

[Sanslines]

Since it is easy enough to tell whether someone is there to gawk or not, we don't insist on anyone going nude for a tour. We greet people, give them the tour, and then let them decide if they are going to stay and get nude. By the time the tour ends, we have pretty well sussed out who is going to be a problem and who isn't. We are singles friendly, and we don't make a discrimination between males and females. A lot of our decisions are helped by our members who make a point of interacting with the people being given the tours. While we make the final decisions, the opinions of our members go a long way towards helping form those decisions. We prefer to let people throw themselves out by their actions rather than by guesswork.

I would think that if requiring a nude tour were such a turnoff to many potential members, then the clubs that have required them would have ceased a long time ago. Perhaps some clubs see the requirement of an initial nude tour as a means to screen out only those who are determined to be nude from those who are less sincere.

[Sanslines]

At the end of the day, clubs are private organisations and the management can set their own policies, and both approaches can work just as effectively. Some people prefer a relaxed, tolerant approach, others prefer the strict uncompromising approach. If they have a choice, people will gravitate to the type of club they prefer. Every club is unique, so you can't really generalise and say one type lacks friendliness and atmosphere, and the other type is vulnerable to infiltration by the wrong sort of people, because it just isn't that simple to predict.

Public beaches are a different matter, you can't keep anyone out and you can't enforce any rules, you are reliant on people to use common sense and follow good etiquette. And again, I'm relying on anecdotal evidence, but I understand there are some beaches where it can a particular problem but it certainly isn't an inherent characteristic of all nude beaches that they will automatically attract crowds of clothed people just there to look.

If someone has been to a variety of nudist beaches, then they would know that they can not legally keep anyone 'out', but they certainly can make some annoying person's visit so miserable that they at least leave the area. This is especially true of those who belong to beach groups. Yes, there is indeed safety in numbers. Nudists have rights and do indeed have the right to drive away abusive and annoying textiles.

In the past I have openly warned someone who was heading towards a nude beach with a large camera in hand to ALWAYS ask any nude person to take their photo. Otherwise, the camera would quickly find itself thrown into the ocean. Some may claim that such tactics are an assault on another individual but I claim that someone who dares to take photos of a nudist without their permission has initiated the assault and ultimately gets what they deserve.

[Oldman]

I would think that if requiring a nude tour were such a turnoff to many potential members, then the clubs that have required them would have ceased a long time ago. Perhaps some clubs see the requirement of an initial nude tour as a means to screen out only those who are determined to be nude from those who are less sincere.

Perhaps. OTOH, the clubs may use the tours more as a method of reassuring their members than for any other reason.

The only people that I have had to banish from the club were all comfortable with getting nude from the get go. Which is why I have never seen the mandatory "Schnell, getten sie undressed!" tour as being that helpful. That is based on my 5 years managing and the 3 years previous as ***'t manager.

[Oldman]

If someone has been to a variety of nudist beaches, then they would know that they can not legally keep anyone 'out', but they certainly can make some annoying person's visit so miserable that they at least leave the area. This is especially true of those who belong to beach groups. Yes, there is indeed safety in numbers. Nudists have rights and do indeed have the right to drive away abusive and annoying textiles.

In the past I have openly warned someone who was heading towards a nude beach with a large camera in hand to ALWAYS ask any nude person to take their photo. Otherwise, the camera would quickly find itself thrown into the ocean. Some may claim that such tactics are an assault on another individual but I claim that someone who dares to take photos of a nudist without their permission has initiated the assault and ultimately gets what they deserve.

You may claim that as being an assault, but legally? I wouldn't bet the family farm on your claim holding up in a court.

[Sanslines]

You may claim that as being an assault, but legally? I wouldn't bet the family farm on your claim holding up in a court.

Then again, it might not be necessary to bet the family farm especially when a group of fellow nudists claim that they never saw a camera to begin with. You know............witnesses and all. Real justice sometimes has a strange way of rearing it's head. The bottom line with nudists is that they just don't have to take the short end of ths stick when it comes to real justice.

[Oldman]

Then again, it might not be necessary to bet the family farm especially when a group of fellow nudists claim that they never saw a camera to begin with. You know............witnesses and all. Real justice sometimes has a strange way of rearing it's head. The bottom line with nudists is that they just don't have to take the short end of ths stick when it comes to real justice.

Perjury? How interesting. Real justice involves physical assault and destruction of property?
Funny, you seem to want it both ways, to be nude in public areas, and the right to decide who is around you. As in "they certainly can make some annoying person's visit so miserable that they at least leave the area."

In other words, you seem to be advocating that nude beaches in the public domain have a special standing, that the users decide who can and cannot use the beach.

[Sanslines]

Perjury? How interesting. Real justice involves physical assault and destruction of property?
Funny, you seem to want it both ways, to be nude in public areas, and the right to decide who is around you. As in "they certainly can make some annoying person's visit so miserable that they at least leave the area."

In other words, you seem to be advocating that nude beaches in the public domain have a special standing, that the users decide who can and cannot use the beach.


You seem like an advocate for textiles and don't seem to care about nudist rights. Why is that? Perhaps you have never been to a nudist beach where someone has arrived for the sole purpose of taking photos of nudists that will be pubished either in print or on the internet. You don't seem to be bothered that such photos can and do ruin nudists lives. You only seem to be concerned about the rights of textiles on traditional nudist beaches.

You may wish to start looking at situations such as these from the perspectives of real nudists who go to certain beaches with the sole purpose of relaxation. They do not want to be harassed. They do not want to be photographed. They do not want to have their children photographed or have 'weirdos' sit nearby and stare at their chidren with what are clearly 'inappropriate intentions'. What normal parent would allow this?? None!! They can and will take action to keep the weirdos away. Your claim of nudists 'who can and can not use a nudist beach' is completely taken out of context - something that you seem to do often. Why do you do this? Certainly you know better then to say that and yet you continue to promote a textile philosophy on a nudist beach. Perhaps if you think about the situation, you will come to the realization that nudists overwhelmingly do not seek out textiles for the sole purpose of using their nudity to harrass them. Nudists generally attempt to find more secluded places on beaches that are away from textiles. It is usually a certain and small group (certainly not all for many are respectful) of textiles who deliberately seek nudists out and then start with their nonsense to abuse and harass nudists.

I just don't understand your philosophy where you obviously side against nudists and their rights and abilities to only wish to be left alone. If BOTH sides respect each other, then there is NO problem. If one or the other side does not, then there IS a problem. Just because a nudist goes to a traditional nudist use beach or an isolated beach does not mean that textiles have the rights to do whatever they wish. Surely the laws are against nudists and until there truly is equality under the law, nudists will continue to fight for their rights. They will do what they must.

As for 'real justice involving physical assault and destruction of property' this has been happening since day one. Perhaps you will just roll over and allow others to walk all over you and take unauthorized photos of you and ruin your life without a struggle but others will not.

As a specific example, how many women have been harassed and chased off nudist beaches never to return? Those who have actually gone to nudist beaches will know that MANY have. It's not right and many nudists have taken some form of action to prevent such events from happening.

[Oldman]

[QUOTE=Sanslines;226628]You seem like an advocate for textiles and don't seem to care about nudist rights. Why is that? Perhaps you have never been to a nudist beach where someone has arrived for the sole purpose of taking photos of nudists that will be pubished either in print or on the internet. You don't seem to be bothered that such photos can and do ruin nudists lives. You only seem to be concerned about the rights of textiles on traditional nudist beaches.[QUOTE]


I see, I'm an advocate for textiles because I support the rule of law and am against physical assault. By that, I must assume that you believe that nudists have some special place in the law where the law does not apply to them.

[QUOTE]You may wish to start looking at situations such as these from the perspectives of real nudists who go to certain beaches with the sole purpose of relaxation. They do not want to be harassed. They do not want to be photographed. They do not want to have their children photographed or have 'weirdos' sit nearby and stare at their chidren with what are clearly 'inappropriate intentions'. What normal parent would allow this?? None!! They can and will take action to keep the weirdos away. Your claim of nudists 'who can and can not use a nudist beach' is completely taken out of context - something that you seem to do often. [QUOTE]

Nothing was taken out of context. I quoted and referred directly to your statements. Perhaps it is your inability to phrase your argument properly that is the problem.
As for people not wishing to have their children photographed, there is a remedy;

Clause 6 of Bill C-2 inserts a new offence of voyeurism into Part V (Sexual Offences) of the Criminal Code. In keeping with the previously mentioned public consultation document and responses thereto, the new law targets voyeurism as both a sexual offence and a privacy offence. For example, section 162(1)(c) makes it an offence to “surreptitiously” observe or make a visual recording of a person “in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,” where that is done “for a sexual purpose.” In addition, proposed section 162(1) makes the same surreptitious observation or recording an offence, if the person being observed or recorded is: (a) in a place in which they can “reasonably be expected” to be nude; to expose their genital organs, anal region or breasts; or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity, or: (b) in such a state or engaged in such activity and the observation or recording is done for the purposes of seeing or recording it. As a result, voyeurism could also be prosecuted as an offence against privacy, whether undertaken for commercial profit, to harass the complainant, or for some other non-sexual purpose.

Proposed section 162(2) defines the term “visual recording,” while section 162(3) exempts police officers from the application of the new privacy-related offence, when they are engaged in judicially authorized surveillance. Proposed section 162(4) extends criminal liability to anyone who “prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available” such a recording or has it in his or her possession for such a purpose, knowing that it was “obtained by the commission of an offence” under section 162(1). Section 162(5) makes voyeurism a hybrid offence, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, when prosecuted by indictment, or up to 6 months following summary conviction. Finally, sections 162(6) and (7) exempt liability for acts that serve the “public good” and set out the limits of that defence.

So rather than resorting to criminal actions, it is possible to deal with the situation legally.
No where in my post did I say that nudists have to take anything lying down. Why you resort to strawmen arguments is beyond me. I simply said that breaking the law by taking the law into your own hands is not the solution. Using the law is effective. With todays' prevalence of Cell Phones, it is quite easy to notify the authorities of an offence.

[Sanslines]

You seem like an advocate for textiles and don't seem to care about nudist rights. Why is that? Perhaps you have never been to a nudist beach where someone has arrived for the sole purpose of taking photos of nudists that will be pubished either in print or on the internet. You don't seem to be bothered that such photos can and do ruin nudists lives. You only seem to be concerned about the rights of textiles on traditional nudist beaches.


I see, I'm an advocate for textiles because I support the rule of law and am against physical assault. By that, I must assume that you believe that nudists have some special place in the law where the law does not apply to them.



You may wish to start looking at situations such as these from the perspectives of real nudists who go to certain beaches with the sole purpose of relaxation. They do not want to be harassed. They do not want to be photographed. They do not want to have their children photographed or have 'weirdos' sit nearby and stare at their chidren with what are clearly 'inappropriate intentions'. What normal parent would allow this?? None!! They can and will take action to keep the weirdos away. Your claim of nudists 'who can and can not use a nudist beach' is completely taken out of context - something that you seem to do often.

Nothing was taken out of context. I quoted and referred directly to your statements. Perhaps it is your inability to phrase your argument properly that is the problem.
As for people not wishing to have their children photographed, there is a remedy;

Clause 6 of Bill C-2 inserts a new offence of voyeurism into Part V (Sexual Offences) of the Criminal Code. In keeping with the previously mentioned public consultation document and responses thereto, the new law targets voyeurism as both a sexual offence and a privacy offence. For example, section 162(1)(c) makes it an offence to “surreptitiously” observe or make a visual recording of a person “in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy,” where that is done “for a sexual purpose.” In addition, proposed section 162(1) makes the same surreptitious observation or recording an offence, if the person being observed or recorded is: (a) in a place in which they can “reasonably be expected” to be nude; to expose their genital organs, anal region or breasts; or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity, or: (b) in such a state or engaged in such activity and the observation or recording is done for the purposes of seeing or recording it. As a result, voyeurism could also be prosecuted as an offence against privacy, whether undertaken for commercial profit, to harass the complainant, or for some other non-sexual purpose.

Proposed section 162(2) defines the term “visual recording,” while section 162(3) exempts police officers from the application of the new privacy-related offence, when they are engaged in judicially authorized surveillance. Proposed section 162(4) extends criminal liability to anyone who “prints, copies, publishes, distributes, circulates, sells, advertises or makes available” such a recording or has it in his or her possession for such a purpose, knowing that it was “obtained by the commission of an offence” under section 162(1). Section 162(5) makes voyeurism a hybrid offence, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, when prosecuted by indictment, or up to 6 months following summary conviction. Finally, sections 162(6) and (7) exempt liability for acts that serve the “public good” and set out the limits of that defence.

So rather than resorting to criminal actions, it is possible to deal with the situation legally.
No where in my post did I say that nudists have to take anything lying down. Why you resort to strawmen arguments is beyond me. I simply said that breaking the law by taking the law into your own hands is not the solution. Using the law is effective. With todays' prevalence of Cell Phones, it is quite easy to notify the authorities of an offence.

What your argument fails to take into consideration is that nudity on most USA beaches is technically illegal. As such, nudists who are engaged in such an activity do not have equal rights and protections under the laws. Furthermore, those who go to traditional nudist beaches and are nude may or may not have the expectation of privacy. As such, they may have no legal recourse against those who take photos and then publish those photos (which may ruin their lives). You must also know that my above statements pertain to BOTH adults and children. You clearly quote a remedy FOR children but ignore a remedy for adults. Why is that?

I also clearly state that since you are claiming to be an advocate of the rule of law, and that nudity on most USA traditional nude beaches is technically illegal, then you must therefore demand that all nudist activity stop immediately. If you do not demand this action, then you are clearly advocating to pick and chose which laws that you wish to follow and which laws you wish to break. You can't have it both ways.

My response is based upon real world observations on nudist beaches. All regular beach going nudists will understand and relate. People who regularly attend such beaches will do what is necessary to keep the peace. This is what occurs day in and day out. People will also do what is necessary to control unwanted photographs and harrasment of themselves and children. This is the real world.

Until you can demonstrate that nudists have a legal right to go to a nudist beach, and a legal right to expect privacy which includes freedom from unwanted photography that can and does indeed ruin lives, you can be assured that nudists will continue to do what is necessary to protect themselves and their lifestyle from abuse and harrasment.

Knowing that I have brought up several very specific issues, such as the unwarranted photography of adults, unwarranted attention towards adults in general and female adults in particular, unwarranted photography of children, unwarranted attention towards children, and then you clearly reply by stating that there is a legal remedy FOR children BUT ignore posting or mentioning any legal remedy FOR adults, means that you have yet to demonstrate that laws can and have actually be successfully used to protect adults against the very specific aforementioned issues.

Now the ball is in your court. Show us where a beach going adult nudist has actually applied the laws that you quote above in court and has won damages from unauthorized photographs that have ruined their lives (loss of job, etc). Show us an example where a nudist has summoned a police officer to a nudist beach and has filed a complaint against the offender for taking unwanted photographs.

[FreeinNJ]

I think it is ok and polite to dress during dinner , I really feel it's ok sometimes not to be nude. Also it depends on the meal , I man if it a bbq type party then maybe ok to nude, but if your sitting down to a full corse emal , maybe dressing would be best.

[Oldman]

What your argument fails to take into consideration is that nudity on most USA beaches is technically illegal. As such, nudists who are engaged in such an activity do not have equal rights and protections under the laws. Furthermore, those who go to traditional nudist beaches and are nude may or may not have the expectation of privacy. As such, they may have no legal recourse against those who take photos and then publish those photos (which may ruin their lives). You must also know that my above statements pertain to BOTH adults and children. You clearly quote a remedy FOR children but ignore a remedy for adults. Why is that?


You didn't specify US beaches. So I developed my argument based on Canadian remedies.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach. There is a remedy for children under Canadian law, but there is no remedy since adults knowingly disrobe in a public setting. You seem to want it both ways; the freedom of a public beach, with the security of a club setting. Sorry, why should the state grant you special rights that no one else has?

I also clearly state that since you are claiming to be an advocate of the rule of law, and that nudity on most USA traditional nude beaches is technically illegal, then you must therefore demand that all nudist activity stop immediately. If you do not demand this action, then you are clearly advocating to pick and chose which laws that you wish to follow and which laws you wish to break. You can't have it both ways.

The remedy for that is to advocate and legislate to enact legal nude beaches. See Hanlan's Point and Wreck Beach and Haulover Beach.


My response is based upon real world observations on nudist beaches. All regular beach going nudists will understand and relate. People who regularly attend such beaches will do what is necessary to keep the peace. This is what occurs day in and day out. People will also do what is necessary to control unwanted photographs and harrasment of themselves and children. This is the real world.

Interesting. Your concept seems to be; We know that by going to a public setting that we are putting our children at risk, therefore we have the right to physically assault anyone whom we perceive to be a threat.

That would appear to be a case of child endangerment. Since you acknowledge that people who attend unsanctioned public beaches for nude activity are aware that they and their children are at risk from others of the public, doesn't that follow that knowingly placing children at risk is child endangerment?

So you are now stating that nudists have the right to place their children in a admitted dangerous situation.

If you want security, pay for it.

[Sanslines]

You didn't specify US beaches. So I developed my argument based on Canadian remedies.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach. There is a remedy for children under Canadian law, but there is no remedy since adults knowingly disrobe in a public setting. You seem to want it both ways; the freedom of a public beach, with the security of a club setting. Sorry, why should the state grant you special rights that no one else has?

Given that the vast majority of forum members are from the USA and also that you claim to be just across the Peace Bridge from Buffalo NY I assumed that you were addressing issues on USA beaches. I further based my assumption (that you were quoting USA laws) from this website:

"In the United States (http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/United_States), video voyeurism is an offense in nine states and may require the convicted criminal to register as a sex offender (http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sex_offender&action=edit&redlink=1).<SUP> </SUP>The original case which lead to the criminalization of voyeurism has been made into a television movie called Video Voyeur (http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Video_Voyeur&action=edit&redlink=1) and documents the criminalization of secret photography (http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Secret_photography&action=edit&redlink=1). Criminal voyeurism statutes are related to invasion of privacy laws but are specific to unlawful surreptitious surveillance without consent and unlawful recordings including the broadcast, dissemination, publication, or selling of recordings involving places and times when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a reasonable supposition that he or she is not being photographed or filmed by "any mechanical, digital or electronic viewing device, camera or any other instrument capable of recording, storing or transmitting visual images that can be utilized to observe a person."

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Voyeurism

What I actually want are legally designated nude beaches where nudists have certain specific rights which include the freedom to be nude without harrassment from textiles. In the USA, there are numerous documented cases where nude photos have ruined people's careers . As an example. teaching careers are especially sensitive careers to 'immoral' unauthorized nude photographs. I know teachers who are afraid to death of having one of their students walk along the beach and see their teacher nude on the beach. No one would ever ask why the student was on the beach in the first place. Everyone would ask why the teacher was nude on the beach and he or she would most probably be dismissed from his or her teaching position.

I certainly do not expect the security of a club setting but I do expect that people will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves on a beach. Textiles have rights on their beaches. Why can't nudists have rights on legal nude beaches? If you attent a textile beach, carry along a 'boombox' and start blasting music, I assure you that someone will initially ask you to turn down the music. If you do not comply then they may very well contact the police. There are numerous noise ordance laws which address noise issues. However, on a nudist beach, if someone attempts to sneak photographs, the nudist(s) may ask them to cease and to destroy the photographs. If the offender is beligerant or refuses, then the nudist(s) may take action into their own hands. Given that there are NO laws which will protect the nudists, what other choice do they have other then to do what is necessary to protect their livelihood? I do not consider the right to be free from having their livelihood ruined to be a special right.


The remedy for that is to advocate and legislate to enact legal nude beaches. See Hanlan's Point and Wreck Beach and Haulover Beach.

People in the USA have advocated for legal nude status for numerous beaches for many years. Given the current society stigma against nudity in general, it may be many years before such legislation is ever passed. On most traditional nudist beaches, nudity is 'tolerated' which means that it is technically illegal but the autohrities are willing to tolerate it by 'looking the other way'. As a result, nudism has fallen into very vague areas of the law. The legal system does not want to clearly authorize and accept nudism for the legal system appears to always want a means to leaglly shut down beaches at their discretion based upon whatever criteria that they deem applicable at the time.


Interesting. Your concept seems to be; We know that by going to a public setting that we are putting our children at risk, therefore we have the right to physically assault anyone whom we perceive to be a threat.

No, this is not my concept at all. By far most people on nudist beaches are reasonable people who can all get along very well together. At times there are troublemakers and it is these individuals that must be dealt with. Going to a nudist beach with children is not like going to the most dangerous part of an inner city where there is a strong possiblity of being shot or stabbed. I do not believe that most people go to a nudist beach with the expectation of having their children put at risk.

We also need to clarify what you mean by 'physical assault'. Do you not believe that continuing to take photogrpahs of a nudist after the nudist has asked that such activity be stopped is a provocation to a response? Do you believe that physically removing a camera from an individual who has be warned to cease taking photos rises to the same level of physical assault where (and this is a possibility in the USA) the photographer is shot by the nudist? There clearly is a very wide range of physical assaults.

That would appear to be a case of child endangerment. Since you acknowledge that people who attend unsanctioned public beaches for nude activity are aware that they and their children are at risk from others of the public, doesn't that follow that knowingly placing children at risk is child endangerment?

So you are now stating that nudists have the right to place their children in a admitted dangerous situation.

If you want security, pay for it.

What you have failed to take into consideration are the degrees of risk. Everything that we do in life is a risk. Crossing the street is a risk in that someone may come out of nowhere and hit us or our children with their car. Does this mean that we should avoid crossing all streets? Since everything involves a degree of risk, should we avoid everything? Even staying at home involves risk.

Going anywhere, including a nudist beach, involves risk. If there is a high risk of any sort at a nudist beach, then people simply will not go to that particular beach.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing children to a nudist beach and allowing fellow trusted members of a group of regulars at the nudist beach to look out after children. Nudists do this regularly. Nudists are generally protective people who do look out for and protect each other against outside threats. This is what happens at nudist beaches. I know many fine people who look out for other parents children and are as protective of those children as the parents. As a result, the children have many, many individuals looking out after them and protecting them from 'weirdos'.

You state "if you want security, pay for it!". I disagree. I say if you want security, then go to a nudist beach and meet some of the very fine and protective people on the beach that will look out for you and your childen. This is actually the way that it is on the beaches that I have attended. Groups protect couples, single women, children, etc. As any real nudist knows, there is strength in numbers. Thats the way that it is and it does indeed create an antmosphere of security that allows for relaxation and peace on the beach.

[Oldman]

Given that the vast majority of forum members are from the USA and also that you claim to be just across the Peace Bridge from Buffalo NY I assumed that you were addressing issues on USA beaches. I further based my assumption (that you were quoting USA laws) from this website:

Why would a Canadian concern himself with US law? BTW, the internet reaches across borders, just because the servers for CCF are located in the USA does not mean that it is restricted to US citizens. I quoted on Canadian law because in other threads you went on and on about Hamilton, Ontario and the Niagara Penninsula and nudists and quiet nude areas you know there. This would give an indication that you might reside this side of the border.

I don't claim to be across the peace bridge. I am. As you can see by my profile, I have don't hide my occupation and location. Something that can not be said for you.




[quote]
What I actually want are legally designated nude beaches where nudists have certain specific rights which include the freedom to be nude without harrassment from textiles. In the USA, there are numerous documented cases where nude photos have ruined people's careers . As an example. teaching careers are especially sensitive careers to 'immoral' unauthorized nude photographs. I know teachers who are afraid to death of having one of their students walk along the beach and see their teacher nude on the beach. No one would ever ask why the student was on the beach in the first place. Everyone would ask why the teacher was nude on the beach and he or she would most probably be dismissed from his or her teaching position.

There is a method to achieve this, it is called legislation. Of course, that means nudists giving up their anonymity and publicly lobbying.



I certainly do not expect the security of a club setting but I do expect that people will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves on a beach. Textiles have rights on their beaches. Why can't nudists have rights on legal nude beaches? If you attent a textile beach, carry along a 'boombox' and start blasting music, I assure you that someone will initially ask you to turn down the music. If you do not comply then they may very well contact the police.

Notice... Call the police. I can assure you that throwing the boombox and assaulting the owner would be a fast way of ending up sitting in a cold cell.


There are numerous noise ordance laws which address noise issues. However, on a nudist beach, if someone attempts to sneak photographs, the nudist(s) may ask them to cease and to destroy the photographs. If the offender is beligerant or refuses, then the nudist(s) may take action into their own hands. Given that there are NO laws which will protect the nudists, what other choice do they have other then to do what is necessary to protect their livelihood? I do not consider the right to be free from having their livelihood ruined to be a special right.

Then lobby for such laws. Since, as you stated earlier in your post, there are laws against electronic voyeurism, I would say that there are laws protecting nudists.
What you are saying is that if someone uses a camera on public lands, and refuses to hand over their property at the threat of assault(theft with battery) the nudist has the right to commit the crime.

No one else has that right. Therefore it is a special right you are seeking.


People in the USA have advocated for legal nude status for numerous beaches for many years. Given the current society stigma against nudity in general, it may be many years before such legislation is ever passed. On most traditional nudist beaches, nudity is 'tolerated' which means that it is technically illegal but the autohrities are willing to tolerate it by 'looking the other way'. As a result, nudism has fallen into very vague areas of the law. The legal system does not want to clearly authorize and accept nudism for the legal system appears to always want a means to leaglly shut down beaches at their discretion based upon whatever criteria that they deem applicable at the time.


Sometimes it takes a court action, or the bravery to stand up and lobby. Sometimes it takes time. If it is worthwhile, then do it.



We also need to clarify what you mean by 'physical assault'. Do you not believe that continuing to take photogrpahs of a nudist after the nudist has asked that such activity be stopped is a provocation to a response? Do you believe that physically removing a camera from an individual who has be warned to cease taking photos rises to the same level of physical assault where (and this is a possibility in the USA) the photographer is shot by the nudist? There clearly is a very wide range of physical assaults.


Placing hands on anyone against their will is assault.

You can ask that someone desist taking photos, but you can not attack him and destroy property. Ask a lawyer. Hell, ask a first year law student.

[Boreas]

Why would a Canadian concern himself with US law? BTW, the internet reaches across borders, just because the servers for CCF are located in the USA does not mean that it is restricted to US citizens.

I was going to comment on that myself. You did a far better job than I would have done!

[Oldman]

I was going to comment on that myself. You did a far better job than I would have done!

I remember a few years back, someone phoning our club to tell us that we had the wrong Top Level Domain and that we must be in California because our website ended in .ca

[Noodlebug]

You can't blame Sanslines for not revealing his occupation and location, he is only practicing what he preaches: that everything should be private from the wrong sort of people.

Openness and friendliness are fine, but only for people who agree with you.

[Sanslines]

Why would a Canadian concern himself with US law? BTW, the internet reaches across borders, just because the servers for CCF are located in the USA does not mean that it is restricted to US citizens. I quoted on Canadian law because in other threads you went on and on about Hamilton, Ontario and the Niagara Penninsula and nudists and quiet nude areas you know there. This would give an indication that you might reside this side of the border.

I don't claim to be across the peace bridge. I am. As you can see by my profile, I have don't hide my occupation and location. Something that can not be said for you.


Why would a Canadian concern himself with US law? Assuming that you are speaking about yourself, there are a whole bunch of reasons. One might be curiosity. Another might be your proximity to the USA border and that it comes up in comversation when you talk with USA visitors to your facility. You do talk with them, don't you? I certainly talk with many Canadians each and every time that I cross the border. I have found many Canadians to be very familiar and informed with US laws, news, and information. They are actually more knowledgeable then many USA residents. You also have access to Northwestern NY media including the Buffalo News, Buffalo TV stations, as well as other sources of information from this side of the border. Your newspapers are full of USA news. The same sadly can not be said for this side of the border. I suspect that you believe that I am from the Canadian side of the border because I have actually traveled across the border and am more knowledgeable then the average USA visitor to your region of Canada. Let's be honest here. Most Canadians that I have met and know believe that Americans are somewhat ignorant of Canada and Canadian affairs. You most probably believe the same at some level (if you really want to be honest about it). As for your claim to be across the Peace Bridge, if you say so. Location is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

As for the location of the CFF servers, who really knows where the CFF servers are located except those who need to know? Regardless of where they are located, this is a worldwide forum and it obviously is not restricted to USA members. I would think that this would be rather obvious.

There is a method to achieve this, it is called legislation. Of course, that means nudists giving up their anonymity and publicly lobbying.

Legislation is fine if it exists. Until then, nudists will do what they have to do. Remember, your laws do not apply (or even exist) in the USA. Things are different here.

Notice... Call the police. I can assure you that throwing the boombox and assaulting the owner would be a fast way of ending up sitting in a cold cell.

Now you are being silly. I already explained the differences between the laws that already exist for excessive noise (where they exist or if they even exist) versus non existent nudist protection laws. You keep harping upon legislation and laws that do not exist. Obviously a law can not be applied to an activity when such law does not exist.


Then lobby for such laws. Since, as you stated earlier in your post, there are laws against electronic voyeurism, I would say that there are laws protecting nudists.
What you are saying is that if someone uses a camera on public lands, and refuses to hand over their property at the threat of assault(theft with battery) the nudist has the right to commit the crime.No one else has that right. Therefore it is a special right you are seeking.

If you 'would say that there are laws in the USA that specifically protect nudists', then post examples of where nudist here have used laws to protect against the specific issues that we have already discussed. Don't cop out and state that you can't be bothered with USA laws.

Sometimes it takes a court action, or the bravery to stand up and lobby. Sometimes it takes time. If it is worthwhile, then do it.

Again, since you don't concern yourself with USA law, then you would not be very familair with the numerous attempts at doing just that on this side of the border.

Placing hands on anyone against their will is assault.

Again, I see this from the side of nudists and certainly understand their frustration at protecting themselves against unwanted photos. I already explained a situation where a nudist first asked the photographer to stop taking photos. If they did not cease, then nudists have taken direct action to prevent further unwanted action.

You can ask that someone desist taking photos, but you can not attack him and destroy property. Ask a lawyer. Hell, ask a first year law student.

I really think that you would be best to visit a USA nudist beach and find out exactly what occurs when such events as inappropriate photography do transpire. You will find that what I have described is accurate. Regardless of how you believe about the situation, what occurs occurs. If you want to go to the beach and inform nudists about non existant protection laws and also that they can not respond in the manner that we have discussed numerous times so far, then so be it. Nothing will change until nudist protection laws come into being. Creating such legislation takes a great deal of time, enormous amounts of money, effort, and support. Also, you would do well to stop indirectly implying the idea that nudists just go up to textiles with cameras and physically attack them. As anyone knows, there are numerous stages to ever get to that point and hopefully such a point is never reached.

As an example, if you have followed events within the last year concerning San Onofre Beach in Southern California, you will know that the beach closure issue has been beaten back the situation that had existed for many years with the Cahill Policy. The Cahill Policy is not a policy that legalizes nudist beaches within California. It is a policy of tolerance. Certainly people would like to legalize beaches such as San Onofre but have been unable to do so even with the tremendous amount of time and resources already spent to do so.


Summary:

1)You want to use laws and legislation to protect nudists from unwanted photogrpahy that can be used to destroy their lives.

I reply by saying that such specific laws do not exist in the USA and that nudists can not appeal to laws that do not exist.

2) You want nudists to lobby for creation of laws for nudist specific protections.

I reply that this is a fine idea that has been gonig on for years and has yet to yield the appropriate laws. Furthermore, laws are presently mainly against nudists and nudity on public beaches. Nudity is tolerated, at best, and is not a legally protected right.

3) You appear to want legal solutions to certain specific problems which is fine. However, I brought up the fact that nudity is technically illegal on most beaches in the the USA. Yet, you ignore this fact and have not stated that nudists should not be breaking the law by going to such beaches. Why is that? Instead you focus upon nudists who directly assault another individual(s). You do this in spite of my explanations to the contrary that there are series of steps that occur before this level is ever reached. You should know that nudists (or anyone for that matter of fact) just don't walk up to people and assault them.

4) You appear to have no specific legal recourse for nudists who have inappropriate photographs taken of them and instead state that they must not resort to direct physical assault to prevent those photographs from being circulated.

My reply is that in the real world, people will do what is necessary to protect themselves. SOme of this you will not agree with and that is your choice. However, just because you do not agree with it does not mean that it does not occur and will continue to occur until the overall legal situation towards nudists changes.

[Sanslines]

I was going to comment on that myself. You did a far better job than I would have done!

Are you saying that Canadians shoud be uninformed about USA laws even though so many from Southern Ontario spend their Winters as snowbirds in the southern portions of the USA? You might be really surprised at just how many Canadians in Southern Ontario are informed about USA laws.

[Sanslines]

You can't blame Sanslines for not revealing his occupation and location, he is only practicing what he preaches: that everything should be private from the wrong sort of people.

Openness and friendliness are fine, but only for people who agree with you.

Well I am not really certain how this topic digressed to location and occupation being relevant. The topic at hand has actually nothing to do with that.

[Oldman]

Why would a Canadian concern himself with US law? Assuming that you are speaking about yourself, there are a whole bunch of reasons. One might be curiosity. Another might be your proximity to the USA border and that it comes up in comversation when you talk with USA visitors to your facility. You do talk with them, don't you? I certainly talk with many Canadians each and every time that I cross the border. I have found many Canadians to be very familiar and informed with US laws, news, and information. They are actually more knowledgeable then many USA residents. You also have access to Northwestern NY media including the Buffalo News, Buffalo TV stations, as well as other sources of information from this side of the border. Your newspapers are full of USA news. The same sadly can not be said for this side of the border. I suspect that you believe that I am from the Canadian side of the border because I have actually traveled across the border and am more knowledgeable then the average USA visitor to your region of Canada. Let's be honest here. Most Canadians that I have met and know believe that Americans are somewhat ignorant of Canada and Canadian affairs. You most probably believe the same at some level (if you really want to be honest about it). As for your claim to be across the Peace Bridge, if you say so. Location is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Yes I am aware of much that goes on in the US, but I don't pretend to track every law in every state. I have a life, and much to do besides follow everything that goes on south of the border.


As for the location of the CFF servers, who really knows where the CFF servers are located except those who need to know? Regardless of where they are located, this is a worldwide forum and it obviously is not restricted to USA members. I would think that this would be rather obvious.

Which is why i called you on location.


Legislation is fine if it exists. Until then, nudists will do what they have to do. Remember, your laws do not apply (or even exist) in the USA. Things are different here.


No kidding. Legislation won't exist until people drop their anonymity and get out and lobby for it. Do you think that politicians just create legislation out of the blue? You want changes in the law, then you have to push for it. Not sit on your derriere and wait for it to come along.


Also, you would do well to stop indirectly implying the idea that nudists just go up to textiles with cameras and physically attack them. As anyone knows, there are numerous stages to ever get to that point and hopefully such a point is never reached.


I am not implying this, I am quoting you. From post #84 "Otherwise, the camera would quickly find itself thrown into the ocean". To remove the camera from someone's possession would be an assault. Just the same as snatching a purse.


If you are going to now deny that you stated any such thing, remember, the posts are there for anyone to read them.


Yes, legislation is not there yet to provide for nude beaches all across the country. It took years for blacks to sit at lunch counters and ride the front of buses. Sometimes you have to keep after things until you get them. Sitting on one's tush and crying "we want it now" doesn't cut it.

[Oldman]

Well I am not really certain how this topic digressed to location and occupation being relevant. The topic at hand has actually nothing to do with that.

Probably the same way the original thread was hi-jacked by you from Clothing Optional vs Nude Clubs to become a rant on beaches.

As for location, you insinuated that I might not be telling the truth on my location, and as for occupation... I don't hide what I do for a living. Just as I don't hide the fact that I and my family are nudists.

If nudists want legislation, they have to come out of the closet. The only time gay rights made progress was when the gays came out and announced themselves politically.

[Oldman]

You can't blame Sanslines for not revealing his occupation and location, he is only practicing what he preaches: that everything should be private from the wrong sort of people.

Openness and friendliness are fine, but only for people who agree with you.

Which is why nudists are going to wait a long time for legislative changes. Politicians don't react to a handful of anonymous people. You have to be willing to stand up and be counted, not hide away in the closet.

[Sanslines]

Yes I am aware of much that goes on in the US, but I don't pretend to track every law in every state. I have a life, and much to do besides follow everything that goes on south of the border.

If you are so aware then why would you state 'why would a Canadian concern himself with USA law'? No one has said anything about 'tracking every USA law in every state". If you are involved with nudism to an extent, then you would most certainly know nudist laws on both sides of the border. Nudist laws are not just any law or laws that don't pertain to your professsion (seeing how profession and location are important to you).


Which is why i called you on location.

You called me on location because it is obvious that this forum is open to anyone and everyone around the world? This makes no sense.


No kidding. Legislation won't exist until people drop their anonymity and get out and lobby for it. Do you think that politicians just create legislation out of the blue? You want changes in the law, then you have to push for it. Not sit on your derriere and wait for it to come along.

People are pushing for legislation. On this side of the border AANR and NAC do exactly that. You know this. Yet where are the laws which protect nudist rights on USA legal nude beaches? Where are the legally designated nude beaches in the USA?


I am not implying this, I am quoting you. From post #84 "Otherwise, the camera would quickly find itself thrown into the ocean". To remove the camera from someone's possession would be an assault. Just the same as snatching a purse.

I see, so you are going to go all the way back to post # 84 when so much has been said since then. Dont' ya think that a great deal of clarification and progress has been made since then, or has everything that has been posted since post #84 been ignored and rendered irrelevant?


If you are going to now deny that you stated any such thing, remember, the posts are there for anyone to read them.

True, all posts are there to be read and hopefully they all will be. There is a nutural progression to posts - don't ya think?


Yes, legislation is there yet to provide for nude beaches all across the country. It took years for blacks to sit at lunch counters and ride the front of buses. Sometimes you have to keep after things until you get them. Sitting on one's tush and crying "we want it now" doesn't cut it.

What legislation designates beaches such as San Onofre as a legal nude beach? How many traditional nude beaches in the USA still exist and of those beaches how many are beaches where nudity is legally protected as opposed to merely tolerated? ANNR and TNS are not sitting on their tushes crying 'we want it now'. They use membership money to protect what we now have and to continue to educate and to promote nudism.

[Sanslines]

Probably the same way the original thread was hi-jacked by you from Clothing Optional vs Nude Clubs to become a rant on beaches.

As for location, you insinuated that I might not be telling the truth on my location, and as for occupation... I don't hide what I do for a living. Just as I don't hide the fact that I and my family are nudists.

If nudists want legislation, they have to come out of the closet. The only time gay rights made progress was when the gays came out and announced themselves politically.

If you really want to be fair, we are both discussing / debating a topic which has digressed away from the topic at hand. Sometimes this happens in topics.

As for nudist coming out of closets, what would you say to those nudists who can not come out of the closet due to sensitive occupations such as being in the teaching professions (as an example). What would you have to say if they lost their job and were banned from ever teaching again because they came out of the closet? How about police officers, or other professions with sensitive jobs? You obviously can afford to come out of the closet. Others may not be in that situation. Instead they may chose to support nudist legislation by supporting organizations such as AANR, TNS, or CFI. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Noodlebug]

I don't believe coming out as a nudist would put anyone's job at risk, and if they were dismissed as a direct result there must be some work rights legislation wherever you live that prevents such blatant prejudice. Nudism is not illegal where any of us live.

The reason people stay in the closet is more a matter of comfort. Uninformed people do have strange preconceptions about nudism (such as it is illegal or grounds for dismissal!!!) and might jump to all sorts of conclusions, you might be subject to mockery, teasing, opprobrium. Or you might find that you spend an inordinate amount of time having to actively defend your life choice. A lot of people simply don't want to deal with all of that. I don't blame them at all. I guess I'm one of them, I guess the majority of us are. It's the same reason, exactly the same reason, that many people choose to keep quiet about their obsessive love of, say, Star Trek.

People like us - those who enjoy the quiet life - probably wouldn't make very good activists anyway.

[Oldman]

If you really want to be fair, we are both discussing / debating a topic which has digressed away from the topic at hand. Sometimes this happens in topics.

As for nudist coming out of closets, what would you say to those nudists who can not come out of the closet due to sensitive occupations such as being in the teaching professions (as an example). What would you have to say if they lost their job and were banned from ever teaching again because they came out of the closet? How about police officers, or other professions with sensitive jobs? You obviously can afford to come out of the closet. Others may not be in that situation. Instead they may chose to support nudist legislation by supporting organizations such as AANR, TNS, or CFI. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with supporting a national organisation, but if you want action at a local level, you have to be prepared to step up. If your local city or county governments are anything like ours, nothing puts their back up than to have a out of town organisation show up with demands for legislative changes. You have to fight the battles at the local levels with support from the national organisations.

Teachers have fairly powerful unions, as do police. They should be the ones backing them if jobs are threatened.

[Oldman]

I don't believe coming out as a nudist would put anyone's job at risk, and if they were dismissed as a direct result there must be some work rights legislation wherever you live that prevents such blatant prejudice. Nudism is not illegal where any of us live.

The reason people stay in the closet is more a matter of comfort. Uninformed people do have strange preconceptions about nudism (such as it is illegal or grounds for dismissal!!!) and might jump to all sorts of conclusions, you might be subject to mockery, teasing, opprobrium. Or you might find that you spend an inordinate amount of time having to actively defend your life choice. A lot of people simply don't want to deal with all of that. I don't blame them at all. I guess I'm one of them, I guess the majority of us are. It's the same reason, exactly the same reason, that many people choose to keep quiet about their obsessive love of, say, Star Trek.

People like us - those who enjoy the quiet life - probably wouldn't make very good activists anyway.

Yep, but if you choose to stay in the closet, you can't complain that your life is restricted.
Fortunately, I have found that I never have had to actively defend my nudism. And by being open and upfront about it, I have been able to advocate and on a personal level, I have been able to talk to people about it, and even convince some to give it a try.
The owner of Lilly Valley has always maintained that nudists are our own worst enemy. How can you convince people to come and give it a try if you won't even admit that you are a nudist?
When the parades go down the street, the Service clubs have a float, the gays have a float, the nudists...?

[Sanslines]

I don't believe coming out as a nudist would put anyone's job at risk, and if they were dismissed as a direct result there must be some work rights legislation wherever you live that prevents such blatant prejudice. Nudism is not illegal where any of us live.



Just one example of a job at risk:

"A teacher in Texas has been fired after topless pictures of her were found by a student.


Hoover said Friday the photos are art and made no apologies.

"I'm an artist, and I'm going to participate in the arts," Hoover said. "If that's not something they want me to do, then I want to be told that. I don't feel as if I was doing anything that was beyond expectations."

The school district said the photos were inappropriate and violate the "higher moral standard" expected of public-school teachers. As she was escorted out of class last month she was told she's become an ineffective teacher.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003067346_teacher17.html


So what do you think? What are these higher moral standards that are required of teachers? What kind of out-of-school actions or behaviour do you think could be used to justify the firing of a teacher...if any?"

[Sanslines]

Here is a blog report from someone who was fired from coming out:

Saturday, November 12, 2005

<!-- Begin .post -->
<CLASS="POST-TITLE">Nudists Aren’t Crazy!

Last June I attempted to organize participation in Knoxville for the World Naked Bike Ride, an international protest against overdependence on oil. Metro Pulse was kind enough to let me promote that event in a letter to the editor. A few weeks later I was fired from my long-term employment because I "maintain a personal website containing nude photographs of yourself and others of both genders."

Most people who know this are shocked that a major corporation can get away with it, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it except go on. In my mind, it is their loss, not mine. But it does indicate how out of touch with the rest of the world people can be. These very educated, very successful people don’t seem to have a clue that nudists are not crazy, not perverted, nor even a fringe element of society.

The vast majority of Americans, four out of every five, see nothing wrong with nudists enjoying themselves as long as they aren’t forcing it on others. As a matter of fact, every fourth person you meet has been in a true nudist setting at some time in their life!

My friends think I ought to get the hell out of Dodge and live someplace where my lifestyle is more acceptable. I'm not convinced that’s necessary. The general perception is that people in East Tennessee are not like the rest of the United States. I don't agree. I think they are just less open about their true beliefs and more afraid to be different than the perceived norm. So, while I may have to leave to find gainful employment, I will not do so because of the perceived bias against my passion.

My main goal in attempting to form the East Tennessee Bares as a regional naturist organization is to provide support for those of us who want to regularly enjoy nudist activities. My secondary goal is to make the public aware that the nudist lifestyle is mainstream and that it is not a danger to society. My long-term goal is to see our local and state government recognize that nudists are a legitimate special-interest group and allocate resources that would allow us to enjoy our activities without fear of legal problems.

I’m a dreamer. That’s always gotten me in trouble and will continue to do so. But I’m stubborn. Despite my setbacks, I’m still promoting the East Tennessee Bares. Saturday, Nov. 19 there will be a clothing-optional gathering open to the public. If you'd like more information about it or the naturist/nudist lifestyle in general, pull up the website etnbares.com or email me at Dale@DaleOverturf.com.

Dale Overturf
Knoxville



The internet is full of stories of people from numerous occupations that were fired due to their nudist activities.

[Noodlebug]

Morality is of course subjective and very movable feast, some very conservative reactionary (and usually religious) people would find the most innocuous activities immoral (eating meat on Friday? appearing bare-headed in public?).

My own personal view, and the view of everyone on this site except Stu, is that nudism is not immoral. However I also don't think this teacher you used as an example is necessarily a nudist. She posted nude photographs of herself on an open image-sharing site, effectively inviting the world to look. I would define her as an exhibitionist, and in morality terms, I consider this a lot more dubious.

Whether that could be used to justify firing her is a matter for her lawyers, I'm not particularly interested in defending her rights. Claiming what she did comes under "art" is as disingenuous as swingers claiming to be naturists. I don't think she is a potentially dangerous influence to children, most of whom have been exposed to a lot worse in this modern age, but I can see how politicians and parents might disagree.

Had a student found a nude photograph of her on a private family naturism website, clearly marked as such, I think there would be a lot more sympathy (in general, not just from nudists) and a lot less fuss.

The internet is full of stories of people from numerous occupations that were fired due to their nudist activities.

Maybe you have a different definition of nudist than me. Both the examples you have given were fired/threatened with dismissal because of exhibitionist activities. Not every nudist is interested in pasting photographs of themselves naked all over the internet, and it's not discrimination against nudists because non-nudists doing the same thing would probably face the same sanctions.

[Sanslines]

Maybe you have a different definition of nudist than me. Both the examples you have given were fired/threatened with dismissal because of exhibitionist activities. Not every nudist is interested in pasting photographs of themselves naked all over the internet, and it's not discrimination against nudists because non-nudists doing the same thing would probably face the same sanctions.

Ok, here is another example. I personally know a high school teacher who is a nudist and was caught and arrested on a secluded traditional nude beach. He was given two options by his school administration. Either quietly resign or you will be dragged through the court system, disgraced, and ultimately fired. Ho chose to resign so that he would not put his pension at risk.

There is also the well know case of an art teacher on Long Island NY who was fired for exposing his high school students to life (nude) drawings. Granted that this is not a case of nudism but it just goes to show attitudes towards nudity and nudism and the price that some people pay.

There are numerous peope here who advocate that others go out and protest, come out of thecloset, etc. Yet when some do and pay the price of losing their job, then those same people who advocated that others go out and protest suddenly have nothing to say.

[Sanslines]

Nothing wrong with supporting a national organisation, but if you want action at a local level, you have to be prepared to step up. If your local city or county governments are anything like ours, nothing puts their back up than to have a out of town organisation show up with demands for legislative changes. You have to fight the battles at the local levels with support from the national organisations.

Teachers have fairly powerful unions, as do police. They should be the ones backing them if jobs are threatened.

One fact that you must acknowledge is that being nude on a public beach where nudity is illegal does not put a person in a very strong legal position to begin with. You advocate that people do not break laws by forceable removing cameras from others who have been initially warned to cease and desist. Yet, you must be aware that being nude on the beach is illegal in the first place. Why is one activity acceptable to you (or anyone) and the other is not? How can you (or anyone) pick and chose which laws that they want to follow? Being nude where nudity is illegal certainly can be used against the person as any first year law student would understand.

The number one problem is that the beaches are not places where people can go to be legally nude. Until this law is established, those who go to nude beaches will always be in very shady areas of the law. The Cahill Policy (of tolerance) is a first step but is not the ultimate solution.

I fully understand why nudists self police their own beaches. I fully understand their frustrations with equal protection under the law and their tendencies to take matters into their own hands. It may not be the best solution but until nudists have legal rights starting with the right to be nude on designated beaches, nothing will change.

[Noodlebug]

You cannot blame the guy for wanting the quiet life, as I stated in a previous post. If the teacher was doing nothing illegal (and being naked on a designated nude beach is not illegal) then there would be no cause of action against him and the threat to take him to court is empty. The threat to fire him as usual depends on the terms of his contract and the interpretation of those terms, some jobs do require undertakings relating to behaviour and integrity which can be interpreted very differently by nudists, conservatives, employees, employers, lawyers and judgers.

But I absolutely agree with you that uninformed people can make life very difficult for open nudists, even without any legal force behind them, and that is unfair. On the flip-side, going out of your way to antagonise those people is asking for trouble, particularly when it is a livelihood, rather than just a smashed camera at stake.

[Sanslines]

You cannot blame the guy for wanting the quiet life, as I stated in a previous post. If the teacher was doing nothing illegal (and being naked on a designated nude beach is not illegal) then there would be no cause of action against him and the threat to take him to court is empty. The threat to fire him as usual depends on the terms of his contract and the interpretation of those terms, some jobs do require undertakings relating to behaviour and integrity which can be interpreted very differently by nudists, conservatives, employees, employers, lawyers and judgers.

But I absolutely agree with you that uninformed people can make life very difficult for open nudists, even without any legal force behind them, and that is unfair. On the flip-side, going out of your way to antagonise those people is asking for trouble, particularly when it is a livelihood, rather than just a smashed camera at stake.

The problem is that the vast majority of beaches in the USA are not designated nudist beaches. Even among the beaches where nudity is tolerated, the degree of tolerance varies. Nudity was, at one time, tolerated on several Santa Barbara County California beaches. Then, the sheriff's department decided to crack down, went to certain beaches, and started issuing tickets for indecent exposure. Needless to say, nudist activity ceased at some beaches.

[Noodlebug]

If a beach is not a designated nudist beach, then nudists go nude at their own risk. If they are knowingly doing something illegal, they must be prepared to take the consequences if someone objects.

(I'm not entirely convinced that being naked on a beach commonly accepted as a nude beach is illegal, or even being naked in public at all if there is no harm, distress or offence caused to anyone, but it seems local law enforcers in the States disagree, and they presumably know more about it than me).

Coming out as a nudist is not illegal and does not threaten your job (but can make life uncomfortable) - exposing yourself in public is illegal and could threaten certain jobs. If you have a sensitive job, my advice would be to stick to designated beaches and private clubs.

[Boreas]

Are you saying that Canadians shoud be uninformed about USA laws even though so many from Southern Ontario spend their Winters as snowbirds in the southern portions of the USA? You might be really surprised at just how many Canadians in Southern Ontario are informed about USA laws.

No, actually Canadians should be informed of American laws, if they are spending time in the US. I grew up in Southern Ontario.

My comment was related to the fact that neither of you clarified which laws you were referring to, so were in fact comparing apples to oranges in some respect. Frankly, I was only skimming through the arguments though. When an American assumes that a Canadian is arguing soley about American issues, it appears somewhat ethnocentric.

[Naturist Mark]

Ok, here is another example. I personally know a high school teacher who is a nudist and was caught and arrested on a secluded traditional nude beach. He was given two options by his school administration. Either quietly resign or you will be dragged through the court system, disgraced, and ultimately fired. Ho chose to resign so that he would not put his pension at risk.

Where the h*** was the teacher's union?

In most states an "arrest" on a traditional nude beach, even if not legally designated, would result in only a misdemeanor charge or small fine even when authorities are being d*cks about harassing nudists. If gone to trial there is a very high probability of dismissal since the "offense" of nudity is seldom relevant at a secluded place where it is not unexpected.

I understand that it is very easy for school administrators to threaten a teacher's future with the misapplication of sex offender laws - but the choice of whether to prosecute or let the teach quietly resign should never ever ever be at the discretion of school administrators - there was obviously something very sinister at work here. Something that the teacher's union should have been on top of and ready to turn back.

So where the H*LL was the union?

Personally I know of several public school teachers who are open nudists. One is even a regional AANR president.

[Oldman]

One fact that you must acknowledge is that being nude on a public beach where nudity is illegal does not put a person in a very strong legal position to begin with. You advocate that people do not break laws by forceable removing cameras from others who have been initially warned to cease and desist. Yet, you must be aware that being nude on the beach is illegal in the first place. Why is one activity acceptable to you (or anyone) and the other is not? How can you (or anyone) pick and chose which laws that they want to follow? Being nude where nudity is illegal certainly can be used against the person as any first year law student would understand.



You are putting the cart in front of the horse. First advocate, then legislate and then you have a leg to stand on.
Of course putting yourself in a position of using a public land for what it is not intended to be used for(legally) puts one in a bad position.

[Stu2630]

Noodlebug

My own personal view, and the view of everyone on this site except Stu, is that nudism is not immoral. I don't think nudism is immoral and I have never said that I do! :mad:

I don't think nudity is immoral, so long as it occurs in circumstances whereby all parties present consent to the nudity.

However I also don't think this teacher you used as an example is necessarily a nudist. She posted nude photographs of herself on an open image-sharing site, effectively inviting the world to look. I would define her as an exhibitionist, and in morality terms, I consider this a lot more dubious.I don't think a teacher or any other person in authority should treat their nudism as something which is to be kept secret, but I do think a bit of discretion is required as to how and where that fact is disclosed. And they should also have genuine and entirely savory reasons for disclosing it.

Stu

[richo]

I don't think nudity is immoral, so long as it occurs in circumstances whereby all parties present consent to the nudity.
... which is probably where most of the discussion arises. Being in public means granting implicit consent to various environments, actions, or incidents. Many of the people here (if not most) feel that nudity should be included in the "implied consent" in some public areas (perhaps not all, but certainly more than currently applicable). Public beaches are obviously the best example.

I don't think a teacher or any other person in authority should treat their nudism as something which is to be kept secret, but I do think a bit of discretion is required as to how and where that fact is disclosed. And they should also have genuine and entirely savory reasons for disclosing it.

Those statements are contradictory: someone shouldn't have to keep something secret - except when they should? I understand the basis for the contradiction, but it is still illogical/irrational.

[Stu2630]

richo

Being in public means granting implicit consent to various environments, actions, or incidents.

Yes, it is an implied consent to being among people who will behave in certain ways, but not others. Being in public does not imply that one should expect to encounter, for example, a couple having sex, or someone defecating, or someone shouting obscene language. And, unless that public place is a nudist beach or a locker room, it doesn't imply consent to see people naked.

Many of the people here (if not most) feel that nudity should be included in the "implied consent" in some public areas (perhaps not all, but certainly more than currently applicable).

Of course they do, but they are in the minority in the wider society. I don't believe that the majority of the public regard themselves as having consented to seeing naked people by virtue of the fact that they walk in a street, park, shiopping mall or on a non-nudist beach.

Those statements are contradictory: someone shouldn't have to keep something secret - except when they should?

I take your point, but let me give you examples. I see nothing wrong with a teacher telling her children that she and her family are nudists, and what nudism is about. But it defies common sense for her to have full-frontal nude shots of her on her public website if she is in an occupation where that is likely to undermise the respect she needs from others (like her students and their parents).

Stu

[richo]

Yes, it is an implied consent to being among people who will behave in certain ways, but not others. Being in public does not imply that one should expect to encounter, for example, a couple having sex, or someone defecating, or someone shouting obscene language. And, unless that public place is a nudist beach or a locker room, it doesn't imply consent to see people naked.
One *does* consent to hearing obscene language - at least here in the US, since we have freedom of speech laws. If you're causing a public nuisance - which almost always involves more than just speech (usually assault, even non-directed) - then law enforcement might get involved.

Of course they do, but they are in the minority in the wider society. I don't believe that the majority of the public regard themselves as having consented to seeing naked people by virtue of the fact that they walk in a street, park, shiopping mall or on a non-nudist beach.
At the moment, you're right - the majority doesn't. The question is whether or not they *should*, regardless of whether or not they *do*. And, on that, you're at odds with most of the people here. Part of the point of this board and these forums is to try to change that perception in society, at least in some small way.

I take your point, but let me give you examples. I see nothing wrong with a teacher telling her children that she and her family are nudists, and what nudism is about. But it defies common sense for her to have full-frontal nude shots of her on her public website if she is in an occupation where that is likely to undermise the respect she needs from others (like her students and their parents).
But see, that's exactly the catch-22. Why should nude pictures of anyone immediately connote a decrease in respect? They do so because society, as a whole is ashamed of nudity - but society's ashamed of it because it's perceived as causing a loss of respect. It's a self-reinforcing loop.

Now, I realize you personally don't necessarily want that loop broken; however, as a rational individual who can't see a logical, rational justification for the cycle of "I think it's bad because they think it's bad because I think it's bad", I'd rather the whole thing be blown apart and analyzed rationally. It may very well be that there are perfectly practical reasons to restrict nudity - but no one can even get that far in the discussion because of reactionists who can't get outside that loop. If we can come up with the practical reasons - the logical, rational why nots and when nots as opposed to dogma - then we can also gain a better understanding of when it should be allowable but isn't at the moment: the whys and whens.

I suspect I'm in for a series of reactionary harangues on the subject. I just don't believe in maintaining irrational systems of thought simply because some people - or even most people - find them comfortable. If it isn't logical, rational, and practical, it shouldn't be enforceable in society.

[Sanslines]

...........however, as a rational individual who can't see a logical, rational justification for the cycle of "I think it's bad because they think it's bad because I think it's bad", I'd rather the whole thing be blown apart and analyzed rationally. It may very well be that there are perfectly practical reasons to restrict nudity - but no one can even get that far in the discussion because of reactionists who can't get outside that loop. If we can come up with the practical reasons - the logical, rational why nots and when nots as opposed to dogma - then we can also gain a better understanding of when it should be allowable but isn't at the moment: the whys and whens.

I suspect I'm in for a series of reactionary harangues on the subject. I just don't believe in maintaining irrational systems of thought simply because some people - or even most people - find them comfortable. If it isn't logical, rational, and practical, it shouldn't be enforceable in society.

There should be no justification for irrational thought and yet it is part of human nature to be irrational. An individual has to take determined steps to at least confront and control their irrational responses to events and circumstances.

[Sanslines]

I see nothing wrong with a teacher telling her children that she and her family are nudists, and what nudism is about. But it defies common sense for her to have full-frontal nude shots of her on her public website if she is in an occupation where that is likely to undermise the respect she needs from others (like her students and their parents).

Stu

Stu,

What about a PETA poster that shows a naked woman (perhaps just a side view) with the caption "I would rather go naked then wear fur". The nude images are meant to attrack attention to the cause of killing animals for their fur. Believe it or not, and regardless of how anyone feels about nudity, nudity in this case has brought attention to a horrific act against animals. Nudity has been used to make a positive difference!



<CENTER>http://blog.peta.org/archives/khloe_kardashian.jpg (http://blog.peta.org/archives/khloe_kardashian1.jpg)</CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER><CENTER></CENTER></CENTER><CENTER>http://blog.peta.org/archives/khloe_unveil11.JPG</CENTER>

[Noodlebug]

Being in public means granting implicit consent to various environments, actions, or incidents.


Yes, it is an implied consent to being among people who will behave in certain ways, but not others. Being in public does not imply that one should expect to encounter, for example, a couple having sex, or someone defecating, or someone shouting obscene language. And, unless that public place is a nudist beach or a locker room, it doesn't imply consent to see people naked.


I don't think being in public amounts to implied consent for anything. I certainly don't consent to mime artists performing, or beggars asking me for money, or cigarette smoke wafting up my nose. I object most strongly, but have no practical remedy, other than to walk away.

People in private have a reasonable expectation of privacy and an environment they can control, people in public can have no such expectations, they just have to try their best to avoid the things they don't like. There is no "implied consent" for anything. The best you can hope for is a legal remedy, and that only applies to a relatively small number of possible circumstances. In most countries that does not include, in and of itself, being unclothed, whereas it does include the other examples you gave (public obscenity, assault, threatening behaviour). And it is also important to note that while being naked is not usually in itself a crime, causing a public disturbance (whether naked or not) usually is.

So yes, if you are in public - anywhere in public - there is a small but not unrealistic chance that you might at some point in your life see someone naked. If it happens, deal with it, like I deal with the stuff I don't like. I suspect the majority of people would, if anything, laugh it off!

[Oldman]

Stu,

What about a PETA poster that shows a naked woman (perhaps just a side view) with the caption "I would rather go naked then wear fur". The nude images are meant to attrack attention to the cause of killing animals for their fur. Believe it or not, and regardless of how anyone feels about nudity, nudity in this case has brought attention to a horrific act against animals. Nudity has been used to make a positive difference!

Horrific?

Growing up in a small town in what was then North country of Ontario, I always saw it as a matter of income. Perhaps the First Nations people and the white trappers should have gone to work at the local GM plant? Or have obtained positions at the local government ministry? Or just sat around on the welfare?

[Sanslines]

Horrific?

Growing up in a small town in what was then North country of Ontario, I always saw it as a matter of income. Perhaps the First Nations people and the white trappers should have gone to work at the local GM plant? Or have obtained positions at the local government ministry? Or just sat around on the welfare?

I don't believe that you are suggesting that people resort to inhumane torture of animals all in the name of income? There certainly are better ways to earn income then destroying animals in fur farms. I can certanly show very graphic photos of where animals (such as dogs) were skinned alive and then left to die in a pile of other still alive animals. The images in those skinned and yet still alive animals eyes speak volumes about man's cruelty and abuse of animals. The sadness in those eyes as those dogs lay slowely dying is unbelievable.

Then again, man tortured and crucified Christ (something worth remembering during this Easter season) and so what else is new about mankind.

[Keith58]

One *does* consent to hearing obscene language - at least here in the US, since we have freedom of speech laws.

No, that's wrong and most people simply are ignorant of the law - really no one "consents" to obscenities by default. We do have freedom of speech - but we also expect responsiblility and some discretion be employed in freedom's exercise.

§ 14 275.1. Disorderly conduct at bus or railroad station or airport.
Any person shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, if such person while at, or upon the premises of,
(1) Any bus station, depot or terminal, or
(2) Any railroad passenger station, depot or terminal, or
(3) Any airport or air terminal used by any common carrier, or
(4) Any airport or air terminal owned or leased, in whole or in part, by any county, municipality or other political subdivision of the State, or privately owned airport
shall
(1) Engage in disorderly conduct, or
(2) Use vulgar, obscene or profane language, or
(3) On any one occasion, without having necessary business there, loiter and loaf upon the premises after being requested to leave by any peace officer or by any person lawfully in charge of such premises. (1947, c. 310; 1993, c. 539, s. 168; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).

There are also GS prohibitions of vulgar, obscene, threatening, or profane language's use on telephones, on public rights of way, and public owned properties.

And legally, with one or more witnesses one may summons a police officer, quote the violated state law(s), and demand the offender be arrested.

What a DA does with it afterwards is anyone's speculation.

Keith

[richo]

No, that's wrong and most people simply are ignorant of the law - really no one "consents" to obscenities by default. We do have freedom of speech - but we also expect responsiblility and some discretion be employed in freedom's exercise.



There are also GS prohibitions of vulgar, obscene, threatening, or profane language's use on telephones, on public rights of way, and public owned properties.

And legally, with one or more witnesses one may summons a police officer, quote the violated state law(s), and demand the offender be arrested.

What a DA does with it afterwards is anyone's speculation.

Keith

So, those are state laws - I wonder what state, and if anyone's tried challenging them at the federal level.

Generally, the Supreme Court finds that profanity can only be prohibited in a few instances, usually relating to captive audiences (which might apply in a place like a bus station, where someone's only choice to avoid it would be not riding the bus) or when used as part of an assault, in which case it's the assault that's illegal, not the language per se.

Feel free to read Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/15/case.html) for one of the major decisions on the subject.

The summary is below:
First, the principle contended for by the State seems inherently boundless. How is one to distinguish this from any other offensive word? Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us. Yet no readily ascertainable general principle exists for stopping short of that result were we to affirm the judgment below. For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.

Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures -- and that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 322 U. S. 673-674 (1944).

Finally, and in the same vein, we cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process. Indeed, governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. We have been able, as noted above, to discern little social benefit that might result from running the risk of opening the door to such grave results.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer; I'm simply presenting information. The idea that profanity is illegal is flawed, as stated above. The idea that it's wholly allowed is also flawed. The trick is defining the limits of either - just like defining where nudity should or shouldn't be allowable.

[Oldman]

I don't believe that you are suggesting that people resort to inhumane torture of animals all in the name of income? There certainly are better ways to earn income then destroying animals in fur farms. I can certanly show very graphic photos of where animals (such as dogs) were skinned alive and then left to die in a pile of other still alive animals. The images in those skinned and yet still alive animals eyes speak volumes about man's cruelty and abuse of animals. The sadness in those eyes as those dogs lay slowely dying is unbelievable.

Then again, man tortured and crucified Christ (something worth remembering during this Easter season) and so what else is new about mankind.

I didn't suggest that nor did I imply that. You seem to be creative. No wonder you don't quote, you invent and put words into peoples mouths.

As for man earning income from fur, why not? Income is very useful. It provides the means to feed, shelter and clothe families. If I may borrow your tactics for a minute, would you suggest that people go without what the first level of needs in Maslow's Hieararchy?
How inhumane.

I don't recall seeing any animals on the traplines that my friends and I ran being skinned alive and left to die. But I do recall the income from trapping that made the difference for many families between submarginal subsistence and covering needs.

You see, not everyone in north america lives 10 minutes from a General Motors plant and stops in at the Supermarket on the way home to pickup a week's groceries. Even today.

[Noodlebug]

I know it's a complex and divisive issue, animal rights are important and so is subsistence, and there is no perfect solution which will keep everyone happy. Personally I think the moral difference between not killing anything and killing animals is far greater than the moral difference between killing animals and killing people. And as a complicit meat-eater that has disturbing implications.

I just find it slightly ironic that Oldman is condoning trapping of animals to clothe families on (of all places) a nudist website!

[Sanslines]

I didn't suggest that nor did I imply that. You seem to be creative. No wonder you don't quote, you invent and put words into peoples mouths.

As for man earning income from fur, why not? Income is very useful. It provides the means to feed, shelter and clothe families. If I may borrow your tactics for a minute, would you suggest that people go without what the first level of needs in Maslow's Hieararchy?
How inhumane.

I don't recall seeing any animals on the traplines that my friends and I ran being skinned alive and left to die. But I do recall the income from trapping that made the difference for many families between submarginal subsistence and covering needs.

You see, not everyone in north america lives 10 minutes from a General Motors plant and stops in at the Supermarket on the way home to pickup a week's groceries. Even today.

Well, since you are so nebulous with your replies that are full of implications and avoidance of the real issue at hand, then no wonder you leave so much to the imagination. Let's try this and take a direct quote from you: "I don't recall seeing any animals on the traplines that my friends and I ran being skinned alive and left to die. But I do recall the income from trapping that made the difference for many families between submarginal subsistence and covering needs.'

Do you recall any animals that suffered in those traps with their trapped legs hideously damaged due to the poor creature trying to free itself from certain death? Did you even bother to look? Or will you dismiss such horrific deaths as necessary for a 'man to earn some money? No wonder you think I put words in your mouth. You refuse to do so yourself by avoiding to discuss the reality of how those animals suffer and die in traps and attempt to shift the topic to how some poor man earns a living from fur. There are many ways to earn a living. In Africa, a poor man can be paid by a government to commit genocide against his fellow man. According to your logic, such killing can certainly make the difference for many families between submarginal subsistence and covering needs. BUT....the REAL question (that you avoid) is...........is the act of killing to make money justifiable.

No doubt you will find justification for this horrible event:

Old Canadian tradition involves killing baby seals (http://news.worldwild.org/old-canadian-tradition-involves-killing-baby-seals/)

By admin (http://news.worldwild.org/author/adela/) on March 21st, 2007

Canada�s annual seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. Last year, the world looked on in horror as the Canadian government permitted the slaughter of more than 330,000 harp seals. During the hunt, baby seals are shot or repeatedly clubbed. Sealers bludgeon the animals with clubs and �hakapiks� (clubs with metal hooks on their ends) and drag the seals�who are still conscious�across the ice floes with boat hooks. An estimated 42 percent of the animals are skinned alive. Hunters toss dead and dying seals into heaps and leave their carcasses to rot on the ice floes because there is no market for seal meat. Veterinarians who have investigated the hunt have found that hunters routinely fail to comply with Canada�s animal welfare standards.
It is legal in Canada to kill seal pups when they are about 12 days old. During last year�s hunt, almost all the seals killed were 3 months old or younger. Many had not yet learned how to swim or eaten their first solid meals. Baby seals are helpless and have no way to escape from the sealers� clubs.

Here is a reply from one of your compassionate fellow Canadian citizens:

"Kill them ALL, every last one that will solve the population problem and shut up the protesters. If I could get the time off work I would personally go up there and club seals till my arm went numb, It looks like a lot of fun and I�m sure they make a cool sound when you crack their skulls."

My response to this is simply what a sick and disguisting excuse for a human being!

Thankfully, not everyone is so heartless to believe that they have to abuse and destroy part of the ecosystem (of which man is a part of) in order to worship the almighty looney (dollar).

There are far better ways to earn money then to close one's eyes and justify killing of animals in a most inhumane and abhorrant manner.

Wearing fur (dead animal skins) belongs in the stone age especially given that there are so many wonderful synthetic alternatives to furs. There is no excuse to kill animals for their fur and those who practice that form of cruelty are finding themselves on the opposite end of the law as animal rights activitist continue to push for more and stronger animal protection laws.

[Boreas]

Good grief! I know this is WAY off topic, but I have to respond. It is important to look to more than Greenpeace and similar organizations when getting information about the seal hunt and other hunting practices.

I lived in Newfoundland 20 years ago, the last time there was a big kerfuffle about the seal hunt. According to people like Brigit Bardot, Newfoundlanders were killing seals, baby seals, merely for their fur. That is the biggest load of bunk! Newfoundlanders have hunted seals since they settled on the island, as a major way to live and survive. Did you know they use every bit of the seal???? They eat the meat, they use the oil for whatever AND they use the fur for warmth. They do not discard the carcasses. The decrease of the seal hunt, plus the factory trawlers from many countries, has helped to kill the cod fishing in Newfoundland. Seals eat a lot of cod. When there was more of a hunt there was more of a balance of seals and fish. Now, there are more seals and less fish. I believe you will find that people in the Arctic also use all parts of the seal.

I live in northern British Columbia. Many people hunt as a way to put meat on their tables and also to use the skins/fur for clothing. Yes, even today. A moose will feed many people for quite a period of time. There is a tourism industry though where rich Americans and some Canadians from the southern parts of the country come to hunt for trophies. That is wrong.

If you eat meat and fish, you really have no place to complain about hunting.

[Sanslines]

The Cruelty Of Trapping:

Animals living in the wild are the unseen victims of human exploitation. Their lives are cruelly cut short for the sake of greed, vanity, and the so-called thrill of sadistic bloodsports. Every form of violence and cruelty imaginable is inflicted upon wild animals and yet the American public is largely unaware of these abuses.

The Fur Trade: Industrialized Cruelty

Fur has long been associated with fashion but few people realize that they are wearing the bodies of animals who lives have been brutalized for their vanity and the greed of fur merchants, fur farmers and fur trappers. Approximately 4 million animals -- bobcats, foxes, raccoons, coyotes, lynxes, opossums, minks, nutria, beavers, otters, muskrats, sable, seal, otters and other animals are killed each year by trappers in the United States. Millions of dogs, cats, birds, and other animals are also killed or maimed in these traps by accident. Trappers call these animals inadvertently killed “TRASH ANIMALS.” Another three to four million additional animals are raised in deplorable, caged conditions on fur farms where they meet their death by anal electrocution.

Traps

Leghold traps (http://www.api4animals.org/55.htm) are one of the most common traps used in Pennsylvania but there are also body crushing traps and neck snares. Some traps are set underwater where it takes animals up to 20 minutes to drown. State regulations require trappers to check their traps every twenty four hours but these laws are never enforced. Animals often die from heat or freeze to death before the traps are checked. Some animals chew off their own limbs to get out of the leghold trap only to die a slow agonizing death from blood loss and infection later. If the animal survives in agony in the trap, the trapper will bludgeon or stomp the animal to death. A common stomping method is “for the trapper to stand on the animal's rib cage, concentrating his foot near the heart. He then reaches down, takes the animal's hind legs in his hands, and yanks.” (http://ogb.wfu.edu/issue/2001/10.04/editorials/fur.asp)

Stop the cruelty—boycott fur wear and use only cruelty free products (http://www.mobilizationforanimals.org/crueltyfree.html).

It's totally amazing how some can justify trapping by seeing what they want to see and ignore the reality of the horrible animal cruelty that it is.

[Sanslines]

If you eat meat and fish, you really have no place to complain about hunting.

And if you don't eat meat or fish, then you are justified to complain about hunting.

What you fail to address are the realities of hunting. Not everyone is an 'ethical' hunter. Animals do feel pain and do suffer. Man has justified his abuse and cruelty of animals since day one.

This is NOT about merely killing animals in a humane and compassionate manner for food. This is about killing animals for their fur when there are many very viable alternates to wearing fur for the sake of vanity.

As for the Canadian Seal Hunt, these are the facts:

Why boycott Canadian seafood?

Seal hunting is an off-season activity conducted by fishers from Canada's East Coast. They earn a small fraction of their incomes from sealing—primarily from the sale of seal pelts to European fashion markets. But the vast majority of the sealers' incomes are from commercial fisheries. Canadian seafood exports to the United States contribute $2.4 billion annually to the Canadian economy—dwarfing the few million dollars provided by the seal hunt. The connection between the commercial fishing industry and the seal hunt in Canada gives consumers all over the world the power to end this cruel and brutal slaughter. Click here to learn more. (http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/protect_seals/why_a_boycott_of_canadian_seafood/)

The Canadian seal hunt is underway, and the ProtectSeals team is on the ice to document the kill. This is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth.
Join us to stop this atrocity.

There are worldwide protests to stop this senseless killing:

Dozens of New York City Restaurants Pledge to Boycott Canadian Seafood to Save Seals

WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced today that 45 major restaurants in New York City have signed on to boycott snow crabs and other Canadian seafood items until that country permanently ends the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of baby seals every year.

The hunt is undeniably cruel—baby seals are clubbed or shot to death primarily for their pelts—many are skinned while still alive and conscious. The U.S. has long banned imports of seal products, but the market for seal pelts in Europe provides an incentive for the sealers to take to the ice every spring to kill as many seals as they can. This year's hunt, with over 300,000 baby seals slaughtered, was the largest killing of marine mammals in the world.

A few of the New York City restaurants that have pledged to boycott Canadian seafood are: Zest, Fish, City Crab & Seafood, Le Perigord, Fresh, Marco New York, and Park Ave. Café.

They join other famous restaurants across the country, including RM Seafood in Las Vegas, as well as companies such as Legal Sea Foods, Down East Seafood, Whole Foods Markets, Wild Oats Markets, Original Fish, Kimpton Hotels and Restaurants, and Spectrum Organics in the United States, and Marks and Spencer in the United Kingdom in taking steps to reduce or end their Canadian seafood sales.

"We are delighted that so many high end and trend-setting New York City restaurants have joined the boycott," said Dr. John Grandy, senior vice president of The HSUS . "These sophisticated restaurant managers and chefs elevate the plight of the seals to a new level because they are sending a message to Canada that more and more U.S. seafood businesses are not going to silently stand by and allow another seal slaughter."

Seventy percent of Canadian seafood is exported to the United States, producing $2.8 billion annually for the Canadian economy and making the industry a viable target for a boycott. More than 120,000 individuals have already signed The HSUS boycott pledge on the web site, www.ProtectSeals.org (http://www.ProtectSeals.org), which also provides a downloadable pocket guide to the most common Canadian seafood products, such as snow crabs.

Sealing is an off-season activity conducted by commercial fishermen from Canada's East Coast. Even in Newfoundland, where more than 90 percent of the sealers live, sealing income accounts for less than one percent of that province's gross domestic product and only two percent of the landed value of Newfoundland's fishery. "The Canadian government and fishing industry clearly have an economic choice to make," said Grandy.

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization representing more than 9 million members and constituents. The non-profit organization is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals and equine protection, disaster preparedness and response, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research and farm animal welfare. The HSUS protects all animals through education, investigation, litigation, legislation, advocacy, and field work. The group is based in Washington and has numerous field representatives across the country.

[Oldman]

[It's totally amazing how some can justify trapping by seeing what they want to see and ignore the reality of the horrible animal cruelty that it is.[/B]


It's totally amazing that some can justify the loss of income that helps shelter children and feed families.

Actually we trapped and checked our traps frequently, since failing to do so meant loss of fur due to them being eaten by other animals. Rather stupid to spend a day or more laying out traps and then losing what was caught.

Rather like a farmer growing crops and then not harvesting them before a killing frost.

[Noodlebug]

Animals have been facing violence and cruelty for millions of years, humans are the least of their problems. Animal cruelty isn't really a rights issue for the animals (even if all humans stopped killing them tomorrow, they would still mostly face short and violent lives subject to the teeth and claws of their other predators), it's a guilt issue for the humans. So there is a substantive difference between those who kill the animals themselves and those who merely enjoy the spoils of such deeds without thinking too much about how it came to pass.

We cannot rid the world of pain and suffering, all we can do is take personal responsibility for that we cause ourselves, or to which we contribute, and minimise it. From the animal's point of view does it matter whether you're trapped and killed by a hunter, or wounded and killed by a bear or a wolf? Fairness, morality, humanity and compassion are irrelevant to an animal, but they matter to humans. I figure it should be up to humans on an individual level to decide how much. There are laws to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals, and rightly so, but predation, pain and death are facts of life for most animals, to them humans are just one predator amongst many.

[Oldman]

What you fail to address are the realities of hunting. Not everyone is an 'ethical' hunter. Animals do feel pain and do suffer. Man has justified his abuse and cruelty of animals since day one.

This is NOT about merely killing animals in a humane and compassionate manner for food. This is about killing animals for their fur when there are many very viable alternates to wearing fur for the sake of vanity.

What you fail to address is the realities of living in remote regions. Meat can be shipped in, however, you will pay so much more per pound... Regular Hamburger can cost more that $6 per pound. When you consider that the yearly income of many in the remote regions of the north have an income of less than $25000, and you consider everything else is expensive, would you deny the opportunity to feed the children? May be it's a question of values? I put children's lives ahead of animals.




Why boycott Canadian seafood?

[FONT=Verdana]Seal hunting is an off-season activity conducted by fishers from Canada's East Coast. They earn a small fraction of their incomes from sealing—primarily from the sale of seal pelts to European fashion markets. But the vast majority of the sealers' incomes are from commercial fisheries. Canadian seafood exports to the United States contribute $2.4 billion annually to the Canadian economy—dwarfing the few million dollars provided by the seal hunt.



What your so-called "facts" fail to point out is that the vast money of that export earnings goes to the packing houses and wholesalers, not the fishermen. A small part of a small income may make the difference between losing your home.


Really should rely on more than the agit-prop of some group that can't understand why people need money to live.

Try using real facts, rather than misleading rubbish.

BTW, think about this, as Jan Narveson(philosopher at University of Waterloo) said in his book "Moral Matters" to say an animal has rights, also implies that it has responsibilities and that there is a social contract between people and animals. Sorry, but I don't get attached to the livestock. I leave that to the zoophilia types.

[Oldman]

Animals have been facing violence and cruelty for millions of years, humans are the least of their problems. Animal cruelty isn't really a rights issue for the animals (even if all humans stopped killing them tomorrow, they would still mostly face short and violent lives subject to the teeth and claws of their other predators), it's a guilt issue for the humans. So there is a substantive difference between those who kill the animals themselves and those who merely enjoy the spoils of such deeds without thinking too much about how it came to pass.

We cannot rid the world of pain and suffering, all we can do is take personal responsibility for that we cause ourselves, or to which we contribute, and minimise it. From the animal's point of view does it matter whether you're trapped and killed by a hunter, or wounded and killed by a bear or a wolf? Fairness, morality, humanity and compassion are irrelevant to an animal, but they matter to humans. I figure it should be up to humans on an individual level to decide how much. There are laws to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals, and rightly so, but predation, pain and death are facts of life for most animals, to them humans are just one predator amongst many.

Amazing that shooting a deer with a clean kill shot is more cruel than it being pulled down by a pack of wolves. Of course we know that the wolves always anesthetise their kill and make sure it is dead before they dismember the carcass.

But then, the animal rightists tend to consider animal to animal violence as nature and put it that humans are not part of the natural world.

[Boreas]

And if you don't eat meat or fish, then you are justified to complain about hunting.

Are you saying you do not eat meat and fish?

What your so-called "facts" fail to point out is that the vast money of that export earnings goes to the packing houses and wholesalers, not the fishermen. A small part of a small income may make the difference between losing your home.

It also neglects the fact that the fishing industry has been severely cut back to almost non-existant in Newfoundland over the years. A review of the economic situation in Canada's eastern provinces would be wise.

[NudeAl]

Jumping in here not sure how deep the water is.

I hunt and fish I was raised on a farm and see no problem with raising animals for food. Like most of us I do eat meat or meat by products so I am just admitting my own reality. I know I am in the minority here. As to the comparing of killing humans to animals I suppose it depends on your own personality. I think that there is a world of difference personally and I know from experience. I think that too often we are imparting human emotions on to animals who do not have those same emotions, perhaps the impact of too many Disney movies I don't know. When I kill an animal it is used for food or preditor control as in a coyote who is killing my animals. The only time I have killed a human is in combat and I saw it as a survival situation for me and the people I was with. I view it as night and day in the whole how do I deal with this emotional scale.

[Oldman]

Are you saying you do not eat meat and fish?



It also neglects the fact that the fishing industry has been severely cut back to almost non-existant in Newfoundland over the years. A review of the economic situation in Canada's eastern provinces would be wise.

My wife's family are fishermen in New Brunswick, which means they fish in the short season allowed, cut pulpwood during the winter, and hunt to eke out the meals when they are on pogey.
I notice that the refrain is always "hunting, sealing, trapping for the greed of the dollar"
If it is greed to house, clothe and feed a family, then I am all for greed. We used to call that making a living.

If the city folk would stop using fossil fuels, working in polluting factories, ... all for the sake of greed. Afterall, if northerners don't need to house and feed their children, why should the city-folk need to?

[Boreas]

My wife's family are fishermen in New Brunswick, which means they fish in the short season allowed, cut pulpwood during the winter, and hunt to eke out the meals when they are on pogey.
I notice that the refrain is always "hunting, sealing, trapping for the greed of the dollar"
If it is greed to house, clothe and feed a family, then I am all for greed. We used to call that making a living.

Amen......but aren't folks in NB rolling in dough?? :sneaky:

If the city folk would stop using fossil fuels, working in polluting factories, ... all for the sake of greed. Afterall, if northerners don't need to house and feed their children, why should the city-folk need to?

Definitely!

It is always interesting to hear arm chair critics speak of things from a distance without meeting anyone like a real fisher or hunter.

Thanks for your two cents NudeAl.

[Oldman]

Jumping in here not sure how deep the water is.

I hunt and fish I was raised on a farm and see no problem with raising animals for food. Like most of us I do eat meat or meat by products so I am just admitting my own reality. I know I am in the minority here. As to the comparing of killing humans to animals I suppose it depends on your own personality. I think that there is a world of difference personally and I know from experience. I think that too often we are imparting human emotions on to animals who do not have those same emotions, perhaps the impact of too many Disney movies I don't know. When I kill an animal it is used for food or preditor control as in a coyote who is killing my animals. The only time I have killed a human is in combat and I saw it as a survival situation for me and the people I was with. I view it as night and day in the whole how do I deal with this emotional scale.

Never had the misfortune to have to shoot another human, I wouldn't know how it would feel, although my father took years before he would even speak of his service in WWII. He did teach me to shoot and to hunt. And that was always looked at not as sport, but as a chore that had to be done, just as cutting wood for the stove had to be done.
I haven't hunted in years, and have no desire to do so again. But when it was part of the daily life, I did it without regret and I still have no regrets. But I still can remember the awe and the joy that I felt the year I received my .303 and was allowed to hunt with the big folks.

I believe you are right in that people impart too many human qualities to animals. I watched a pack of coyotes take down a yearling deer at our club last year about this time. I can tell you that shooting a deer with the proper size and load of amunition is far more humane that how that pack took that yearling down.

[Nude_Eric]

Back to the topic....

I have visited both C/O and Nudist. I feel uncomfortable being the only nude person at a C/O club. I don't understand why people would pay to belong to a Nudist Club, then not be nude...


Eric:confused:

[Oldman]

Back to the topic....

I have visited both C/O and Nudist. I feel uncomfortable being the only nude person at a C/O club. I don't understand why people would pay to belong to a Nudist Club, then not be nude...


Eric:confused:

Neither can I. But then, if the club is C/O, they do have that choice. Perhaps you would be better off with a club that is nudist rather than C/O.

[Stu2630]

Richo

One *does* consent to hearing obscene language - at least here in the US, since we have freedom of speech laws.

We have freedom of speech laws here in the UK, too. But public places are regarded rather like the communal area of a club in that one is expected to behave in a way that won't upset other members of that club. Public places should be as benign and comfortable for as many people as possible and anyone who knowingly and willfully offends against that can expect legal consequences.

At the moment, you're right - the majority doesn't... Part of the point of this board and these forums is to try to change that perception in society, at least in some small way.

As a minority group, you ONLY have the right to try to change the perception of society about YOURSELVES. You have no more right to try to engineer the public perception of society about nudity than, for example, pornographers have to do the same by displaying pornographic billboards. You are a minority interest group and, as such, you have no public mandate to try to public perceptions to suit your own ends.

They do so because society, as a whole is ashamed of nudity - but society's ashamed of it because it's perceived as causing a loss of respect. It's a self-reinforcing loop.

I think society isn't "ashamed" of nudity - it simply wants it to occur in certain, limited contexts. And society has every right to make that determination.

I'd rather the whole thing be blown apart and analyzed rationally. It may very well be that there are perfectly practical reasons to restrict nudity - but no one can even get that far in the discussion because of reactionists who can't get outside that loop. If we can come up with the practical reasons - the logical, rational why nots and when nots as opposed to dogma - then we can also gain a better understanding of when it should be allowable but isn't at the moment: the whys and whens.

Human beings aren't governed by strict logic - there is no reason why they should be and, generally speaking, they don't want to be. Human beings are emotional creatures - that's why we have feelings such as love, loyalty, respect and empathy. We are also socialised beings, which is why we use good manners, speak in certain ways, undergo rituals like wedding ceremonies. Emotional and social beings can use logic as a tool in certain circumstances - but only if we want to and we think it will benefit us. Because we are emotional and socialised, we have value systems that do not accord with logic. We value our dead by giving them a funeral and saying words about them and disposing of their bodies in certain ways, rather than just dumping them with the garbage. We also have a relationship with our own bodies, and the bodies of others. That includes things like personal space, shaking hands, body language and our attitude to nudity. Certain behaviours are seen to transgress these epectations to an extent that many people find intolerable, and public nudity is one such behaviour.

If we take your "logic" argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to allow public sex, the open display of pornography and people being allowed to urinate and defecate openly in public places. I don't want to live in a society like that, thanks.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

What about a PETA poster that shows a naked woman...Believe it or not, and regardless of how anyone feels about nudity, nudity in this case has brought attention to a horrific act against animals. Nudity has been used to make a positive difference!

PETA's standpoint is a political opinion and not one that everyone agrees with. They are entitled to hold and express that opinion. I find their methods deplorable and disgusting, as I have told them. There are many ways to express an opinion and thyeir use of nudity is cheap and facile. I have zero respect for PETA and will disregard their campaigns even though I may have some sympathy with their ultimate aims.

Noodlebug

So yes, if you are in public - anywhere in public - there is a small but not unrealistic chance that you might at some point in your life see someone naked. If it happens, deal with it, like I deal with the stuff I don't like. I suspect the majority of people would, if anything, laugh it off!

There is a small but not unrealistic chance that I will see someone spraying graffiti at my bus stop but I'm not going to ignore that because such behaviour is copied and that ultimately leads to a decline in the standards I expect in my environment. In my area, there has been a wall built expressly for graffiti artists, so they have no excuse for using my bus stop as a canvas for their artistic inclinations. The same applies to nudity. I don't want it in my area and I'll nip it in the bud if I encounter it. There are places in my area which nudists can use, so why use my streets, parks and beaches?

Stu

[Sanslines]

What you fail to address is the realities of living in remote regions. Meat can be shipped in, however, you will pay so much more per pound... Regular Hamburger can cost more that $6 per pound. When you consider that the yearly income of many in the remote regions of the north have an income of less than $25000, and you consider everything else is expensive, would you deny the opportunity to feed the children? May be it's a question of values? I put children's lives ahead of animals.

What your so-called "facts" fail to point out is that the vast money of that export earnings goes to the packing houses and wholesalers, not the fishermen. A small part of a small income may make the difference between losing your home.


Really should rely on more than the agit-prop of some group that can't understand why people need money to live.

Try using real facts, rather than misleading rubbish.

BTW, think about this, as Jan Narveson(philosopher at University of Waterloo) said in his book "Moral Matters" to say an animal has rights, also implies that it has responsibilities and that there is a social contract between people and animals. Sorry, but I don't get attached to the livestock. I leave that to the zoophilia types.

On one hand you justify the trapping of animals as a means to earn money for the family. On the other hand you contradict by stating that the vast amount of money goes primarily to packing houses and wholesalers. Don't you honestly believe that man (government) with all of his wisdom, can find a better way to provide a means for those poor people to earn a few lousy loonies? The reality is that the work is too hard, the costs are too high, and far too little money is made to justify trapping animls for a living. On this side of the border, no one traps for a living and has not done so in years. The market for fur has declined due to people's refusal to wear dead animal skins when a plethora of other synthetic options are availible. This has clearly been the case in the USA, where education programs have reached out and convinced people to boycott fur products.

No matter how you attempt to spin it, trapping is NOT about providing food for the table. it is about killing animals for their fur to make a pittance. There are obviously far better ways to make a living, as the more enlightened who have left the stone age behind will understand. In many countries in Africa, where there has been a tradition of killing wildlife to the point of extinction, many countries have come to the realization that ecotourism (where people come to view wildlife and not destroy it) has provided far more revenue for local inhabitants then killing safaries.


You want facts, here they are:

"More than half the population in South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) lives below the international established poverty line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line).<SUP> </SUP>However, tourism in South Africa is now starting to have its image turned around and prove to be a profitable situation for people in some areas of the nation. Ecotourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism) is the idea of bringing tourism into a country without affecting a nation's natural economy by promoting and supporting its biodiversity. Instead of foreign parties entering an African nation to hunt big game, the idea of a "photographic" safari is promoted to attract a more "eco-friendly" clientele. This, amongst others examples, allows a nation to bring in tourism without diminishing its ecology and natural resources while at the same time, presenting a more pleasant image to the rest of the world. Ecotourism can help conserve biodiversity and alleviate poverty in South Africa through the creation of local jobs. This is most likely to occur with proper management and planning, both local and regional.
Ecotourism has the potential to alleviate poverty in South Africa through bringing money into the economy and creating jobs. The difference between ecotourism and sustainable tourism is that in ecotourism, the cultural heritages of the specific area are respected and conserved. Also, in ecotourism the local people living in and around the destination are included in the planning, implementing and maintaining of the ecotourist park (Guiterrez, 2006). Through ecotourism, the local people living in poverty are able to have a say in how they would like to develop the park that is going to protect the land they live in. It has potential to help alleviate the poverty of the people living in the areas the parks are built."

[Sanslines]

Are you saying you do not eat meat and fish?



It also neglects the fact that the fishing industry has been severely cut back to almost non-existant in Newfoundland over the years. A review of the economic situation in Canada's eastern provinces would be wise.

Yes a COMPLETE review that also includes the reasons for the collapse of the Newfoundland fishing region is very wise:

Overfishing occurs when fishing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing) activities reduce fish stocks below an acceptable level. This can occur in any body of water from a pond to the oceans.

Ultimately overfishing may lead to resource depletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_depletion) in cases of subsidised fishing, low biological growth rates and critical low biomass levels (e.g. by critical depensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depensation) growth properties). Particularly, overfishing of sharks has led to the upset of entire marine ecosystems.<SUP>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing#endnote_ng-2007)</SUP>
The ability of the fisheries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishery) to naturally recover also depends on whether the conditions of the ecosystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem) are suitable for population growth. Dramatic changes in species composition may establish other equilibrium energy flows that involve other species compositions than had been present before (ecosystem shift). For example, remove nearly all the trout, and the carp might take over and make it nearly impossible for the trout to re-establish a breeding population.

The collapse of the cod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod) fishery off Newfoundland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfoundland_(island)), and the 1992 decision by Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) to impose an indefinite moratorium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moratorium) on the Grand Banks, is a dramatic example of the consequences of overfishing.

You stated this: "Seals eat a lot of cod. When there was more of a hunt there was more of a balance of seals and fish. Now, there are more seals and less fish. "

You have yet to acknowledge that the problem of cod resource collapse is a MAN MADE problem due to extreme overfishing. Man has clearly damaged the delicate balance of the ecosystem and you seem to be promoting one justification for the seal slaughter as a means to rebalance.

You also do not seem to acknowledge the fact that the population of those in the region do not justify the enormous numbers of baby seal pups killed each year in the "world's largest killing of mammals". This massive killing is NOT about food, feeding babies, providing income for poor people. This masive killing is just another of man's attempt to attack an ecosystem of which he is a part of.

In the end the only thing that matters is that the USA has, due to public pressure, banned all importation of seal products. In addition, there is an aever growing number who are actively promoting the ban on all Canadian seafood products in order to pressure the Canadian governement to continue to take action against a deplorable activity. These are the facts.

[Sanslines]

Animals have been facing violence and cruelty for millions of years, humans are the least of their problems. Animal cruelty isn't really a rights issue for the animals (even if all humans stopped killing them tomorrow, they would still mostly face short and violent lives subject to the teeth and claws of their other predators), it's a guilt issue for the humans. So there is a substantive difference between those who kill the animals themselves and those who merely enjoy the spoils of such deeds without thinking too much about how it came to pass.

We cannot rid the world of pain and suffering, all we can do is take personal responsibility for that we cause ourselves, or to which we contribute, and minimise it. From the animal's point of view does it matter whether you're trapped and killed by a hunter, or wounded and killed by a bear or a wolf? Fairness, morality, humanity and compassion are irrelevant to an animal, but they matter to humans. I figure it should be up to humans on an individual level to decide how much. There are laws to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals, and rightly so, but predation, pain and death are facts of life for most animals, to them humans are just one predator amongst many.

The only points that I wish to make are that man has so altered the ecosystems of the world, that the world is in real peril now. As an example, the world is in a period of serious global warming now.

We may not be able to rid the world of pain and suffering, but man still has the capacity to control (if not overcome) his selfish tendencies and offer real compassion to this planet as a whole. Man is not ruler of this planet...........man is part of the ecosystems of this planet.

Man has a history of extreme exploitation of earth's resources on this planet. Yet, man has also demonstrated a means to overcome the expolitation and learn from his past mistakes.

Hunting animals to extinction is certainly not one of man's greater accomplishments on this planet. One of the major differences between animals killing other animals and man kililng animals is that animals always kill for food. Man does not. To use the justification of killing in a situation where man is trapping and killing animals for fur to ultimately sell, is biased and misleading. There is no justification to kill animals for their fur when much better synthetic clothing alternatives are availible. As for trapping to earn a pittance of a living, there are far better ways to earn money (such as ecotourism has demonstrated) then by resorting to indiscriminate killing.

The situation that Oldman attempts to portray about trapping only focuses upon select and glorified aspects of trapping and fails to take into account the numerous real costs of trapping.

[Oldman]

On one hand you justify the trapping of animals as a means to earn money for the family. On the other hand you contradict by stating that the vast amount of money goes primarily to packing houses and wholesalers. Don't you honestly believe that man (government) with all of his wisdom, can find a better way to provide a means for those poor people to earn a few lousy loonies? The reality is that the work is too hard, the costs are too high, and far too little money is made to justify trapping animls for a living. On this side of the border, no one traps for a living and has not done so in years. The market for fur has declined due to people's refusal to wear dead animal skins when a plethora of other synthetic options are availible. This has clearly been the case in the USA, where education programs have reached out and convinced people to boycott fur products.

No matter how you attempt to spin it, trapping is NOT about providing food for the table. it is about killing animals for their fur to make a pittance. There are obviously far better ways to make a living, as the more enlightened who have left the stone age behind will understand. In many countries in Africa, where there has been a tradition of killing wildlife to the point of extinction, many countries have come to the realization that ecotourism (where people come to view wildlife and not destroy it) has provided far more revenue for local inhabitants then killing safaries.


Dear boy, the lower US does not have the geography of the northern part of Canada, nor of Newfoundland. It also has a far greater diversity of jobs. Ecotourism does bring in some income, but not everyone can be a tour guide. I also note that you want government to provide jobs. Turn everyone into civil servants? It has been government actions that have limited the ability of fishermen to make a living. As for inland types, as I have stated, and you have refused to acknowledge, there is damned little jobs to provide. And that pittance, as you call it, makes the difference in making a living. It does put food on the table. No matter how you in your walmart world fail to realize it. Tell that to the first nations people. You can't build a casino where the only way for people to get there is by small float plane. Take a geography lesson, understand where you are talking about. Eco tourism works in some places, but for that you have to have a draw and much of Canada is plain boreal forest with only small market potential, and only small numbers can access it at a time. Unless of course, you want government to pave and create large airports and subsidize the operations to the tune of millions of dollars.

[Oldman]

Yes a COMPLETE review that also includes the reasons for the collapse of the Newfoundland fishing region is very wise:


All very nice, but you still haven't figured out how those fishermen are to substain themselves. They can't all work at GM...if there was a GM plant in NFLD.

You are talking about small communities(many less than 500) scattered across the island most inaccessible except by sea. Come up with solutions.. real life solutions. Lots have been tried, but nothing successful even when subsidised up to 100% by government.
Like so many <i> save the FITB<i> there are lots of condemnations but little practical solution to real life situations. Most of those protesting in the states couldn't find Newfoundland with map in hand.



<i> The Sealing Industry of Newfoundland and Labrador

Speaker Efford, The Hon. John Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Date 22 Jan 1998
Published in: The Empire Club of Canada Speeches 1997-1998, Edited by Seltzer, Gareth S. and Edward P. Badovinac (Toronto, Canada: The Empire Club Foundation, 1998) pp. 300-307


I want to thank the Empire Club, and Club President Gareth Seltzer in particular, for the invitation to speak to you today. I am delighted to be here.

My topic is the sealing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. To have a full appreciation for what this industry means to our province, however, it has to be viewed in the context of our entire fishing industry and its role in our economy.

The impacts of the moratoria on our principal groundfish stocks, especially northern cod, have been profound. People's livelihoods disappeared overnight. The shock waves were felt throughout Atlantic Canada, but the crisis was centred in Newfoundland and Labrador; more than 70 per cent of the impacts were in our province. Groundfish landings that had exceeded an annual average of 370,000 tonnes in the late 1980s, dropped by 93 per cent by 1996. The collapse of major stocks put 27,000 people out of work.

Since the first moratorium was announced in 1992, Canada's national employment level increased by almost 4 per cent. The employment level for Newfoundland and Labrador dropped by close to 8 per cent.

In 1996, our employment rate was double the national rate and almost three times the lowest recorded provincial rate in Saskatchewan. At least 75,000 full-year equivalent jobs are needed just to bring our employment and unemployment rate on par with the national average.

Out-migration is a significant factor in rural communities, particularly those impacted by the groundfish crisis. Pickup trucks leave the province filled with a life's worth of personal effects. The youngest and brightest leave in search of economic opportunity. Almost 10,000 people left the province last year, nearly 90 per cent of them less than 35 years of age.

Newfoundland and Labrador still has fisheries. There are many success stories showing how we are diversifying the industry, developing under-utilised species, and creating new market opportunities. However, the employment and economic activity generated by these does not replace what has been lost in the groundfishery. That is why the sealing industry continues to be so critical to our rural areas. The seal harvest takes place at a time of year when there are very limited opportunities for harvesters to earn income from other fisheries.

Income from the seal fishery is often the only way many harvesters have to raise money to get their fishing boats and gear ready for summer fisheries. The harvest is nowadays essentially a small-boat harvest, conducted by fishermen from coastal communities where employment opportunities are scarce.

Some of these communities have less than 100 families. There's no Irving Oil or Michelin Tire there as an employment alternative.

In 1997 the seal fishery provided income for more than 3,000 harvesters and 300 plant workers. The oil, pelt and meat products of the 246,000 animals harvested had an export value of about $20 million.

Changes to our sealing industry have been revolutionary. Tremendous research and development efforts have revitalised the industry since the early 80s when a strong anti-sealing lobby all but destroyed markets for seal products, mainly fur.

Now, markets are growing. New products have been developed: seal oil, protein concentrate, meat products such as pepperoni, pate, sausages and burgers. There is also growth in leather and fur products and companies are interested in setting up tanneries.

Omega-3 oil is valuable as a health supplement and is now available in stores. We are working on commercialising seal meat protein and investigating potential in Third World countries. The Newfoundland and Labrador government fully supports a seal harvest and are fully committed to its further development around three principal cornerstones:

A sustainable harvest based on solid science;

An industry based on the full utilisation of the animal; and,

Humane harvesting methods with zero tolerance for any inhumane practices.

Our provincial position is complemented by management measures put in place by the Government of Canada to regulate the harvest:

• Humane harvesting practices;

• Strict enforcement;

• A ban on commercial hunt of whitecoats; and

• The number harvested based on scientific information and sound conservation principles.

We have a healthy, renewable and abundant resource. Harp seals numbered around 1.5 million animals in the early 1970s. A 1994 scientific survey (the most recent one) put the population at an estimated 4.8 million with an annual pup production of 703,000. The 1994 population figures are outdated. A conservative estimate of the current harp seal population is around 5.1 million animals growing by 5 per cent annually (taking into account pup production, harvest and natural mortality). These figures do not include five other seal species in eastern Canadian waters.

Growing seal herds give rise to concerns about an imbalance in the marine ecosystem in eastern Canadian waters where a moratorium on fishing northern cod has been in place since 1992. Not one of the 27,000 people impacted by the groundfish moratoria is permitted to fish for northern cod but 5.1 million harp seals can harvest them putting at risk stock rebuilding efforts.

The Scientific Council of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization this year reported that harp seals consume every year 108,000 tonnes of juvenile northern cod less than 40 cm in length. Given that the preferred cod size for seals is actually less than 25 cm, this would mean they are munching on 300 million baby northern cod per year. Annually seals consume 340,000 tonnes of turbot, also a valuable commercial resource in Newfoundland and Labrador. As early as three years ago, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans indicated that harp seals were consuming 6.9 million metric tonnes of marine species annually. More than 50 per cent of that came from Canadian waters. The Atlantic Salmon Federation has expressed concern that seals may be a factor in the failure of salmon to return to rivers in the numbers anticipated. Seals have been observed in some areas swimming up rivers after trout and salmon. In short the marine ecosystem on Canada's east coast is out of whack. It is unbalanced. Over-fishing of stocks by man may have started the problem. Now, man must fix it. Nature alone cannot restore species balance to our marine ecosystem.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare is against the commercial seal hunt. Its misleading propaganda campaigns have been economically devastating for aboriginal people who have a profound dependence on seals. The President of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference said recently: "Although Inuit were never directly a target of the anti-sealing campaigns, we became perhaps their biggest victims ... With the collapse of the world markets for seal skins in the 1970s and 80s, our world changed forever. This loss had devastating and enduring impacts on the Inuit of Greenland and Arctic Canada." The IFAW propaganda campaign has become an annual circus of deceit. This year it's enlisted the support of 25 members of the Canadian arts community--a group calling themselves Canadians Against the Commercial Seal Hunt.

Renowned author Pierre Burton is clearly not among them. In a letter to the Globe and Mail, Mr. Burton said he was appalled that a group of people in the Canadian arts community had signed an IFAW newspaper ad demanding an end to the Newfoundland seal hunt. "Do these members of the arts community," he asked, "who put their names on that advertisement realise the legacy they are leaving behind? In the Arctic the former seal hunters are living on welfare and lapsing into alcoholism, suicide, family break-up, and drug abuse. That, not the killing of seals, is the ultimate immorality."

The IFAW claims that Canadians subsidise an industry that kills baby seals. This is false. The commercial harvesting of whitecoats has been banned since the 1980s.

They claim 500,000 seals were taken in the 1997 hunt. This is also false--246,000 were taken.

They claim the harvest provides few economic benefits. False again. The '97 fishery had an export value of about $20 million. It provided income for more than 3,000 sealers and 300 plant workers.

They claim Canadians paid $3.4 million in subsidies in 1996 for a seal harvest. False: The total federal and provincial subsidies in '96 were $1.7 million. This was reduced to just over $1 million in 1997 and will be reduced again in 1998 and '99. By the year 2000 it will be zero. The subsidy was for meat alone, while we were developing meat products and markets. The seal oil and other products are already self-supporting.

They claim the harvest is cruel. The fact is that commercial licenses are limited to professional fishermen. Humane practices are supported by the industry and strictly enforced by DFO. Penalties are among the toughest in the world.

The IFAW keeps trying to give the impression that more than 100 sealers were charged with cruelty. What these sealers were actually charged with was selling blueback hood seals. It is not illegal to hunt blueblacks.

The IFAW campaigns distort. They are deceitful. In the process; they inflict injury upon humanity. They use graphic details to get an emotional response that will bring cash to the IFAW's coffers. The seal harvest is not a pretty sight. Neither is the killing of chicken or cattle or pigs or anything else in a slaughterhouse. The only difference is that the seal harvest is conducted in a public arena--an open-space abattoir.

The commercial harvesting of seals on Canada's East Coast is more tightly regulated than ever before; humane practices are strictly enforced, with penalties for violations among the toughest in the world.

Seals are an abundant, renewable resource. The harp seal population is one of the healthiest mammal populations in the world. It is a resource that allows people in our coastal communities to pursue their livelihoods with dignity. It provides a significant resource for aboriginal people.

With the commercialisation of new seal products such as Omega-3 oil and protein concentrate and the expansion of markets for both new and traditional seal products, the seal resource offers significant economic benefits in coastal communities where other employment opportunities are very limited.

The industry is expanding and is providing a measure of hope to individuals who have seen their lives shattered by the collapse of the groundfish sector. The Newfoundland and Labrador government fully intends to continue expanding solid market opportunities so we can increase the economic benefits from the seal industry. The misguided activities of the IFAW will not weaken this resolve. </i>

[Oldman]

The only points that I wish to make are that man has so altered the ecosystems of the world, that the world is in real peril now. As an example, the world is in a period of serious global warming now.

We may not be able to rid the world of pain and suffering, but man still has the capacity to control (if not overcome) his selfish tendencies and offer real compassion to this planet as a whole. Man is not ruler of this planet...........man is part of the ecosystems of this planet.

Man has a history of extreme exploitation of earth's resources on this planet. Yet, man has also demonstrated a means to overcome the expolitation and learn from his past mistakes.

Hunting animals to extinction is certainly not one of man's greater accomplishments on this planet. One of the major differences between animals killing other animals and man kililng animals is that animals always kill for food. Man does not. To use the justification of killing in a situation where man is trapping and killing animals for fur to ultimately sell, is biased and misleading. There is no justification to kill animals for their fur when much better synthetic clothing alternatives are availible. As for trapping to earn a pittance of a living, there are far better ways to earn money (such as ecotourism has demonstrated) then by resorting to indiscriminate killing.

The situation that Oldman attempts to portray about trapping only focuses upon select and glorified aspects of trapping and fails to take into account the numerous real costs of trapping.

The situation that Sanslines attempts to portray is nice when one is sitting in front of a TV in a cosy city apartment with food stores abounding, work in a nice clean office just down the street. He repeatedly fails to deal with the reality of the Canadian north. BTW, Sanslines, are you going to forbid the First Nations people from trapping and hunting? How about the Metis? When you can do more than B*itch and Moan, and can come back with solutions that provide for more than a handful of people as does ecotourism, I would like to hear those solutions.

Oh, BTW, when the civilized people in the lower 48 give up their far more ecologically damaging lifestyle... cars, factories, mass produced power, then they can talk about ecological damage due to hunting and trapping.

The sound you hear is the glass house shattering.

[Oldman]

Richo

If we take your "logic" argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to allow public sex, the open display of pornography and people being allowed to urinate and defecate openly in public places. I don't want to live in a society like that, thanks.

Stu

One of the interesting things that I see is that some nudists want to see nudity to be permitted in all public areas, yet they raise holy stink at the idea of swingers or plain old couples having sex or even just "sexualizing" the atmosphere amongst nudist... because they don't want sex in their faces when they go to enjoy nudism.

If taken without emotion and just using logic, those nudists should not have a problem with a sexualized atmosphere on beaches and public areas that they admit are not even legal nude areas.
Of course nudists don't want this, so they are using emotions rather than logic

[Sanslines]

Dear boy, the lower US does not have the geography of the northern part of Canada, nor of Newfoundland. It also has a far greater diversity of jobs. Ecotourism does bring in some income, but not everyone can be a tour guide. I also note that you want government to provide jobs. Turn everyone into civil servants? It has been government actions that have limited the ability of fishermen to make a living. As for inland types, as I have stated, and you have refused to acknowledge, there is damned little jobs to provide. And that pittance, as you call it, makes the difference in making a living. It does put food on the table. No matter how you in your walmart world fail to realize it. Tell that to the first nations people. You can't build a casino where the only way for people to get there is by small float plane. Take a geography lesson, understand where you are talking about. Eco tourism works in some places, but for that you have to have a draw and much of Canada is plain boreal forest with only small market potential, and only small numbers can access it at a time. Unless of course, you want government to pave and create large airports and subsidize the operations to the tune of millions of dollars.

I do not think that you have really read or understood anything that I have posted so far. For your information, the last that I checked, the USA has a state called Alaska that is (was) located in the far north. The state of Alaska has Aleuts and other native peoples that are very similar to the far north of Canada. The last that I checked USA laws also apply to Alaska. Perhaps it is YOU who needs the geography lesson.

You mention that it has been government action to limit the ability of fisherman to fish. Would you prefer that the government take no action and allow fishermen to fish cod to the point of no return? There is obviously a limit and once that lmiit is crossed there would be no more cod. What would you propose that fishermen do for a livelihood once the fish are gone for good? This is why governements step in and apply regulations and catch limits. Man has reached the ability to overfish with his factory trawlers that process enormous amounts of freshly caught fish. Are you even aware of how the bluefin tuna was driven to the point of complete collapse and how limited government action at least made an attempt at saving the species?

Another very important point is that by far MOST of the money that is generated from trapping goes to large corporations. If, as an example, the seal slaughter was so successful, then many indiginous peoples in the region would be lifted out of poverty. Instead, the multination corporations that sell those products overseas make enormous amounts of money and the indiginous people are kept in eternal poverty. Sounds like real corporate exploitation to me. Yet you justify this by saying that poverty wages are better then no wages. I take this to mean that your government has no solutions to the poverty issues in the 'far north' and would rather keep people in poverty and allow megacorporations to make obscene amounts of money from this cruel and inhumane practice.

As for trapping, trapping does not put food no the table. It is not for gathering food. It is about killing animals for their skins that will be sold for a pittance. Yes, it is a pittance and you know it.

As for the boreal forest, for your information, Canada has an enormous lumber industry. Much of the boreal forest is being destroyed. The lumber products are being shipped to the USA, and to the rest of the world.

As for your attempts to 'educate' me about the boreal forest, rather then post misleading and uniformed information, you would be far better of spending a wee bit of time doing some basic research so that you would know what you are talking about.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=h2Cell>Creating Employment and Wealth for Canadians


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>The global population explosion of the past half-century has pushed the demand for lumber and pulpwood to levels unimaginable 70 or 80 years ago. At the same time, technology has provided loggers with greater forest access and more efficient harvesting tools. Axes have been replaced by chain saws, which in turn have often been replaced by mechanical harvesters capable of gathering thousands of trees per day. Logs that were once moved to the mills along waterways are now trucked year round. An estimated 50% of Canada's vast boreal forest is now accessible by highways and logging roads.
Forestry is Canada's largest natural resource industry. (This doesn't sound like a 'small market potential' as you claim) Our forest products trade surplus is close to the combined surpluses for agriculture, energy, fisheries and mining. Our nation is the largest exporter of wood products in the world. The forest industry is a major contributor to employment. In 1993 it provided an estimated 352 000 direct jobs in silviculture, logging, wood industries, and paper and allied products, as well as thousands of indirect jobs through its purchase of goods and services. Many Canadian communities rely entirely or heavily upon the boreal forestry industry for their survival. These forest-dependent communities have limited alternate economic and employment opportunities and are vulnerable to the industry's seasonal and cyclical changes.

Rather then post outdated opinions, you really would be better off educating yourself about all of the facts instead of posting misleading and downright false opinionated information.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

The situation that Sanslines attempts to portray is nice when one is sitting in front of a TV in a cosy city apartment with food stores abounding, work in a nice clean office just down the street. He repeatedly fails to deal with the reality of the Canadian north. BTW, Sanslines, are you going to forbid the First Nations people from trapping and hunting? How about the Metis? When you can do more than B*itch and Moan, and can come back with solutions that provide for more than a handful of people as does ecotourism, I would like to hear those solutions.

Oh, BTW, when the civilized people in the lower 48 give up their far more ecologically damaging lifestyle... cars, factories, mass produced power, then they can talk about ecological damage due to hunting and trapping.

The sound you hear is the glass house shattering.

I take this to mean that you are incapable of researching and presenting those solutions yourself. I have already presented factual information about the boreal forest to counter your false opinions about it. In case you haven't heard, there are also enormous opportunities in the province of Alberta for oil and natural gas (oil sands). Many people (including First Nations People) have gone to such regions to work and to lift themselves out of poverty.

Your answer is to allow people to continue to live in poverty rather then do any work to find better solutions and opportunities for them. No doubt, you will now claim that all First Nations males are incapable of relocating to the Alberta Oil fields to work for those high wages and then send money back to their families for whom they will eventually rejoin.

Rather then continue to justify poverty, you would be better off finding ways to eliminate it.

[Sanslines]

........The industry is expanding and is providing a measure of hope to individuals who have seen their lives shattered by the collapse of the groundfish sector. The Newfoundland and Labrador government fully intends to continue expanding solid market opportunities so we can increase the economic benefits from the seal industry. The misguided activities of the IFAW will not weaken this resolve.

So you now post government propoganda and present this as a viable source? Wow!

Man created the problem with the collapse of the cod industry by fishing them to virtual. Government allowed the fish to be fished to exhaustion in the first place. Government is now attempting to replace one ecological disater with another cruel and inhumane practice. The Canadian Atlantic Region can do whatever they want.....and so can the USA Government.

The facts are that there will be no 'economic benefits' from the seal industry in the USA for importation of seal products are banned from entry into the USA. Furthermore, more and more individuals and corporations are boycotting Canadian Fish products in order to protest the inhumane slaughter of baby seals. As time goes on, USA rules, regulations and pressure against an inhumane practice only grow stronger from greater support. The USA government is also working with European Nations to reduce (if not elimintate) the market for seal products (much as they have done for the whaling market).

[Sanslines]

The misguided activities of the IFAW will not weaken this resolve.

What a joke! The USA Federal Government has already weaked the 'resolve' and will continue to do so. The EU, under USA prodding, is further weakening the 'resolve'.

[Sanslines]

Calgary Herald

EU votes to trade ban on seal products


By Marianne White, Canwest News Service

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.calgaryherald.com/sports/committee+votes+seal+products/1345487/1302428.bin (javascript:setClass('storypage','story_photo_cont ent');)

A Grey pup is seen on Hay Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia last week. East coast sealers postponed the hunt for 2,200 seal on the island after failing to find a buyer for the pelts.

Photograph by: Paul Darrow, Reuters



The European Union moved closer Monday toward a trade ban on seal products that could be adopted as early as this spring.


A committee on internal market and consumer affairs approved a proposal that would prevent EU countries from importing seal products — such as pelts, oil and meat. Products from traditional Inuit seal hunts from Canada and Greenland would be exempted.


Canada has opposed such a ban as it has the potential to jeopardize commercial seal hunting in the country.


Fisheries Minister Gail Shea — who travelled to Europe two weeks ago to discuss the ban — said she is "very disappointed" by the decision and blamed animal rights groups for their "huge marketing campaigns" in Europe.

"It seems that no matter what we told them (European parliamentarians), they would still come back and say our hunt is not humane," the minister said in a phone interview. "It's a very difficult file because of the emotions attached to it and the politics of it."


Shea reiterated the government's intention to challenge the ban before the World Trade Organization if it is adopted.

To become law, the ban has to be approved by the members of the European Parliament — a vote is set for April 1 — and after that by individual EU governments.

"It's a first step, but a very important one that reflects the European Parliament's concerns," said Cezary Lewanowicz, spokesman for the committee.


He recalled that there is widespread public opposition in Europe to seal hunting, which is viewed as cruel. In 2006, 425 members of the European Parliament called for a prohibition on trade in seal products.


Groups opposed to the seal hunt hailed the decision.

"This vote marks a critical victory in the campaign to save millions of seals worldwide from cruel slaughter," said Rebecca Aldworth, director of the Humane Society of Canada.


The International Fund for Animal Welfare noted the proposed ban sends "an important message to the Canadian government that EU citizens want no part in this cruelty."


Shea also criticized Liberal Senator Mac Harb who is expected to table a legislation Tuesday calling for a ban on the Canadian seal hunt.


"Who needs enemies when you have friends like that," Shea said.

[Stu2630]

Oldman

One of the interesting things that I see is that some nudists want to see nudity to be permitted in all public areas, yet they raise holy stink at the idea of swingers or plain old couples having sex or even just "sexualizing" the atmosphere amongst nudist... because they don't want sex in their faces when they go to enjoy nudism.

Precisely! This is what I have been saying since I first came here. Just as nudists don't want swingers, sex parties or gawkers on their beaches, they should respect the fact that most textiles don't, to paraphrase you, "nudity in their faces when they go to enjoy a non-nudist beach".

If taken without emotion and just using logic, those nudists should not have a problem with a sexualized atmosphere on beaches and public areas that they admit are not even legal nude areas. Of course nudists don't want this, so they are using emotions rather than logic

Exactly my point. Well put. We are all emotional beings and socialised to find some things acceptable and some things unacceptable. Rather than trying to force everyone to become emotionless, homogeneous automatons, we should be trying to accommodate as many preferences as possible by means of a fair distribution of beach (and park) space. If the swingers are sufficient in number and they want a beach - fine - let them have one. Let nudists have plenty of beaches, too and even allow for some to be clothing optional. The rest should be strictly textile simply because textiles out number nudists by about ten to one.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Russia bans baby seal hunting

By ASSOCIATED PRESS | Originally published 02:59 p.m., March 18, 2009, updated 02:04 p.m., March 18, 2009

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia said Wednesday it was banning the hunting of baby harp seals, weeks after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reportedly called the hunt a "bloody industry."

The Natural Resources Ministry said the Federal Fisheries Agency issued an order Wednesday protecting harp seals pups up to 1 year old.
"The bloody sight of the hunting of seals, the slaughter of these defenseless animals, which you cannot even call a real hunt, is banned in our country, just as well as in most developed countries, and this is a serious step to protect the biodiversity of the Russian Federation," Minister Yuri Trutnev said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether the ban included exceptions for indigenous communities.

Russia's harp seal population has decreased by about a third in the past decade, to about 200,000 _ squeezed by hunting as well as shrinking Arctic ice in the White Sea region, where much of the Russian population lives.

According to the state-run newspaper Rossisskaya Gazeta, Putin told a Cabinet meeting Feb. 26 he considered seal hunting a "bloody industry and it's clear that it should have been banned long ago."
In addition to Russia, commercial seal hunting is conducted in Namibia, Greenland, Sweden, and Finland, as well as in Canada, which is home to the world's largest annual commercial seal hunt.

[Oldman]

I do not think that you have really read or understood anything that I have posted so far. For your information, the last that I checked, the USA has a state called Alaska that is (was) located in the far north. The state of Alaska has Aleuts and other native peoples that are very similar to the far north of Canada. The last that I checked USA laws also apply to Alaska. Perhaps it is YOU who needs the geography lesson.

I understand geography quite well. I also note that Alaskans Aleuts have a heavily subsidised life thanks to big Oil and big military presence.


You mention that it has been government action to limit the ability of fisherman to fish. Would you prefer that the government take no action and allow fishermen to fish cod to the point of no return? There is obviously a limit and once that lmiit is crossed there would be no more cod. What would you propose that fishermen do for a livelihood once the fish are gone for good? This is why governements step in and apply regulations and catch limits. Man has reached the ability to overfish with his factory trawlers that process enormous amounts of freshly caught fish.


Most of the factory trawlers belong to the same countries that rail against seal skins.
Newfoundlanders are small vessel fishers.
So how typical it is, do as I say not as I do from the seal cuddlers.




Another very important point is that by far MOST of the money that is generated from trapping goes to large corporations. If, as an example, the seal slaughter was so successful, then many indiginous peoples in the region would be lifted out of poverty.


in·dig·e·nous
Pronunciation:\in-ˈdi-jə-nəs\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Late Latin indigenus, from Latin indigena, noun, native, from Old Latin indu, endo in, within + Latin gignere to beget — more at end-, kin
Date:1646
1 : having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment <indigenous plants> <the indigenous culture


The income does help. Take it away, and the less income these people have. By your logic, since big corporations also make the most money out of farming, American farmers should be shut down and their subsidies removed. Then you can buy your produce from Mexico and China.


As for trapping, trapping does not put food no the table. It is not for gathering food. It is about killing animals for their skins that will be sold for a pittance. Yes, it is a pittance and you know it.

And that pittance does help. And by the way, trapping produces cash. Cash buys groceries. expensive groceries by the time they are shipped north.


As for the boreal forest, for your information, Canada has an enormous lumber industry. Much of the boreal forest is being destroyed. The lumber products are being shipped to the USA, and to the rest of the world.


As for your attempts to 'educate' me about the boreal forest, rather then post misleading and uniformed information, you would be far better of spending a wee bit of time doing some basic research so that you would know what you are talking about.


So killing seals and fur animals is wrong, but wiping out vast tracts of forest makes better ecological sense.

ROTFLMAO

BTW, most of the money from forestry goes to big corporations.

Got to love how you jump into things without thinking them through.

[Oldman]

I take this to mean that you are incapable of researching and presenting those solutions yourself. I have already presented factual information about the boreal forest to counter your false opinions about it. In case you haven't heard, there are also enormous opportunities in the province of Alberta for oil and natural gas (oil sands). Many people (including First Nations People) have gone to such regions to work and to lift themselves out of poverty.

Your answer is to allow people to continue to live in poverty rather then do any work to find better solutions and opportunities for them. No doubt, you will now claim that all First Nations males are incapable of relocating to the Alberta Oil fields to work for those high wages and then send money back to their families for whom they will eventually rejoin.

Rather then continue to justify poverty, you would be better off finding ways to eliminate it.


Ah yes, the oil sands. Another mega-project that creates far more ecological damage than the seal and fur trade.

It's ok to contaminate the land and poison the waters, just leave the cute little animals alone.

ROTFLMAO

For your information, the First Nations people are not happy about the big Oil projects because of the damage they cause to the traditional life and to the habitat of their people.

There is the mark of the illogical thought processes of the environmentalist. If today's pet peeve is sealing and fur trading, then it is ok to destroy the boreal forest and contaminate the waters through big Oil.

[Oldman]

What a joke! The USA Federal Government has already weaked the 'resolve' and will continue to do so. The EU, under USA prodding, is further weakening the 'resolve'.



Not the resolve of the Canadian government and the sealers.

That is what the word resolve meant in the article. I realise that you suffer from illiteracy and now you have proven it.

[Oldman]

Nothing new there. The euros have long been known for hypocrisy. They fought for years against Canadian protection of the fish industry, and now are against people sealing to replace the income destroyed by their factory trawlers.

Much like the seal huggers who say that people should destroy the forests and contaminate the land rather than kill some seals or trap fur.

[Oldman]

[/i][/i]

So you now post government propoganda and present this as a viable source? Wow!
[/quote

As opposed to your wikipedia sources. Which anyone can post without substantiation.

[quote]
Man created the problem with the collapse of the cod industry by fishing them to virtual. Government allowed the fish to be fished to exhaustion in the first place. Government is now attempting to replace one ecological disater with another cruel and inhumane practice. The Canadian Atlantic Region can do whatever they want.....and so can the USA Government.


And you propose the same thing as a substitute for trapping and sealing. Large scale forestry in the Boreal forest, and the Oil Sands projects.

Love your hypocrisy

But then, what do you expect from someone who has more emotional attachment to animals than to humans.

[removed link and insult]

BTW, have you given up your electric power, automobile and other ecological disasters yet?

when your hands are clean, you can make judgements on others.

[Boreas]

Most of the factory trawlers belong to the same countries that rail against seal skins.
Newfoundlanders are small vessel fishers.
So how typical it is, do as I say not as I do from the seal cuddlers

To think that Canada and Newfoundland have been trying to restrict the fishing of those countries in factory trawlers. Unfortunately, when they stay just outside of the Canadian "turf", they can pillage as much as they wish. But the "baby seals" are the issue, aren't they?

So killing seals and fur animals is wrong, but wiping out vast tracts of forest makes better ecological sense.

I wonder what someone in MacKenzie, BC and other lumber towns would say about this today. In fact, they built a big ugly OSB plant in this town a few years ago, in spite of much opposition form this community. Now the lumber industry has taken a hit, and said OSB plant is reducing production because of the down turn in the industry. So, we have had to put up with the decreased air quality and increased traffic etc, for something that could become a big ugly white elephant.

Ah yes, the oil sands. Another mega-project that creates far more ecological damage than the seal and fur trade.

It's ok to contaminate the land and poison the waters, just leave the cute little animals alone.

Wasn't the US complaining about the tar sands in Fort Mac?? Interesting, since most of the oil goes south.

I guess, when it feeds the need for big oil and over-comsumption it is okay.

[MoonShadow]

[
Love your hypocrisy

But then, what do you expect from someone who has more emotional attachment to animals than to humans.


[removed link and insult]





Is this for real? You have the audacity to say such? You are way over the line! You are disgusting, Oldman!

[Sanslines]

Is this for real? You have the audacity to say such? You are way over the line! You are disgusting, Oldman!

Oldman has lost the debate / discussion and obviously prefers to argue from emotionally charged opinions, take my statements completely out of context, and hurl abusive and personal insults at me. Posting a link to a BESTIALITY website and then stating that I should go visit my friends there is indeed way over the top. Such an outrageous statement is clearly more of a reflection of the real Oldman, and has absolutely and positively no effect on me.

I am sorry that Boreas removed the derogatory and filthy link and accompanying insult. Such a posting clearly demonstrates what level Oldman had sunk to in this discussion / debate.

[richo]

Oldman



Precisely! This is what I have been saying since I first came here. Just as nudists don't want swingers, sex parties or gawkers on their beaches, they should respect the fact that most textiles don't, to paraphrase you, "nudity in their faces when they go to enjoy a non-nudist beach".



Exactly my point. Well put. We are all emotional beings and socialised to find some things acceptable and some things unacceptable. Rather than trying to force everyone to become emotionless, homogeneous automatons, we should be trying to accommodate as many preferences as possible by means of a fair distribution of beach (and park) space. If the swingers are sufficient in number and they want a beach - fine - let them have one. Let nudists have plenty of beaches, too and even allow for some to be clothing optional. The rest should be strictly textile simply because textiles out number nudists by about ten to one.

Stu

I did say "logical, rational, practical". Pure logic is obviously not a sufficient requirement - many things can be logical without being rational or practical.

I admit that there are emotional factors to life; I simply don't think these should be encoded into law, as emotions vary widely between people. Custom, social process, etc., can all reflect the emotional side of life - and generally do (customs such as funeral processes). Bodies aren't dumped in the garbage for rational, non-emotional reasons (sanitation, legal process, etc.); the emotional reasons simply help decide what we *do* do with them.

It used to be, in the old days, if you didn't like someone's emotional culture, you could leave. Today, that's not practical - there are very few, if any, places where someone else doesn't already exist and have authority. As such, we are forced to live with each other, whether we like it or not. The only practical solution to meshing different cultures is to leave culture out of legal functions, and simply base laws on what is logical/rational/practical.

On a separate note, the idea that "[t]he rest should be strictly textile simply because textiles out number nudists by about ten to one" is referred to by a specific phrase here in the states: tyrrany of the majority. It's why we don't have a pure democracy - to prevent exactly that kind of tyrrany. Part of our founding principles - established in the equal protection clauses of our constitutions - include the notion that the majority does not have the right to oppress the minority simply beause it has more people. "Equal Protection" means that everyone is treated equally - and that you'd better have a damned good reason (almost always a logical, practical, rational reason) to inflict a set of rules on someone else. People are re-discovering this concept with the marriage equality issue.

[Sanslines]

I understand geography quite well. I also note that Alaskans Aleuts have a heavily subsidised life thanks to big Oil and big military presence.

Oh where to begin...lol! If you have such a fantastic grasp on geography, then you would not have deliberately excluded Alaska from your claim about the differences between the lower 48 and Northern Canada. Some of us down here in the lower 48 have actually been to Alaska and have first hand knowledge of the conditions there. As for subsidies, yes there are oil subsidies to residents of the state of Alaksa. The so called 'big military presence' is not throughout the state, as someone who is familiar with Alaska's size and diversity would understand. Given that there are oil subsidies to Aleuts and other residents of Alaska, there obviously is no reason that the Canadian Govenrment can not subsidize First Nation's peoples from the oil and gas operations in Alberta. Oh wait, the Canadian Government already provides subsidies to the northern communities of Canada.

"The Canadian federal government provides subsidies for northern communities, including welfare and other support payments for individuals and families, and the Iqaluit economy is based largely on the administration of these government services. Mining and oil companies working on Baffin and other Arctic islands use Iqaluit as a service and supply base.

Iqaluit is an important transport centre for the region. The United States Air Force (USAF) built an airfield there in 1942, and the Canadian government has since upgraded it to a full-service commercial facility. The airport serves as a hub for air service in the Eastern Arctic, with regularly scheduled flights and charters to the small villages of the region. There is also a regular service to Greenland and to Montreal in Quebec. Transport Canada, a federal government agency, operates the Eastern Arctic Sealift, which delivers supplies to the community by sea. " Isn't it amazing what real facts can show?



Most of the factory trawlers belong to the same countries that rail against seal skins.
Newfoundlanders are small vessel fishers.
So how typical it is, do as I say not as I do from the seal cuddlers.

All that this statement does is reinforce my previos factually backed claim that the local people have not realized the benefits from fishing. the locals eek out a subsistence living. The multinational operations bring in untold millions. Certainly the Canadian Government has a better solution then to keep people in poverty.

The income does help. Take it away, and the less income these people have. By your logic, since big corporations also make the most money out of farming, American farmers should be shut down and their subsidies removed. Then you can buy your produce from Mexico and China.

Where have you been all of these years? The small American family farm is being subsidized by the USA government. No one has ever siad anything about shutting them down. Quite the contrary, there have been renewed attempts by the government to assist them.

"Family Farms


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>There are almost two million farms in the USA. About 80% of those are small farms, and a large percentage are family owned. More and more of these farmers are now selling their products directly to the public. They do this via CSA programs (http://www.localharvest.org/csa/), Farmers' Markets (http://www.localharvest.org/farmers-markets/), Food Coops (http://www.localharvest.org/food-coops/), u-picks, farm stands, and other direct marketing (http://www.localharvest.org/descriptions.jsp) channels. Would you like to support your local farmer? Use our map to find a small farm near you!
Large scale chemical agriculture is poisoning our soils and our water, and weakening our communities. By buying direct from a family farm you can help put a stop to this unfortunate trend. By buying organic (http://www.localharvest.org/organic.jsp) produce from your local farmer, you are working to maintain a healthy environment, a vibrant community, and a strong and sustainable local economy for you and your kids to thrive in. "

Please do some basic research before making such uninformed opinionated statements.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

And that pittance does help. And by the way, trapping produces cash. Cash buys groceries. expensive groceries by the time they are shipped north.

So do government subsidies that already exist. Have you been to places such as the Yukon lately? Since we are already talking about a mere pittance, certainly the government can offset the insignificant amount of money that trappers earn. The government will also end a cruel act.

So killing seals and fur animals is wrong, but wiping out vast tracts of forest makes better ecological sense.

Who said anything about wiping out vast tracts of boreal forest as making better sense? You posted an opinino that the far north boreal forest is not readily accessible and that not much money is made from the wood products. I replied with the facts about accessibility and how large the timber industry is to Canada. I clearly showed that your opinions were not based in fact. Now you go and twist what I said and take it completely out of context.

BTW, most of the money from forestry goes to big corporations.

Got to love how you jump into things without thinking them through.

I think that it is you who is not capable of thinking things through. No one ever said that most of the money from forestry does or does not go to large corporations. Assuming that it does, then the result is that a mere pittance also goes to the poor indiginous peoples. So, the indiginous peoples are clearly no better off with trapping. They may actually be (are) better off with logging as wage information shows: http://www.canadian-forests.com/canadian_forests_quick_facts.htm#alberta

It would really behoove you to do some basic research and present facts rather then incorrect opinionated information.

[Sanslines]

Ah yes, the oil sands. Another mega-project that creates far more ecological damage than the seal and fur trade.

It's ok to contaminate the land and poison the waters, just leave the cute little animals alone.

Who said anything about contaminating the land and poision the waters? Are you implying that that Canadian Government is not up to the task of imposing environmental restrictions that prevent such events from occuring? FYI, New York State Department of Environmental Resources stepped in and addressed the state residents concerns of ground water pollution from the natural gas drilling operations which are presently occuring in the southren part of Upstate. Certainly if New York State and control their environment through environmental regulation, then Canada can do the same


For your information, the First Nations people are not happy about the big Oil projects because of the damage they cause to the traditional life and to the habitat of their people.

Many people are not happy about the environmental damage that is occuring. The government should step in and address those issues. Last I read many First Nations males are working in the tar sands region and making huge amounts of money that they send home. Money that they could NEVER earn from trapping.

There is the mark of the illogical thought processes of the environmentalist. If today's pet peeve is sealing and fur trading, then it is ok to destroy the boreal forest and contaminate the waters through big Oil.

This is a convoluted statement on your part. No one ever said that the environment should be destroyed by reckless logging or ground water contamination. This is why governments create environmental regulations and restrictions. To prevent such events from occuring. You seem to neglect this very important function of government.

If you bother to do some basic research, you will find that at one time Australia went through a period of reckless logging and clear cutting. They have since passed very strong environmental laws which encouraged (through government subsidies) the replanting of forests.

In the USA we also have such programs that encourage and heavily subsidize the planting of trees and shrubs to repair the damage that past abusive practices have wrought on the environment. Have you ever read about the creation of the Adirondacks State Park in Northern New York State.

[Sanslines]

Not the resolve of the Canadian government and the sealers.

That is what the word resolve meant in the article. I realise that you suffer from illiteracy and now you have proven it.


It is very clear that if the entire world boycotts seal products, then the seal market will cease to exist. Once demand dries up, then supply will also dry up. The Canadian Government and sealers can have all of the resolve that they wish, but they will eventually give in to world wide condemnation of this inhumane and cruel practice of baby seal slaughter for mega corporate profits. It is already occuring, as many of my above posts clearly show. The baby seal market is slowely and surely dying, just as the horse buggy industry dies when automobiles replaced them. It's past time for your government to stop clinging to a dying industry and do the work to replace it with something more viable that will actually help people then enslave them to an industry that provides mere susbsistence (if it even does that).

Also. please refrain from the condescending and insulting statements. It really adds nothing of value to the discussion / debate and only shows that you would prefer to insult others then engage in mature discussion based upon facts.

[Stu2630]

Richo

many things can be logical without being rational or practical.

Really? I'm not sure I understand the difference between logic and rationality.

Bodies aren't dumped in the garbage for rational, non-emotional reasons (sanitation, legal process, etc.); the emotional reasons simply help decide what we *do* do with them.

We have productive, lucrative and even environmentally-friendly ways of disposing of animal carcases; why don't we dispose of human bodies in the same way? That would be logical, rational and practical, wouldn't it? The reason we don't do that is because we attach to dead human bodies an entirely irrational value and it would offend our entirely illogical sensibilities to treat our dead in that way. Similarly, we have an entirely illogical perception of the naked body.

Logic is a wonderful tool human beings can use for solving problems, but it is cold and soulless, and we must never let it be the master of our value system or lifestyle.

As such, we are forced to live with each other, whether we like it or not. The only practical solution to meshing different cultures is to leave culture out of legal functions, and simply base laws on what is logical/rational/practical.

The world is still a big place. We can accommodate wooded areas for people to go nature walking and other wooded areas for rally car driving. Similarly, we can accommodate nudists on some beaches and textiles on others. Surely that is a rational answer.

On a separate note, the idea that "[t]he rest should be strictly textile simply because textiles out number nudists by about ten to one" is referred to by a specific phrase here in the states: tyrrany of the majority. It's why we don't have a pure democracy - to prevent exactly that kind of tyrrany.

I know. America seems to have adopted the bizarre notion of "tyranny of the majority", as though that "majority", i.e. the people, are stupid and intolerant and can't be trusted to govern themselves, so they need some kind of governing elite to do their thinking, and decision-making, for them. That is profoundly undemocratic and patronising to the population which the government is supposed to serve. I don't subscribe to that.

the majority does not have the right to oppress the minority simply beause it has more people. "Equal Protection" means that everyone is treated equally - and that you'd better have a damned good reason (almost always a logical, practical, rational reason) to inflict a set of rules on someone else. People are re-discovering this concept with the marriage equality issue

OK, but this is not an 'equality' issue. You want to use a textile beach - fine - come along and enjoy it with the rest of us textiles - and comply with the same dress code that we like on our beaches. If I wanted to go nude on a beach, I would go to a nudist beach and conform to your dress code and get naked. Some nudists say they feel more comfortable around other nudists.

Nudists are discriminated in as much as they don't have a fair allocation of beaches for their use, having regard to their numbers. That situation is wrong and should be rectified. But getting nude on my textile beaches deprives me of my right to enjoy the environment I prefer. I don't want nude people on my beaches. I will stay away from your beaches and I want you to stay away from mine unless you are prepared to wear a pair of trunks at least.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Nothing new there. The euros have long been known for hypocrisy. They fought for years against Canadian protection of the fish industry, and now are against people sealing to replace the income destroyed by their factory trawlers.

Much like the seal huggers who say that people should destroy the forests and contaminate the land rather than kill some seals or trap fur.

You are tremendously uninformed if you believe that a real environmentalist believes that forest should be destroyed and land contaminated with pollution. You are againt grasping at straws when you make such irrational and illogical statements based upon pure emotion and opinion.

[Sanslines]

[quote=Sanslines;227040][/i][/i]

So you now post government propoganda and present this as a viable source? Wow!
[/quote

As opposed to your wikipedia sources. Which anyone can post without substantiation.



And you propose the same thing as a substitute for trapping and sealing. Large scale forestry in the Boreal forest, and the Oil Sands projects.

Love your hypocrisy

But then, what do you expect from someone who has more emotional attachment to animals than to humans.

[removed link and insult]

BTW, have you given up your electric power, automobile and other ecological disasters yet?

when your hands are clean, you can make judgements on others.

Show me where I proposed that people destroy forrests and land? You can't because I never promoted such a concept. I only said that people can work in these industries as an alternate to trapping (and can make better wages then the mere pittance that people each from killing animals) AND I have now elaborated upon the obvious that government should create and enforce legislation that prevents such masive destruction of the environment. I have never suggested that people trade one destructive practice for another. No hypocrisy here. Just your emotional outburts and insults ragging away because you can not support your justifications with anything but opinions.


The only important thing here is that world opinion will eventually put an end to baby seal slaughters.

[Sanslines]

I wonder what someone in MacKenzie, BC and other lumber towns would say about this today. In fact, they built a big ugly OSB plant in this town a few years ago, in spite of much opposition form this community. Now the lumber industry has taken a hit, and said OSB plant is reducing production because of the down turn in the industry. So, we have had to put up with the decreased air quality and increased traffic etc, for something that could become a big ugly white elephant.

Then why does your government allow it?



Wasn't the US complaining about the tar sands in Fort Mac?? Interesting, since most of the oil goes south.

I guess, when it feeds the need for big oil and over-comsumption it is okay.

Are you trying to imply that the USA dictates how tar sands facilities are constructed in Canada and also dictates environmental regulations? You must know that the Canadian Government is allowing the tar sands disaster to materialize.

If Canada did not sell tar sands products to the USA, then they would sell them on the open market to places such as China.

Believe it or not, we have many Canadian gas exploration companies working on the Marcellus Shale Gas projects in the Northeast USA region. Those companies are bound by USA federal, state, and local laws and it is up to these agnecies to prevent environmental disasters on this side of the border. Why doesn' the Canadian Government do the same on your side of the border?

[Oldman]

Oh where to begin...lol! If you have such a fantastic grasp on geography, then you would not have deliberately excluded Alaska from your claim about the differences between the lower 48 and Northern Canada. Some of us down here in the lower 48 have actually been to Alaska and have first hand knowledge of the conditions there. As for subsidies, yes there are oil subsidies to residents of the state of Alaksa. The so called 'big military presence' is not throughout the state, as someone who is familiar with Alaska's size and diversity would understand. Given that there are oil subsidies to Aleuts and other residents of Alaska, there obviously is no reason that the Canadian Govenrment can not subsidize First Nation's peoples from the oil and gas operations in Alberta. Oh wait, the Canadian Government already provides subsidies to the northern communities of Canada.

Not all people live in the larger communities of the north. Most of the hunting and trapping goes on in small hamlets, not the larger centers.

As for subsidies, they exist. They also pay for mainly infrastructure. That still leaves basic needs of individual families to be met. And that is done, in many cases, through hunting and trapping. BTW, were you not aware that hunting, fishing and trapping rights are guaranteed under the various treaties and agreements between the government and the First Nations.

Ain't no way that a politician is going to open that can of worms.


Iqaulit is a long way from many communities.




So do government subsidies that already exist. Have you been to places such as the Yukon lately? Since we are already talking about a mere pittance, certainly the government can offset the insignificant amount of money that trappers earn. The government will also end a cruel act.

By launching a cultural war on the indeginous people? Again, no politician is going to go there, and rightfully so.


Who said anything about wiping out vast tracts of boreal forest as making better sense? You posted an opinino that the far north boreal forest is not readily accessible and that not much money is made from the wood products. I replied with the facts about accessibility and how large the timber industry is to Canada. I clearly showed that your opinions were not based in fact. Now you go and twist what I said and take it completely out of context.

Yes the timber industry is huge in parts of Canada. Mac Blo and Weyerhauser are giants. But that does not mean the money is going to the individual. You b*tched and moaned about how fishing doesn't bring anything but a pittance, and that most of the money goes to big corporations. Where do you think the vast amount of money goes in logging?
And those roads that lead into the forest, hundreds of miles of roadways that cause damage to the land, lead to silting of spawning grounds etc. What about those costs to the ecology?

[/QUOTE]

And yes you imply that it would be better off for people to work in logging and Oil both of which do far more eco-damage than does hunting, fishing and trapping.

I do agree that you said they can make a bigger pittance. So you seem to be comfortable with greed and the pursuit of the all-mighty dollar, where as earlier you slammed trappers and sealers for doing the same.

[Noodlebug]

This is the best thread ever! It's like those WWE Battle Royale events!

I can't even remember who I was going to reply to now. Someone said we attach human characteristics on animals too much. I think that is the wrong way round. We attach too few animal characteristics on humans. And that applies to both arguments, animals in the wild (and for a long time, our own ancestors) have/had no issues with nudity, public sex, urination, defecation, or indeed animal cruelty. And most of them seem pretty happy and content and live good lives when they're not being trapped or eaten.

Morality is part of the human condition, some may argue a necessary part, most would agree a useful part. Some morality serves or reinforces a functional purpose - hygeine, community relations, gene preservation etc. Other morality serves no discernible purpose at all - and indeed is not universal in all human cultures - such as the nudity taboo. What is wrong with challenging, or at least questioning conventions that make no sense? Why should the irrational and purely cultural objections have more value than the well known benefits of the nudist lifestyle? Culture is not static, it changes over time, look how much it has changed since Victorian times - in the wider permissive sense, even in the last few decades. The momentum of recent cultural history seems to indicate our time is coming, in many ways it is almost here.

There is a small but not unrealistic chance you will see someone naked in public - anywhere in public - at some point in your life. And the chance is increasing as our society changes - you are much more likely to see someone naked in public now than in the 1950s. The odds of that person being a nudist (at least as I define the term) are much much smaller than the odds of that person being something else - an exhibitionist, a performer, a mentally disturbed person, probably others I have not thought of. By and large, nudists do keep to their designated areas, out of convenience and courtesy. But as society changes and grows ever more accepting and tolerant, that may not remain the case for much longer. That ultra-conservative backlash everyone's waiting for? It ain't gonna happen.

[Oldman]

Is this for real? You have the audacity to say such? You are way over the line! You are disgusting, Oldman!

So far that is what he has presented. He doesn't like people earning a living by killing animals. Therefore, he places a higher value on animals than people.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. He would deprive the native and long time newfies of part of their culture and income. Cultural genocide.

[Oldman]

Oldman has lost the debate / discussion and obviously prefers to argue from emotionally charged opinions, take my statements completely out of context, and hurl abusive and personal insults at me. Posting a link to a BESTIALITY website and then stating that I should go visit my friends there is indeed way over the top. Such an outrageous statement is clearly more of a reflection of the real Oldman, and has absolutely and positively no effect on me.

I am sorry that Boreas removed the derogatory and filthy link and accompanying insult. Such a posting clearly demonstrates what level Oldman had sunk to in this discussion / debate.

Since you would prefer cultural genocide over the death of an animal, I thought and still do, that it was fitting. How elitist of you, saying that you know better than the idigenous people how they should live their "stone age" lives.

[Oldman]

Who said anything about contaminating the land and poision the waters? Are you implying that that Canadian Government is not up to the task of imposing environmental restrictions that prevent such events from occuring? FYI, New York State Department of Environmental Resources stepped in and addressed the state residents concerns of ground water pollution from the natural gas drilling operations which are presently occuring in the southren part of Upstate. Certainly if New York State and control their environment through environmental regulation, then Canada can do the same


Most of those controls have been weakened so that we can produce at a reasonable price so that oil can be shipped south so that Eco wanks can drive their mini-vans and SUVs to their latest protests.



Many people are not happy about the environmental damage that is occuring. The government should step in and address those issues. Last I read many First Nations males are working in the tar sands region and making huge amounts of money that they send home. Money that they could NEVER earn from trapping.

Meanwhile the disruption in the communities back home caused by the absence of males is leading to a breakdown in families and trouble amongst the children.

As for the damage, standards change when big money is involved. The first nations are very upset. But have little recourse.

I am willing to bet that the amount of damage from Forestry and the Oil Sands is far more than the eco harm from trapping and hunting. Care to make that wager?

[Oldman]

You are tremendously uninformed if you believe that a real environmentalist believes that forest should be destroyed and land contaminated with pollution. You are againt grasping at straws when you make such irrational and illogical statements based upon pure emotion and opinion.

No straws, no emotion. You, the entity known as Sanslines, have stated that it is preferable for people to cease trapping and sealing and hunting, and instead work for big Oil and Big Forestry where the eco-damage is far greater for the simple reason that they can make more gelt.

Wouldn't a sound environmental position be to shut down the big causes of damage and let people exist with the low impact damage?
You seem to take the perverse position of telling people to move away from low impact occupations and take up work with high impact employers.

That to me, seems to be a irrational position.

BTW, have you given up your electricity and your use of products from major polluters?

[Sanslines]

Not all people live in the larger communities of the north. Most of the hunting and trapping goes on in small hamlets, not the larger centers.

Of course hunting, trapping, and fishing and confined to the more rural areas. I certainly have not seen any hunters or trappers actively hunting or trapping in city centres lately.

As for subsidies, they exist. They also pay for mainly infrastructure. That still leaves basic needs of individual families to be met. And that is done, in many cases, through hunting and trapping. BTW, were you not aware that hunting, fishing and trapping rights are guaranteed under the various treaties and agreements between the government and the First Nations.

Basic Needs:

Canada

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/14/Canada_basic_needs_poverty_line_1973-2004.png/180px-Canada_basic_needs_poverty_line_1973-2004.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_basic_needs_poverty_line_1973-2004.png) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_basic_needs_poverty_line_1973-2004.png)
The proportion of Canadians who are living in poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada) has generally declined over the last three decades.


Professor Chris Sarlo, an economist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist) at Nipissing University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipissing_University) in North Bay, Canada and a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute), uses Statistics Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_Canada)'s socio-economic databases, particularly the Survey of Household Spending to determine the cost of a list of household necessities. The list includes food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food), shelter, clothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing), health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care), personal care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene), essential furnishings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furniture), transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation) and communication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication), laundry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry), home insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_insurance), and miscellaneous; it assumes that education is provided freely to all residents of Canada. This is calculated for various communities across Canada and adjusted for family size. With this information, he determines the proportion of Canadian households that have insufficient income to afford those necessities. Since the early 1970s, the poverty rate has declined from about 12% of Canadian households to about 5%.

Trapping is not the solution to poverty in the far north.

Furthermore, monies from the world's largest slaughter of mammals do not go to the poor indiginous people's of the far north. If even a fraction went to those people, poverty would be eliminated.

Using native people's as an excuse to justify the enormous slaughter of baby seals is wrong and fundamentally flawed. The number of seals killed is well beyond any rational justification for maintenance of native cultural beliefs. This is a fact that escapes those who wish to allow open wildlife trapping and killing.

In Alaska, government intervention has allowed native peoples very limited hunting privaledges. It is a tightly controlled activity. It prevents the destruction of animal resources and sets rigoruous standards that prevent animal abuse.

The Canadian Government can do the same. The Canadian government can also step forward and provide more for the native citizens to lift them out of poverty then ignore them and allow then to wallow in the endless cycles of poverty.

Killing animals for their furs is not the answer. Destruction of such animals is not for food for once the animal is skinned, the carcass is discarded.


Back to the cruel slaughter of seals:

The Canadian commercial seal hunt is a barbaric bloodlust ritual where baby seals are beaten to death with spiked clubs and also skinned alive, all for no economic benefit, motivated by sadism and an irrational hatred of seals.

I wrote this essay to counter the propaganda put out by the Canadian DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) that portrays the commercial seal hunt as humane and economically important.
To claim that a baby seal does not feel extreme pain while being skinned alive, does not pass the laugh test. Each year hundreds of thousands of seal pups are sadistically slaughtered. Let’s look at some of the bogus claims of the DFO. “Seals need to be culled because of over population.”

There is no scientific data to support that claim. The DFO makes this unsubstantiated claim in a vain effort to justify the slaughter. Seal populations are a fraction of what they were before the commercial sealing program began.
“Seals are killed humanely.”

Most seals are killed by being bashed oven the head with a spiked club called a hackapik. Others are shot. Because a baby seal’s brain is only the size of a walnut, it is extremely difficult to kill in one blow or shot. Many blows or bullets are required to render a seal unconscious or dead. The DFO’s own studies have shown that over 6,000 baby seals are skinned alive each year. A panel of veterinarians gave a much higher estimate of 42% skinned alive.

If you seriously think spiked club is a humane way to kill, imagine the hue and cry if that method were suggested to slaughter steers, execute criminals, put down sick pets or euthanise the terminally ill.
One internatianl team of veterinarians discovered :

79% of the sealers did not check to see if an animal was dead before skinning it.
In 40% of the kills, a sealer had to strike the seal a second time, presumably because it was still conscious after the first blow or shot.
42% of killed seals examined were found to have minimal or no fractures, suggesting a high probability that these seals were conscious when skinned.
“The commercial seal hunt bering important economic benefits.”

Strange as it sounds, the commercial seal hunt is not motivated by economics. The seal hunt is not economically viable because the cost to conduct the hunt (ice breaking, helicopters, administration, enforcement, etc.) exceeds the value of the hunt itself. Furthermore, the income earned from the seal slaughter typically makes up only 5% of a sealer’s income. As an industry, sealing is insignificant, accounting for a scant 0.06% of Newfoundland’s gross domestic product.

The commercial seal hunt has nothing to do with the subsistence sealing of the Inuit of the far north.
The commercial hunt could not continue without being unwittingly subsidised by the Canadian taxpayer. “Seals eat too many fish, especially cod.”

Scientists have shown than 97% of a seal’s diet is fish other than cod, many of these being predatory fish that feed on baby cod. If you take away the seals you increase the number of predators which mean less cod. More seals have always meant more cod.

Consider that 200 years ago, there was no commercial seal hunt. Seals were much more plentiful than now, and the cod were so thick you “could walk across their backs” according to contemporary accounts. The seal’s mild predation is actually helpful to the cod. The seals preferentially eat the sickest and weakest cod, which helps the overall health of the schools.
The true causes of cod stock depletion are overfishing and contamination of the oceans. The seals had nothing to do with that. The seals managed for millions of years without destroying the stocks. “Much of the seal is utilitised.”

Only the skin and sometimes the penis is taken. The sealers sell the penises to the Chinese who grind the baculum (penis bone) up for a impotence folk remedy. The seal’s body is left to rot on the ice. Slaughtering seals serves one primary purpose: fashion. Baby seal skins make high fashion garments. Seal oil contains high concentrations of PCBs, DDT and mercury. It is not safe for consumption.
“Seal populations are healthy.”

The DFO likes to point out that the seal populations are “three times what they were in the 70s.” What they don’t tell you is that the populations are still many times lower than they were before the commercial seal hunt started, back when the seas were most productive.
“Sealing is an important tradition.”

The Canadian commercial sea hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on earth. Each spring hundreds of men carrying rifles or spiked clubs (hakapiks) invade the harp and hooded seal nurseries, clubbing and shooting baby seals who are barely weaned, and lay helpless on the ice. If this is a tradition, then the majority of Canadians as well as the world community believe that is a brutal and bloody tradition and should be ended. We have given up many other traditional inhumane entertainments, such as scalping, bull baiting, **** fights, whale sacrifice and dog fights.

This tradition hurts tourism, a far more important industry economically. People in other countries naturally judge all Canadians as brutal thugs. CBC Video

On 2008-04-16 the CBC aired an incredibly amateurish and biased video on the seal hunt. It was like something some self indulgent pre-teens would have slopped together. They mocked Sir Paul McCartney for making an error in local geography and thereby implying he was too stupid to recognise deliberate cruelty when he saw it. They showed Newfoundlanders whining that they were misunderstood and it was just too cruel of the rest of the world to term their hunt “barbaric”, but by any objective standard the hunt is barbaric. Nobody would dream of killing cows or dogs that way! Asking the rest of the world to look the other way is as silly as asking us to look the other way to a nutcase who blinds horses with an icepick. Deliberately, needlessly and maliciously torturing mammals is wrong. Their excuse is morally equivalent to that of a pornographer of snuff videos who tried to excuse himself because he liked the money. I don’t care how long they have been doing it or how much money they make from it, or how many sexual jollies or warm fuzzies they get from it. It is as wrong as slavery or human sacrifice, (similarly justified on the lame grounds of tradition).
Motive For the Hunt

Since the hunt does not make money, you have to wonder what motivates so many people, including bloodless bureaucrats, to perpetuate the hunt. Where have we seen similar behaviour?

Vice President Cheney drunkenly shooting hundreds of domesticated fowl.
Soldiers raping children in Iraq.
Drunks shooting cows.
Bullies in school picking on the weak.
Massacring the indigenous people of North America.
As a teen, George Bush inserting firecrackers into frogs.
Napalming children, burning them alive in Iraq, similarly burning them alive with white phosphorous.
The hunt is a sort of manhood ritual. Men get a thrill, a twisted sadistic sexual pleasure out of brutalising and killing the utterly defenseless. It is nothing to be proud of. It is not an institution worth preserving. It is part of our shameful barbaric past.
Science

Man is like a four year old. He likes to tinker with things long before he has any understanding of how they work. He has destroyed all manner of habitats by removing predators such as wolves, large predatory fish and seals, imagining in his naive way this would increase the productivity. Only recently is science beginning to discover how such predators are absolutely necessary for the health of ecosystems. The National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0426_050426_strangedays2.html) did a documentary on the problem.
What do I want?

Ideally I would like the hunt stopped in its entirety.

Failing that, I want the clubbing of seals banned and skinning alive banned.
Failing that, all government subsidies for the hunt must end. It should totally pay its way through seal killing licences.
Failing that a world wide ban on all seal products and ostracism of anyone who uses or sells them. If the hunt is made too expensive to continue by taking away all its financial backing, perhaps it will stop. What Can You Do?

Visit the Sea Shepherd Society (http://www.seashepherd.org/) for ideas on what you can do. You can participate in various seal product boycotts, boycotting both the products and anyone who handles them.


Ask the government to stop the subsidy in any form for the seal hunt, including the costs of regulation. <!-- macro Include E:\mindprod\include\primeminister.html --><!-- generated -->Write or email your Member of the federal Canadian Parliament (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC) or any other Member of Parliament (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/SenatorsMembers_house.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=2&Sect=hoccur) or
Stephen Harper (http://pm.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=home) (I can’t bear to call that homophobic bigot and Bush asskisser the Prime Minister).
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0A2
Fax: (613) 941-6900
It is best to hand write your letter. However in a pinch you can email:pm@pm.gc.ca No postage is required to send a letter to any Member of Parliament. Only mail sent to the House of Commons in Ottawa (that is, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6) is eligible. Just write the letters O.H.M.S. where you would normally put a stamp.<!-- end Include from E:\mindprod\include\primeminister.html --><!-- /generated by Include --> Progress

On 2008-12-27 the Canadian Federal government announced the hackapik would be banned to avoid the seals being skinned alive. Sealers are furious. They defend their sadistic way of killing seals purely on the grounds they have done it that way in the past and they like doing it. However, the Canadian government bowed to a threat from the EU to ban Canadian seal products entirely if they did not make the way of killing more humane. Anyone who enjoys killing with a hackapik is subhuman and deserves to be hacked to death themselves. The sadism of one’s ancestors is no excuse. Everyone had to give up beating slaves, even whose families had beat them for generations. It is time to stop deliberate cruelty to seals.

This is not quite the good news it first appears. Hunters are required to shoot seals, then they can use the hackapik. This allows the hunter to merely wound the seal then continue hacking at the seal in a sadistic orgy as before.

[Oldman]

To think that Canada and Newfoundland have been trying to restrict the fishing of those countries in factory trawlers. Unfortunately, when they stay just outside of the Canadian "turf", they can pillage as much as they wish. But the "baby seals" are the issue, aren't they?

The US was one of the biggest criers when we tried shutting the door to foreign fishing.


I wonder what someone in MacKenzie, BC and other lumber towns would say about this today. In fact, they built a big ugly OSB plant in this town a few years ago, in spite of much opposition form this community. Now the lumber industry has taken a hit, and said OSB plant is reducing production because of the down turn in the industry. So, we have had to put up with the decreased air quality and increased traffic etc, for something that could become a big ugly white elephant.


But the crap it spews is far less harmful than a cuddly seal being killed.


Wasn't the US complaining about the tar sands in Fort Mac?? Interesting, since most of the oil goes south.

I guess, when it feeds the need for big oil and over-comsumption it is okay.

Got to keep the wheels of industry turning so that evironmentalists can drive to their various protests in their family size SUVs.
And I am not kidding. Global had a newstory a couple of years back on the Oak Ridges Moraine and showed a protest being held against contruction on the moraine. A long line of SUVs and Mini-vans lined up down the road as the environmentalists protested the damage to the environment. Too bad they didn't think of pooling and getting a bus. It would have made their protest less laughable.

[Sanslines]

So far that is what he has presented. He doesn't like people earning a living by killing animals. Therefore, he places a higher value on animals than people.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. He would deprive the native and long time newfies of part of their culture and income. Cultural genocide.

Leave it to you to continue to resort to making things up and resorting to nonsense. Did it ever occur to you that man can earn his living without exploiting animals. Have you no sense of compassion and understading towards animals. How can you be so creul as to justify a barbaric act that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving native culture.

Your misinformation is out of control. The native americans of this country are known to respect and be part of nature. They would never engage in such a barbaric act as the wholesale slaughter of baby seals anymore then they did promote the wholesale slaughter of American Bison in the 1800's. It was white man who did and still does use natives as an excuse to justify barbaric acts towards animals.

Of course you want to misuse the natives of the far north of Canada as an excuse to justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of baby seals.

Seal Hunt Facts Canada Doesn't Want You to Know

<!-- END: main content title --><!-- Page Content --><!-- Evaluate if iframe is active --><!-- iframe is not active --><!-- Evaluate if layout is one or two col -->Canada's Seal Hunt: "Unacceptably Inhumane"


"The Canadian government insists that the seal hunt is an animal production industry like any other. They say that it might not be pretty, but basically it is just like any abattoir except on the ice. But we found obvious levels of suffering which would not be tolerated in any other animal industry in the world."
Ian Robinson, British Veterinarian

<!-- page_description --><!-- Document Link List --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=paragraph>Two separate veterinary reports that studied the 2001 seal hunt, one commissioned by the Canadian government, show numerous instances where animals were clubbed or shot and not rendered immediately unconscious.

Together, the two reports also document that a number of animals each year are hooked and dragged across the ice while still conscious and some of these are still alive by the time they reach the decks of sealing vessels.

Here’s what one such international team of five independent veterinarians found:

79% of the sealers did not check to see if an animal was dead before skinning it.
In 40% of the kills a sealer had to strike the seal a second time, presumably because it was still conscious after the first blow or shot.
42% of killed seals examined were found to have minimal or no fractures, suggesting a high probability that these seals were conscious when skinned.
The veterinarian team concluded that the existing regulations were neither being respected nor enforced, and that the seal hunt is resulting in considerable and unacceptable suffering.

More Than 660 Probable Seal Abuses Caught on Tape
IFAW has submitted video evidence of more than 660 probable violations of Canada’s Marine Mammal Regulations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These abuses include skinning or bleeding live seals, stockpiling dead and dying animals, dragging live seals across the ice with sharpened steel hooks and shooting seals and leaving them to suffer. To date, not a single charge has been laid in response.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans says it is committed to proposing new regulations to address what it sees as the critical hunt issues. The International Fund for Animal Welfare stresses, however, that it is impossible to effectively regulate any commercial seal hunt. Unpredictable weather and ice conditions, combined with the difficulties inherent in killing a large number of wild animals very quickly, will always add up to cruelty.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Sanslines]

Since you would prefer cultural genocide over the death of an animal, I thought and still do, that it was fitting. How elitist of you, saying that you know better than the idigenous people how they should live their "stone age" lives.

Sad how you have resorted to irrational and false accusations about things that I never have said. Instead of debating, you continue to make false accusations and resort to personal attack.

Face it, the world will put an end to the slaughter of baby seals and there is not a dam* thing that you can do about it.

[Sanslines]

Most of those controls have been weakened so that we can produce at a reasonable price so that oil can be shipped south so that Eco wanks can drive their mini-vans and SUVs to their latest protests.

Whose fault is this? The American government or the Canadian government? Does not the Canadian Government have soverign rights over Canada or is Canada just a nother territory of the USA where the USA dictates all rules and regulations?




Meanwhile the disruption in the communities back home caused by the absence of males is leading to a breakdown in families and trouble amongst the children.

As for the damage, standards change when big money is involved. The first nations are very upset. But have little recourse.

I am willing to bet that the amount of damage from Forestry and the Oil Sands is far more than the eco harm from trapping and hunting. Care to make that wager?

The do something about it. Demand that YOUR government create and enforce environmental regulations that prohibit the destruction of the environment. You have a very misguided idea that governement enivironmental rules and regulations do not even exist and that the only options are to either allow the environmental damage that forestry creates or to shut down the timber industry.

It has been proven over and over again that industry can operate and create jobs without destroying the environment in the process. It is the job of government to protect the environment by rule of law.

[Sanslines]

The US was one of the biggest criers when we tried shutting the door to foreign fishing.

Yes, I see the Canadian Government does not have a backbone and can not stand up to the USA. In effect Canada is just a source of raw materials that exist for American exploitation.

But the crap it spews is far less harmful than a cuddly seal being killed.

Then use pollution controls to eliminate the crap.

Got to keep the wheels of industry turning so that evironmentalists can drive to their various protests in their family size SUVs.
And I am not kidding. Global had a newstory a couple of years back on the Oak Ridges Moraine and showed a protest being held against contruction on the moraine. A long line of SUVs and Mini-vans lined up down the road as the environmentalists protested the damage to the environment. Too bad they didn't think of pooling and getting a bus. It would have made their protest less laughable.

In spite of everything that I have said, you continue with this monotonous opinionated rant against rational statements that are backed up with facts. Instead of posting facts, you post hysteria that is based on completely false and irrational nonsense.

You know that over 400,000 baby seals are slaughtered each year and that this outrageous slaughter has absoultely nothing to do with the preservation of native ways. You must also konw that the popluation and beliefs of the natives would never justify or support such an enormous slaughter. Yet you persist with posting opinionated and baseless rants that use the native ways to justify such an enormous slaughter.

You refuse to post any facts to back up your claims and instead resort to irrational rants about how I (or others) are promoting the destruction of the boreal forest or the contamination of the environment around the tar sands region when I repeatedly stated various options and government responsibilities to the contrary.

You have attempted to turn a discussion into a series of personal insults because this appears to be your only recourse when faced with fact based statement after fact based statement.

You do all of this because your world is coming to an end and you know it. The baby seal slaughter will be stopped and you will be on the losing end of the decisions. The world has come out against this inhumane slaughter and the Canadian Government will be shamed into stopping it.

In spite of what you represent, real compassionate and caring Canadians have spoken against the enormous slaughter of wildlife. They stand together in unison. You stand alone with irrational rants against a changing world.

Dolce & Gabbana:

Dolce & Gabbana manufactures fashion products from seals and are responsible for the killing of 300 000 baby seals each and every year.
Help stop the killing of innocent baby seals by boycotting Dolce & Gabbana. Dolce & Gabbana is one of the only companies in the world that still dares to use seal parts.
These seals are not killed for food. They are killed for fur. They are killed for vanity.
Seals are normally clubbed to death. If still alive, once a seal is clubbed it is skinned alive. This is the largest marine slaughter in the world and it is happening in Canada.
Please let Dolce & Gabbana know that you are angry that they are funding this slaughter and using the skin and fur of dead baby seals. Please navigate this website if you wish to learn more about the hunt or contact Dolce & Gabbana.



What sane man or woman would condone this insanity:

Baby Seal Skinning Factories: Has Their Time Come?

I write this essay on behalf of my self, and like minded individuals. In this essay, I hope to give you the truth of baby seal skinning factories, one which is not tainted with the vile excrement spewed forth by my rivals, the so called "environmentalists". Not only that, but I will tell you why we need more of our growing corporations to invest in offshore skinning factories, often located in costal rain forests in south America, or in Africa, Somalia, or East India.

Before I continue my essay, in the interest of full disclosure, my company is attempting to establish a new skinning factory located in Cambodia. As you can imagine, the fussy, communist environmentalists are once again dragging another hard working CEO out of the office chair and into the courtroom.

Unlike other baby seal skinning factories, our baby seals will be harvested from the costal regions of Africa, and flown still live to the skinning factory where they will be skinned alive. Their skin will be used to make many important upper class women's accessories such as purses, shoes, and wallets. Because we only skin our seals live, we can sell the meat. Our consumer research has shown that Americans prefer non bile tainted seal meat in their tuna. Not only that, but the bile has proven to cause cancer in chimpanzees. All other parts of the young animal will be discarded, and burnt in an open pit.


Our architects have designed our factory with cost saving measure in mind. For example, due to the extraordinarily low cost of labor in Cambodia, we will not need machines to carry around the carcasses. We will line up the workers, and in a bucket brigade style, our employees will hand off the seal to the next station. When you take in to consideration that if we used a mechanical assembly line, we would have to pay well over $1,000,000 plus annual maintenance. With the going rate of labor, we can implement our human assembly line for a measly sum of $10 a day! Over the lifetime of the plant, the savings to add up to billions. Our research has also shown due to the low fat, low water diets of many lower income Africans eat, they there fore to not defecate or urinate as much. This will result in huge financial savings as they only need to use our restrooms once, perhaps twice a day.

As you can imagine, a baby seal skinning factory produces a lot of liquid waste. When the seals are cut open, their hearts still beat their blood from their bodies. This blood, mixed with the beasts urine, and fecal mater is drained onto the floor where gravity feeds it into small ruts dug on the sides of the factory. Due to cost reasons, rather than implement a full sewage system for the village, we have decided to drain this waste into the existing sewage rut carved by the citizens some months ago.

But enough about them, let me tell your the benefits that will be gained here, on our soil. As I have mentioned previously, baby seal skin is used to create shoes, purses and wallets for the wealthy. The average consumer cost of any of these devices can range in the mid thousands. But it does not have to be that way. Thanks to these communists, companies, such as the one for which I am the CEO of, cannot fill the growing demand for baby seal skin. Our research has shown that if we can bring the price of baby seal skin down to the tens of dollars instead of thousands, thanks to a thousand fold increase in demand, we can grow our revenue base over %100! Getting the price of baby seal skin down is easy, loosed environmental, and trade regulations so that I can build my factory! The only thing that keeps baby seal skin purses, wallets, shoes, and perhaps even such items as house wrap, and car seat covers out of your, Joe Sixpack's hand, is the oppressive environmentalists.

So please, call your local representative and tell them to tell the environmentalists to back off. Tell your representative that you want, no demand a low cost supply of baby seal skin.

[Oldman]

Leave it to you to continue to resort to making things up and resorting to nonsense. Did it ever occur to you that man can earn his living without exploiting animals. Have you no sense of compassion and understading towards animals. How can you be so creul as to justify a barbaric act that has absolutely nothing to do with preserving native culture.

Your misinformation is out of control. The native americans of this country are known to respect and be part of nature. They would never engage in such a barbaric act as the wholesale slaughter of baby seals anymore then they did promote the wholesale slaughter of American Bison in the 1800's. It was white man who did and still does use natives as an excuse to justify barbaric acts towards animals.

Of course you want to misuse the natives of the far north of Canada as an excuse to justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of baby seals.


The Inuit of Labrador also kill seals as part of their harvest. They sell that fur.

"In 2003, the estimated value of seal-based products was over
$40 million. Canada exports seal products in three forms:
meat, oil and skins. The seal hunt is an important mainstay,
bringing in millions of dollars in direct revenue to economically
disadvantaged coastal communities.
While recognizing the economic
benefits of the hunt for thousands
of families in Eastern Canada's
rural coastal communities, Canada
also takes into account the rights
of Canadian Aboriginals and Inuit,
for whom the seal hunt is an
important right, a source of food,
culture and tradition."

"PETA members dressed as bloodied baby seals gathered in front of the Olympic Countdown Clock on Thursday in protest of the annual Canadian seal hunt.

The group collided with Anaogok Alakee, an Inuit elder from Nunavut, who said the seal hunt isn’t about killing and selling; instead, it’s a way of life for her and her people.

“We’re protecting our own culture,” Alakee said. “(PETA’s) activity is killing a way of life.”

"<i>
Inuit need commercial seal hunt
More on...
•Aboriginal Peoples
•Economy
•Seal Hunt
•Charlie Watt
Share
FacebookDiggDeliciousMoreFeedback
Read the comments left on this page or add yours. Published by Senator Charlie Watt on 18 March 2009

Re: “WTO Retaliation Threatened as EU Seal Ban Draws Closer,” March 4 (Embassy)

I am writing to you concerning the seal hunt. Let me begin by stating there are two primary types of seal hunting in Canada: traditional Inuit hunting (subsistence) and commercial.

As an Inuk Senator and hunter, my concerns are for the economic well-being of my people. Contrary to popular belief, when the Inuit harvest seals, we use the entire animal: we use the pelts for clothing, the meat for sustenance, and the oil is very valuable to us. We rely on the seal hunt as one of our food sources. In the north, pre-packaged food is a luxury that few of us can afford, so we harvest our food from the land and the sea.

We perceive the seals differently than people in the south. Some groups like to portray them as cute, blue eyed animals with a playful character, but to us, they are the wild dogs of the sea and they are direct competitors for food. Seals, like humans, hunt fish. In areas prolific with seals, our ability to feed ourselves is greatly diminished.

Inuit hunters are few in number. We catch the seals and process them in the ocean and along the shore. The meat that we collect goes into the community freezer and is used to feed the less fortunate in our communities. This is our traditional way. As Inuk-Canadians we also believe we are keeping the ecosystem in balance – if we let the seal population get out of control – we might not have anything left for ourselves. This is a real threat. Since quotas on the harp seals were introduced, their number has tripled.

From an economic perspective, the commercial seal hunt is our main industry and the only source of income for many Inuit. In order to make up the volume that we need for our Inuit commercial hunt, we rely on other non-Inuit hunters to supplement our catch. We also rely on the Newfoundlanders to harvest the harp seals when they are migrating. This is a seasonal activity.

We appreciate the understanding of the European Community in their attempts to exclude the Inuit from their ban on the subsistence hunt. Nevertheless this is not the issue – we are concerned about the commercial hunt. We market our product abroad, and internationally. We rely on the sale of our pelts and by-products. We need this industry for our economic survival.

We strongly support the commercial hunt in Canada and we continue to support our brothers in Newfoundland and the lower St Laurence.

Nakurmiik,

Honourable Charlie Watt, Senator</i>


and

The Mohawk bands have routinely backed reefer units up to the rivers running through their reserve and netted and fast froze entire spawning runs of walleye and then shipped them south to the US.

Ontario's Wildlife management officers have reported this, but are unable to do anything about it since it is sovereign territory.


Baby seals are not permitted to be harvested. Please cease the silly lies.

http://geo.international.gc.ca/canada-europa/austria/pdf/Seal_hunt_17jan05-e.pdf.

S i x F a c t s A b o u t C a n a d a ’ s S e a l H u n t


1 ... supports the tradition of hunting
Canada establishes regulations for hunting in the context of its
healthy, abundant wildlife populations. The seal hunt in Canada is
not done for sport or leisure. Seals are considered an important
natural resource, one that generates a wide range of products - fur,
handicrafts, industrial oil, food for human and animal consumption
and seal oil capsules rich in Omega 3. Canadian regulations require
the fullest possible use of seals.
In 2003, the estimated value of seal-based products was over
$40 million. Canada exports seal products in three forms:
meat, oil and skins. The seal hunt is an important mainstay,
bringing in millions of dollars in direct revenue to economically
disadvantaged coastal communities.
While recognizing the economic
benefits of the hunt for thousands
of families in Eastern Canada's
rural coastal communities, Canada
also takes into account the rights
of Canadian Aboriginals and Inuit,
for whom the seal hunt is an
important right, a source of food,
culture and tradition.


2 ... ensures a humane hunt
The world continues to use animal-based food and clothing. Canada
works to ensure its animals are killed quickly and humanely by
implementing strict regulations. In the case of
seals, research shows that the methods used
in Canada compare favourably with those
used to kill any other wild or domestic animal.
The majority of seals are killed using firearms.
Clubs and hakapiks, which originated in the
traditions of First Nations and Inuit peoples,
are also used and have been found to be the
most humane way of hunting seals when ice
conditions are suitable.
A study by independent members of the
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association found that virtually all seals
taken during the hunt are in fact killed in a humane manner. Canada
requires a clear determination of death (blinking eye reflex test)
before seals can be processed.



3 ... prohibits the commercial hunt of seal pups
The seals hunted today must be independent animals, weaned of
their mothers. Although gruesome images of nursing seal pup
hunting continue to be circulated around the world, in fact, Canada
prohibits the commercial hunt of seal pups. Most of the animals are
taken at the beater stage of development, after their whitecoat has
moulted. Adult seals cannot be harvested when they are in whelping
patches or breeding grounds.

4 ... enforces against violations of seal hunt regulations
Fishery Officers closely monitor the hunt to ensure sealers comply
with Canada's Marine Mammal Regulations. These officers monitor
catches, ensure humane harvesting practices, and enforce regulations
and licence conditions. Canada's enforcement of seal hunt
regulations is thorough and comprehensive - it includes: aerial
patrols, vessel patrols, dockside inspections of vessels at landing
sites and inspections at buying/processing facilities. Observers
are also deployed on the ice and on many vessels to monitor
compliance with regulations.
Between 1999-2004 there were a total of 379 violations detected
in the seal hunt, resulting in 250 warnings and 94 charges, with
convictions upheld in 57 cases.

5 ... takes survival of seal species into account
There are six species of seals
found in Atlantic Canada. Four
of these species-harp, hooded,
grey and ringed - may be
hunted commercially. These
species are not endangered
and the number of animals
that may be hunted is
established in proportion
to the health and abundance of each population.
Scientific studies confirm that Canada's seal hunt has no
negative impact on the sustainability of its seal species. The herd
is now estimated at more than five million, nearly triple what it was
in the 1970’s.

6 ... researches seals and their ecosystems
Canada has maintained an active seal research program for many
years to achieve a better scientific understanding of seals, such as
population dynamics, trends in reproductive performance, survival,
migration, diving behaviour and diet analysis.
Today, our leading scientists are studying the seals' interaction with
other components in the marine ecosystem, including the relationship
between fish stocks and seals. This kind of research not only
promotes a better understanding of seals and marine ecosystems,
but will help ensure balance in Canada's ongoing resource management
following an ecosystem based approach.

Canada takes its role as a steward of the natural
environment very seriously in protecting its wildlife and
other natural resources and it remains committed to
the conservation and sustainability of its ecosystems for
future generations. Canada ensures the protection of
species at risk and diligently regulates hunting where
animal populations are abundant, as in the case of seals.
The Government of Canada regulates the seal hunt
through its Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The
proportion of animals that may be hunted is based on
sound conservation principles, as well as a commitment
to peer reviewed scientific advice to help ensure the
continued health and abundance
of seal populations.
While Canada certainly respects
individuals' right to oppose
the seal hunt, many myths about
the seal hunt remain. Canada
encourages people to form their
opinions based on the facts.
Canada ...
FR4-2/2004
0-662-68607
©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2004 www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal-phoque

[Oldman]

Whose fault is this? The American government or the Canadian government? Does not the Canadian Government have soverign rights over Canada or is Canada just a nother territory of the USA where the USA dictates all rules and regulations?

See NAFTA


The do something about it. Demand that YOUR government create and enforce environmental regulations that prohibit the destruction of the environment. You have a very misguided idea that governement enivironmental rules and regulations do not even exist and that the only options are to either allow the environmental damage that forestry creates or to shut down the timber industry.

It has been proven over and over again that industry can operate and create jobs without destroying the environment in the process. It is the job of government to protect the environment by rule of law.


It isn't that easy. When you have governments balancing economic growth and protection there is a lot of play going on in regulating.
Besides, if you regulate the Oil Sands to make them environmentally secure, the sands become non-competitive on the market. There go all those jobs that you want your sealers and trappers to have.

[Stu2630]

Noodlebug

Yes, this is a good debate, isn't it? :)

We attach too few animal characteristics on humans. And that applies to both arguments, animals in the wild (and for a long time, our own ancestors) have/had no issues with nudity, public sex, urination, defecation, or indeed animal cruelty. And most of them seem pretty happy and content and live good lives when they're not being trapped or eaten.

Because of our intelligence and dexterity we have been able to make ourselves masters of the planet and, to a large extent, masters of our own destiny. I really don't want to revert back to the visceral life of an animal and I don't believe most people want that either.

Some morality serves or reinforces a functional purpose - hygeine, community relations, gene preservation etc. Other morality serves no discernible purpose at all - and indeed is not universal in all human cultures - such as the nudity taboo.

The fact that a cultural practice is not universal across all cultures does not invalidate it. Oddly, nudity (or at least nudity outside of certain mutually agreed contexts) is a taboo in very many diverse cultures aside from our own.

In many cultures, murder is not taboo either, especially the murder of someone who is not a member of that community. In some cultures, cannibalism plays a role while in others, rape is taken for granted. The people in these cultures all consider that their cultural norms serve or reinforce a functional purpose and that's why they adhere to them. They may be right, even though such practices are seriously at odds with our culture and values.

What is wrong with challenging, or at least questioning conventions that make no sense?

There is nothing wrong with challenging or questioning a cultural norm. And you are right that these norms are dynamic and are constantly being modified. You are perfectly at liberty to state that you believe the taboo against nudity is archaic and serves no purpose and should be abandoned, just as a swinger is entitled to say that couples should enjoy sex with people other than their own partners. But going a step further by enacting your preferred behaviour as a means of trying to engineer change is not legitimate - it is deplorable. Just as it would be wrong for a swinger to try to temp the wife of a friend into bed to show how harmless, and how much fun, it was to vary your sex life, it is also wrong to disregard, and even attempt to readjust, public sensibilities with regard to nudity by stripping off in public. In other words, freedom of speech is one thing, but you can't behave as you like if it hurts, offends or upsets others.

Why should the irrational and purely cultural objections have more value than the well known benefits of the nudist lifestyle?

I don't entirely buy your statement that our antithesis towards nudity is necessarily "irrational". I think that the mystique of private body parts of members of the opposite sex enhances both sexual attraction and sex itself. You may not agree, but if you don't, then that's because it doesn't work that way for you. But it does for me and for millions of others like me: probably a big majority of non-nudists. That's why men like looking at pictures of topless women.

Also, I don't accept that there are any significant benefits of "the nudist lifestyle". I fail to see how the presence of a pair of swimming trunks or a bikini is so detrimental to life.

Cultural objections are important. We are cultural beings and we take our culture very seriously - so seriously that people are often willing to protect it. If you choose to divest yourself of one particular cultural tradition, along with your clothes, that's your choice. But it doesn't give you the right to disrespect and ignore the manifestation of that cultural tradition by others.

The momentum of recent cultural history seems to indicate our time is coming, in many ways it is almost here.....And the chance is increasing as our society changes - you are much more likely to see someone naked in public now than in the 1950s

I disagree. Of course there are now a few naked events in various locations around the world, but there are also moves in the contrary direction. How often have we heard on here about schoolchildren not being willing to shower in each other's presence? How often do we read complaints from nudists because textiles are wearing shorts in the sauna, or a gym has installed individual, instead of communal, showers? How often do I see people here griping because they have lost a nudist beach or park? And there has been a major decline in nudism in some parts of Europe, notably Germany and Scandinavia.

That ultra-conservative backlash everyone's waiting for? It ain't gonna happen.

I wouldn't put money on that if I were you. We have hit a major recession, and history teaches us that, in such times, conservatism generally flourishes. We will have an election next year and it's looking increasingly likely that we will have a right-wing government by next summer. In spite of his hyperbole, your new president is simply continuing where his predecessor left off in so many ways. It would not surprise me if, in a few years from now, instead of expending energy and resources trying to change the wider society, the nudist movement doesn't find itself having to focus on fighting just to survive. So look after friendly textiles like me, cos Boy! Are you're gonna need friends!! :D

Stu

[Oldman]

Then use pollution controls to eliminate the crap.


And those controls elimiate the crap to the point where the air and water are as pure as before the plant was built?
Oh yeah, pollution of air, water and land is better than dead adult seals or trapped animals.



You know that over 400,000 baby seals are slaughtered each year and that this


Look another Lie by Sanslines.
No baby seals are killed.

Try posting sans Lies rather than beaucoup Lies.

BTW, Still waiting for your acceptance of the bet that the Oil Sands or Big Forestry create more harm to the environment than all the hunting, trapping and sealing.

You seem to be able to miss that part of the post. Show a little cajones. Make the bet and stand behind your ideas. Say $1000 held in escrow?

[Sanslines]

The Inuit of Labrador also kill seals as part of their harvest. They sell that fur.

"In 2003, the estimated value of seal-based products was over
$40 million.


Posting government propoganda does nothing to justify or change or sugar coat the inhumane slaughter of defensless baby seals. The fact is that the world does not believe this propoganda (as well as most compassionate Canadian citizens). They have presented their cases against this senseless slaughter and have won world opinion on their side. As more and more public opinions turns against the Canadian baby seal slaughter, and are actively boycotting Canadian seal products as well as other products in support of the baby seal ban, the Canadian government will be shamed into changing their cruel policies towards defenseless mammals.

These are the facts and no amount of propoganda presented by those who see animals as exploitable resources and justify the horrors of animal abuse will stop this movement. The day of judgement has arrived and those dinosaurs who cling to last century's abusive policies can either change with the times or be left behind. As the day of dinosaur extinction came to pass, so will the selfish and inhumane dinosaur attitude of some men.

[Sanslines]

And those controls elimiate the crap to the point where the air and water are as pure as before the plant was built?
Oh yeah, pollution of air, water and land is better than dead adult seals or trapped animals.

No matter how many times you repeat this fallacious nonsense it still does not change the fact that no one has ever suggested trading pollution of air and water for the slaughter of defensless baby seals. When you post such irrational nonsense you only demonstrate that you are no longer capable of rational discourse.


Look another Lie by Sanslines.
No baby seals are killed.

No matter how many insults or false accusations that you throw my way, you will not change the fact that baby seals are killed. This is so well documented in all of the literature and factual posts that I have made and yet you refuse to acknowledge facts and again resort to name calling. When you post such fallcious nonsense and personal attack you only demonstrate that you are no longer capable of intelligent and rational discourse.

Try posting sans Lies rather than beaucoup Lies.

No matter how many false accusations or insults that you post against me, you will not change the fact that the world is steadfastly against the baby seal slaughter and is taking action to stop it. Face it, you have lost not only this debate by resorting to irrational and illogical rants but you really have lost the war as the world is going to shut down the seal killing fields. Go ahead, keep hurling the insults at me. Acuuse me of lies and post more links to filthy beastiality sites with your unwarranted invitation to 'join my friends there'. You only demonstrate what kind of a person that you are by resorting to such filthy methods of personal attack.

BTW, Still waiting for your acceptance of the bet that the Oil Sands or Big Forestry create more harm to the environment than all the hunting, trapping and sealing.

You bet is ludicrous and is based upon fantasy and a refusal to acknowledge anything that I have posted about government's ability to control or prevent pollution. You continue to conviently ignore whatever I have posted to address this specific issue with facts and again resort to childish nonsense because you know that you have lost this debate. You further show just how cruel and heartless you are by promoting the cruel slaughter of a defenseless creature and attempt to support such a barbarous act with government propoganda, outright distortions, irrational rages, and non stop viscious insults hurled at me. Your true colors have shone through and you are not a very nice or compassionate man.

[Oldman]

Posting government propoganda does nothing to justify or change or sugar coat the inhumane slaughter of defensless baby seals. The fact is that the world does not believe this propoganda (as well as most compassionate Canadian citizens). They have presented their cases against this senseless slaughter and have won world opinion on their side. As more and more public opinions turns against the Canadian baby seal slaughter, and are actively boycotting Canadian seal products as well as other products in support of the baby seal ban, the Canadian government will be shamed into changing their cruel policies towards defenseless mammals.


Let's see. You keep saying that we can trust government to keep the polluting industries from damaging the environment by enacting regulations, but at the same time, the very same government doesn't tell the truth about the seal hunt and doesn't enforce the laws governing the hunt.

Hmmm... which government do we put our trust in? Trying to have it both ways again?


BTW, your insistence on lying about baby seals only makes you seem irrational and a nutter as our brit friends would say.

[Oldman]

No matter how many times you repeat this fallacious nonsense it still does not change the fact that no one has ever suggested trading pollution of air and water for the slaughter of seals. When you post such irrational nonsense you only demonstrate that you are no longer capable of rational discourse.

Just following your own illogic.
I am sorry that your own inability to think your argument out fully to the end makes it easy to point out the logical fallacies within them.




No mater how any insults or false accusations that you throw my way, you will not change the fact that baby seals are killed.

This is so well documented in all of the factual posts that I have made and yet you refuse to acknowledge facts and again resort to name calling. When you post such fallcious nonsense and personal attack you only demonstrate that you are no longer capable of intelligent and rational discourse.

Let's see, anything written by the IAWF or any other anti-sealing groups are factual, nothing else is.

You seem to believe only what you want to believe. Interesting that you believe that all of the fisheries people... the guys on the ice, as well as their political masters are all lying.
Not one fisheries inspector has broken silence and backdoored any info to the newspapers?

All a big conspiracy by the sealers. They have bought off two entire ministries. One Federal and one Provincial. And they still make money after buying off all those officials.



You bet is ludicrous and is based upon a refusal to acknowledge anything that I have posted about government's ability to control or prevent pollution. You continue to conviently ignore whatever I have posted to address this specific issue with facts and again resort to childish nonsense because you know that you have lost this debate. You further show just how cruel and heartless you are by promoting the cruel slaughter of a defensless creature and attempting to support such a barbarous act with government propoganda, outright distortions, irrational rages, and insults hurled at me. Your true colors have shone through and you are not a very nice or compassionate man.


And your mother dresses you funny.


Take the bet, coward. You claim that it is better for the natives and the newfoundlanders to abandon their homes and culture and move to Alberta to work in the Oil patch, and that this is based on sound environmental facts. I offer you a chance to prove this, and you cut and run.

You accuse all those newfoundlanders of being cruel, and inhumane and uncaring about their environment, but insist that they should abandon their environment and take a job polluting Alberta, or logging large scale portions of the Boreal forest... one of the most ecologically sensitive lands around, where roads cut to the logging sites take decades and more to disappear, and where streams are easily silted by run off from logged sites.

[Sanslines]

And your mother dresses you funny.

Now you have resorted to insulting my mother with your own personal attack. That's pretty sad and further demonstrates what kind of person you are. Just how low will you go with your personal attacks.


Take the bet, coward. You claim that it is better for the natives and the newfoundlanders to abandon their homes and culture and move to Alberta to work in the Oil patch, and that this is based on sound environmental facts. I offer you a chance to prove this, and you cut and run.

You accuse all those newfoundlanders of being cruel, and inhumane and uncaring about their environment, but insist that they should abandon their environment and take a job polluting Alberta, or logging large scale portions of the Boreal forest... one of the most ecologically sensitive lands around, where roads cut to the logging sites take decades and more to disappear, and where streams are easily silted by run off from logged sites.


Insulting me by calling me a coward will get you no where. I have never accused Newfoundlands of being cruel, heartless, etc. This is just another example of you posting false nonsense and shows just how desperate you are given that you have lost this debate. Face it, the debate is over and the only thing that you can do now is to continue your personal attack rage against me and post irrational statements that have no basis in anything that I have said (or reality for that matter of fact).

The baby seal slaughter will end. The debate ended a long time ago and I really grow bored with your endless insults. Face it, you have lost. Furthermore, this forum now knows exactly what kind of an abusive person you are. Case closed.

[Noodlebug]

Because of our intelligence and dexterity we have been able to make ourselves masters of the planet and, to a large extent, masters of our own destiny. I really don't want to revert back to the visceral life of an animal and I don't believe most people want that either.

Don't be so sure that we are masters of our own destiny. We are ultimately just another animal species on this planet, subject to the same natural forces - at least that is the argument in a book I recently read, "Straw Dogs" by John Gray. Our illusion of superiority is somewhat overstated by our anthrocentric view of the world.


The fact that a cultural practice is not universal across all cultures does not invalidate it. Oddly, nudity (or at least nudity outside of certain mutually agreed contexts) is a taboo in very many diverse cultures aside from our own.

In many cultures, murder is not taboo either, especially the murder of someone who is not a member of that community. In some cultures, cannibalism plays a role while in others, rape is taken for granted. The people in these cultures all consider that their cultural norms serve or reinforce a functional purpose and that's why they adhere to them. They may be right, even though such practices are seriously at odds with our culture and values.

And yet all these cultures are human, with such a wide diversity of tolerances and cultural norms. When you say "our culture and values" perhaps you should be saying "my personal culture and values." There are people living in our country, our cities who consider murder and rape as not being taboo, just look at the crime figures. Even cannibalism cases very occasionally make the news.

You still have not come up with a good reason, beyond the cultural (ie irrational) why the nudity taboo is beneficial to society. Your benefit is because you don't like to see nudity, but that's only a benefit because you are programmed by the nudity taboo not to like to see nudity. It's totally circular and self-reinforcing. It's not a universal human characteristic not to like nudity, it's not even a cultural universal - if anything most people instinctively react positively to nudity!

The only possible argument I can think of why the taboo exists is related to another cultural taboo, that of sex. But even then there is inconsistency because it's not just sexual organs that are subject to the nudity taboo, and of course in other cultures without the nudity taboo, the sex taboo survives unscathed. I assume the sex taboo exists for reasons relating to gene protection - it discourages promiscuity and encourages pair bonding in private, meaning the female is less likely to produce another male's offspring. I suppose the reasons the taboos exist is because of those visceral animal instincts which you previously suggested we have long ago overcome?

There is nothing wrong with challenging or questioning a cultural norm. And you are right that these norms are dynamic and are constantly being modified. You are perfectly at liberty to state that you believe the taboo against nudity is archaic and serves no purpose and should be abandoned, just as a swinger is entitled to say that couples should enjoy sex with people other than their own partners.

Because swinging is analogous to nudism? Or do you just enjoy linking those two very different activities together to tar them with the same brush?

But going a step further by enacting your preferred behaviour as a means of trying to engineer change is not legitimate - it is deplorable.

Firstly, that wasn't proposed in my original quote, however it is a natural step. Any behaviour you can imagine, most of it perfectly innocuous, must have been enacted by one person initially for the first time. Was the first man to shave his beard behaving deplorably? The first woman to wear a hat? Social change comes from behaviour catching on and becoming popular. Initially it is unpopular - that doesn't mean people disapprove of it (although some might), it just means not many people are doing it.

What you actually think is deplorable is public nudity, not enacting new behaviour in general. And that is your own prejudice, not that of society as a whole. New behaviour is being enacted all the time, to the bemusement of the preceding generations. I don't necessarily like a lot of it (mobile phones on the train, smoking outside doorways etc), but I don't consider it deplorable. If enough people think something is deplorable, and it is demonstrably detrimental to society, then there will be a push for it to be outlawed. Nudity in public in and of itself has never been illegal in the UK, and I'd be surprised if it was in the majority of other non-fundamentalist nations.

So it's a free country, people can do what they like within the law. I would still suggest nudists show consideration. for those who do irrationally find nudity offensive, but equally I think the persecution of the innocent nude is wrong.

Just as it would be wrong for a swinger to try to temp the wife of a friend into bed to show how harmless, and how much fun, it was to vary your sex life, it is also wrong to disregard, and even attempt to readjust, public sensibilities with regard to nudity by stripping off in public. In other words, freedom of speech is one thing, but you can't behave as you like if it hurts, offends or upsets others.

Again, I don't see how the two are analogous, and I don't see how you can then allow yourself to hurt, offend and upset those who like to be naked by denying them that right. Why do we have to give, why can't you give? We are the public too, we have sensibilities too, the majority of us have been courteous and considerate in the face of extreme prejudice for many years, and for all you know the way things are going we might be the majority now! Even if we are not, the oppression of a minority's rights by the majority is soooo 20th century.


I don't entirely buy your statement that our antithesis towards nudity is necessarily "irrational". I think that the mystique of private body parts of members of the opposite sex enhances both sexual attraction and sex itself. You may not agree, but if you don't, then that's because it doesn't work that way for you. But it does for me and for millions of others like me: probably a big majority of non-nudists. That's why men like looking at pictures of topless women.

Why are breasts private? What have breasts got to do with sex? That's what's irrational about it, amongst other things. If it was just the sexual organs themselves, it might make a little sense, but you throw in anything slightly curved. In any event, mystique is hardly a rational foundation for a taboo. Elsewhere in nature it is the prominent public display of sexual organs which enhances sexual attraction, so for humans to cover them up for that reason is counterintuitive. In any event, we all know what they look like, and I'm sure the majority of couples, nudist or otherwise are intimately familiar with each other's bodies, and their sexual attraction and sex is not "less enhanced" because of that.

Also, I don't accept that there are any significant benefits of "the nudist lifestyle". I fail to see how the presence of a pair of swimming trunks or a bikini is so detrimental to life.

Then you need to try it! It's not detrimental any more than the presence of a piece of damp fabric down your pants during your working day is detrimental. But it is pointless, and a lot more comfortable without it.

Cultural objections are important. We are cultural beings and we take our culture very seriously - so seriously that people are often willing to protect it. If you choose to divest yourself of one particular cultural tradition, along with your clothes, that's your choice. But it doesn't give you the right to disrespect and ignore the manifestation of that cultural tradition by others.

Tell me about it! Look at poor old Oldman trying to defend his cultural tradition against the onslaught of Sanslines and his cultural tradition. They certainly take their own cultures very seriously. But some cultures become out of date, some die out and new cultures grow and develop and evolve. Cultures clash all over the place, obviously each individual places more weight on their own culture than those that threaten it. But who says your culture is more valid or valuable? In 10,000 years there will be no nudity taboo and thus no nudists. (And very possibly no humans). Culture is important in the here and now, and people have to get along, but none of us can predict the future other than to say it will be different and we won't be here.


I disagree. Of course there are now a few naked events in various locations around the world, but there are also moves in the contrary direction. How often have we heard on here about schoolchildren not being willing to shower in each other's presence? How often do we read complaints from nudists because textiles are wearing shorts in the sauna, or a gym has installed individual, instead of communal, showers? How often do I see people here griping because they have lost a nudist beach or park? And there has been a major decline in nudism in some parts of Europe, notably Germany and Scandinavia.

You are piecing together a lot of disparate pieces of evidence to create a phantom counter-nudity movement! This is a nudist website so when they complain about something, we read about it. And you in particular seem specifically keen to leap upon anything that may support your point of view and give it undue prominence by repitition in thread after thread. So I'm surprised you only came up with only 5 things, two of which have a direct causal link to each other!

Truth is, society doesn't change in one convenient, consistent direction. Its possible both for tolerance of nudity to be at its highest ever level, for nudism to be as popular as it ever was, and for more people to be ashamed of their own bodies than ever before. There are different forces acting on society at different times, and the same force can have different effects - the permissive society, the availability of sexualised imagery can make one person feel liberated and another feel inadequate. You can have Scandinavians wanting to be more like Americans at the same time as you have Americans wanting to be more like Europeans. But like I say, the occasional detrimental social change does not equate to a conservative backlash. Religion and prudery have been on a steady decline (in the West) since the end of the Victorian age and I think our society is better for it. I would rather live in the permissive West than in an Islamic state where unfettered religion and prudery quite frankly make life pretty intolerable, and I would find it deplorable for anyone to impose those particular cultural values (even westernised Lite versions) on me.

[Oldman]

Now you have resorted to insulting my mother with your own personal attack. That's pretty sad and further demonstrates what kind of person you are. Just how low will you go with your personal attacks.

ROTFLMAO




Insulting me by calling me a coward will get you no where. I have never accused Newfoundlands of being cruel, heartless, etc. This is just another example of you posting false nonsense and shows just how desperate you are given that you have lost this debate. Face it, the debate is over and the only thing that you can do now is to continue your personal attack rage against me and post irrational statements that have no basis in anything that I have said (or reality for that matter of fact).

The baby seal slaughter will end. The debate ended a long time ago and I really grow bored with your endless insults. Face it, you have lost. Furthermore, this forum now knows exactly what kind of an abusive person you are. Case closed.


No baby seals are killed. Can't get around that. So you are arguing a strawman in any case. Just as you have done so often, and in other threads. You have said that they engage in a inhumane cruel activity, by inference, that makes them cruel and heartless. Since logically only a cruel person would engage in inhumane activities.

By golly, you're so easy. All you can do is cut and paste agitprop from differing ant-seal groups and call it an argument. And btw, some of the quotes i gave you were from Inuit elders. Those same people you gushed over as being in tune with nature. They support the hunt and give good reasons for that. You are right, the debate is over, you cut and ran like the intellectual coward that you are.

[richo]

Really? I'm not sure I understand the difference between logic and rationality.
Rationality involves sensibility, reason, sound judgment... Think of is as a sanity check. Logic is simply a process of building to a result based on previous results or stated assumptions ("valid demonstration and inference" as the wikipedia refers to it).

Something can be a logical conclusion but not be rational. Likewise something can be reasonable and not be logical (though that's rarer).
We have productive, lucrative and even environmentally-friendly ways of disposing of animal carcases; why don't we dispose of human bodies in the same way? That would be logical, rational and practical, wouldn't it? The reason we don't do that is because we attach to dead human bodies an entirely irrational value and it would offend our entirely illogical sensibilities to treat our dead in that way. Similarly, we have an entirely illogical perception of the naked body.
But that's a cultural choice, not a legal one. Again, emotional choices are fine as long as they're not encoded in law.
Logic is a wonderful tool human beings can use for solving problems, but it is cold and soulless, and we must never let it be the master of our value system or lifestyle.
Beauty, soul, and value are in the eye of the beholder. They are not dependent upon emotion or irrationality. To assume so is to bias the context of the issue to before the issue is even discussed.
The world is still a big place. We can accommodate wooded areas for people to go nature walking and other wooded areas for rally car driving. Similarly, we can accommodate nudists on some beaches and textiles on others. Surely that is a rational answer.
That is a rational answer - for beaches. Now, accomodate nudists in all parts of life, not just the beach, and we'll be approaching the issue.
I know. America seems to have adopted the bizarre notion of "tyranny of the majority", as though that "majority", i.e. the people, are stupid and intolerant and can't be trusted to govern themselves, so they need some kind of governing elite to do their thinking, and decision-making, for them. That is profoundly undemocratic and patronising to the population which the government is supposed to serve. I don't subscribe to that.
Non-caucasians outnumber caucasians in the world. By your logic, if they decide to strip causacians of our freedoms, they should be able to - simply because they outnumber us (assuming you're caucasian). I'm sure you can see the immediate fallacy in that. A simpler example is the concept of slavery, that all modern societies have eliminated - and which was usually a majority inflicting upon a minority.

"The people", as a whole, aren't always rational, nor is the presence of power always corellated to the proper use of power. That's why checks and balances are needed.

The point of a government - at least here in the US - is to serve *all* the people, not just the people in power, or the people who have a majority.

[Stu2630]

Noodlebug

When you say "our culture and values" perhaps you should be saying "my personal culture and values." There are people living in our country, our cities who consider murder and rape as not being taboo, just look at the crime figures. Even cannibalism cases very occasionally make the news.

I'm talking about the prevailing culture; in any society, there are always anomolous individuals who live outside of that culture. In one respect, nudists may be viewed in that way.

You still have not come up with a good reason, beyond the cultural (ie irrational) why the nudity taboo is beneficial to society. Your benefit is because you don't like to see nudity, but that's only a benefit because you are programmed by the nudity taboo not to like to see nudity. It's totally circular and self-reinforcing.

That is a good reason. Yes, I am programmed not to like nudity. Yes, I could work to de-programme myself so that it wouldn't bother me any more. But I like my programming - and I like it so much that I have programmed my own children to be the same as me in that regard. We are all, including you, culturally programmed in all sorts of ways and we can choose to de-programme ourselves or not. Generally, we don't do that unless either we have a burning desire to do so (like some nudists) or else we are forced to. Public nudity activists are trying to force this de-programming onto people who have not asked for it and don't want it.

It's not a universal human characteristic not to like nudity, it's not even a cultural universal - if anything most people instinctively react positively to nudity!

How people respond to nudity depends entirely upon the context of it (i.e. the time, place and who is present). In a gym or swimming pool changing room, there would normally be no reaction, so long as you were a member of the appropriate sex. But next time you meet your kids from primary school, do it naked and see how "positively" people react to is. People often attempt to react positively because of embarrassment, or a fear of appearing to be prudish (which, these days, is a serious crime against being regarded as "cool").

The only possible argument I can think of why the taboo exists is related to another cultural taboo, that of sex.

The sex organs have two functions, excretory (which repels us) and reproductive (which involves a behaviour most consider to be deeply private). Consequently, the exposure of these organs is, in most developed cultures, something which is acceptable only in strictly limited contexts.

I suppose the reasons the taboos exist is because of those visceral animal instincts which you previously suggested we have long ago overcome?

Many cultural norms and traditions can be traced back to our primitive ancestry, but they lost their practical or survival imperative and morphed into cultural norms. Shaking hands upon greeting is one such example.

Because swinging is analogous to nudism? Or do you just enjoy linking those two very different activities together to tar them with the same brush?

When I analogize an activity with nudism, it does not mean that I consider the character of that activity to be the same as nudism. When I talk about nudism, I am meaning ONLY the non-sexual passtime/lifestyle enjoyed by members of this forum. Nevertheless, swinging and nudism do have a couple of things in common: 1. they are minority interests, and 2. they are carried out in the presence of like-minded enthusiasts, otherwise there is a risk of causing serious offence to others.

Firstly, that wasn't proposed in my original quote, however it is a natural step. Any behaviour you can imagine, most of it perfectly innocuous, must have been enacted by one person initially for the first time. Was the first man to shave his beard behaving deplorably? The first woman to wear a hat?

These developments did not cause grave offence to others, so you are not comparing like with like. Sex causes offence to others, so we don't allow it in public and swingers have to enjoy their recreation in private or very remote places. Nudity causes offence, so that, too, is rightly restricted. The fact that "if everyone sees it they may become de-sensitized to it" is immaterial, whether the "it" is sex or nakedness.

Nudity in public in and of itself has never been illegal in the UK, and I'd be surprised if it was in the majority of other non-fundamentalist nations.

Nor is singing obscene language, or having an orgy in the local park, or wearing a tee-shiirt which bears a profane image or word. What is illegal is using words or behaviour, or displaying any sign or visible representation, which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress. Inappropriate nudity can certainly invoke these emotions and the courts have recognised that and convicted nudists and activists.

equally I think the persecution of the innocent nude is wrong.

The innocent nude" is the nude who, before getting naked, takes reasonable steps to ensure that nobody is present who might be offended by their nudity.

Why do we have to give, why can't you give?

I am willing to give. I have said that I am willing to give up a reasonable proportion of the public spaces I enjoy for nudist use. But I also want my share or public spaces where I can enjoy a certainty of not having to see nudity.

and for all you know the way things are going we might be the majority now!

I think you know you are not in the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Even if we are not, the oppression of a minority's rights by the majority is soooo 20th century.

You are not a member of a minority in the same way that, say, black people are a minority. Black people are born black, remain black 24/7 for their entire lives and die black. They don't choose to be black and can't change their blackness even if they wanted to. You are a minority in the same way that bikers are in a minority. You choose to be a member of that minority, mainly as a recreational activity, and you can choose not to participate in nudism simply by the act of donning a pair of shorts, just as a biker can choose to get on a bus.

Why are breasts private? What have breasts got to do with sex?

Because (a) they have been sexualised by our culture, and (b) most women regard their breasts as intimate, in a similar way to their genitals.

In any event, mystique is hardly a rational foundation for a taboo.

It doesn't have to be 'rational' any more than setting up a Christmas tree is 'rational'. The mystique is a source of stimulation and pleasure which motivates sexual attraction and also sexual activity.

Then you need to try it! It's not detrimental any more than the presence of a piece of damp fabric down your pants during your working day is detrimental. But it is pointless, and a lot more comfortable without it.

You are more comfortable without trunks - I'm more comfortable with them. I dislike being naked anywhere and I minimise the time I spend naked.

But some cultures become out of date, some die out and new cultures grow and develop and evolve.

I have no objection to cultures evolving. What I object to is minority groups coming along and trying to re-engineer my culture to suiot their own ideological beliefs or lifestyle preferences.

And you in particular seem specifically keen to leap upon anything that may support your point of view and give it undue prominence by repitition in thread after thread. So I'm surprised you only came up with only 5 things

My point was that the evolution you were referring to is not a simple transition from nudity-taboo to nudity-acceptance. Firstly, there are movements in both directions and, secondly, nudity is not accepted nor acceptable in most public places today and there is no indication that it is going to be any time soon.

Religion and prudery have been on a steady decline (in the West) since the end of the Victorian age and I think our society is better for it.

I would agree with that, but remember that Victorian prudery was an extreme which lasted a few decades, and so it could well be expected that it would re-adjust to a more moderate and liberal situation. I have a photograph of my Dad and my aunt playing in the sea at Scarborough in the 1930s. They are wearing swimwear that would have horrified the public just three decades before, yet would look entirely appropriate, and even fashionable, today. When I visited Denmark in the 1980s, nudism was so common that about a quarter of all beaches were nudist (fribadestrande) and all the others were full of topless women. Nowadays, you are hard pressed to find a nudist on any other than a handfull of the most popular nudist beaches in Denmark, and about 80%of women are wearing tops.

I think that nudism will only survive in the long term if it is willing to enter into a dialogue with the textile majority and indicate that it is willing to respect textile values. If it does so, then it is in a position to demand respect for nudist values - and more and better nudist venues.

Stu

[Oldman]

Tell me about it! Look at poor old Oldman trying to defend his cultural tradition against the onslaught of Sanslines and his cultural tradition. They certainly take their own cultures very seriously. But some cultures become out of date, some die out and new cultures grow and develop and evolve. Cultures clash all over the place, obviously each individual places more weight on their own culture than those that threaten it. But who says your culture is more valid or valuable? In 10,000 years there will be no nudity taboo and thus no nudists. (And very possibly no humans). Culture is important in the here and now, and people have to get along, but none of us can predict the future other than to say it will be different and we won't be here.

Sansline was a lot of fun. He justs gets flustered and then makes logic errors.

Not to mention that he likes to use strawman arguments, such as the 400,000 baby seals, when it is illegal to kill baby seals(whitecoats) and they aren't killed.

But he does twist himself into knots trying to denigrate governments as untrustworthy and lying in one paragraph yet in the next claiming that they can be trusted to protect the land from pollution.

It's been a slice and a period of amusement. But I am off tomorrow AM for my season at the club, and won't be in front of a computer until November.

Have yourself a good year, and .... if you have to wear clothes, wear fur! :)

[Sanslines]

http://digg.com/pets_animals/First_Baby_Seal_Killed_Today_In_2009_Canadian_Hunt ing_Season/t.jpg (http://digg.com/d1mzPp)
First Baby Seal Killed Today In 2009 Canadian Hunting Season (http://digg.com/d1mzPp)

care2.com — Baby seals are being killed on the ice in Canada as you read this - observers from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) confirmed the first seal death just moments ago.



Funny how some just won't accept reality and keep repeating the same old tired false information over and over again with absolutely NO proof to back any of it up. Sadly, there are far too many baby seals killed and this has been documented over and over again in many respected sources of information. What is the response to this? Posts of propoganda, opinions based upon nothing but hot air, and a steady stream of personal attack. Is any fooled by this opinionated deception? I don't think so . That's the problem and hence why they keep resorted to personal attack over and over again. They lost the debate and just can't accept that. Too bad they just can't accept that they are losing out to the environmentalists and animal rights activists who care deeply about the environment and animals. If animal abuse is justified, can human abuse be far behind from such individuals? Is such callous disregard for life the sign of a caring and compassionate person? I think not. Just goes to show what kinds of cruel and inhumane people that we have to deal with on this planet.

[Sanslines]

Tell me about it! Look at poor old Oldman trying to defend his cultural tradition against the onslaught of Sanslines and his cultural tradition. They certainly take their own cultures very seriously. But some cultures become out of date, some die out and new cultures grow and develop and evolve. Cultures clash all over the place, obviously each individual places more weight on their own culture than those that threaten it. But who says your culture is more valid or valuable? In 10,000 years there will be no nudity taboo and thus no nudists. (And very possibly no humans). Culture is important in the here and now, and people have to get along, but none of us can predict the future other than to say it will be different and we won't be here.

Yes poor old Oldman......cant' defend his position with facts so he resorts to outright fallacies and a steady stream of personal attack. He knows that he is losing the battle and can't present a viable defense of his position. In the end, it doens't really matter how many disguisting attacks that he launches against myself or others for no one will take him seriously and we will all just brush him aside for the irrelevant person that he is. He certainly knows this and hence why he resorts to such immature tactics. We certainly have no time for those who promote heartless animal cruelty for we know that they are anything but compassionate and caring individuals. Anyone who would openly advocates the slaughter of defenseless creatures has much to answer for. Some day they will.

Fur, Cruelty and Animal Rights - Baby Seals Clubbed on the Ice

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>h1 = document.getElementById("title").getElementsByTagName("h1")[0];h1.innerHTML = widont(h1.innerHTML);</SCRIPT>By Doris Lin (http://animalrights.about.com/mbiopage.htm), About.com

The Seal Slaughter

Every year, hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals are clubbed to death in front of their mothers by Canadian fishermen. The quota set by the Canadian government for 2008 was 275,000 seals. The event has turned into an annual spectacle, with animal protection groups and the media attempting to document the slaughter from ships or helicopters. The Canadian government and the sealers themselves attempt to block access to the area to avoid publicity (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/2006-04-13-01.asp).

A Change in Policy

After images of pure-white baby seals being clubbed to death caused publicity problems for the Canadian government, the seal slaughter was restructured in 1987 to target seals over 2 weeks old, when the seals’ coats are beginning to turn grey. The Canadian government claims that these 2-week-old seals are adults, even though they are still too young to swim and cannot escape.

Still Alive

In 2001, veterinarians who examined the skulls of skinned seals concluded that over 40% of the seals were still conscious and alive when they were skinned (http://www.canadiansealhunt.com/skinnedalive.html).


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="90%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%" height="100%">Skinned Alive:

In 2001, 5 eminent veterinarians (2 British, 2 American, and 1 Canadian) monitored the seal hunt in the Gulf of the St Lawrence. What they found is disturbing.
They concluded the hunt caused "considerable and unacceptable suffering". Over 40% of the seals that were caught were conscious and fully aware, when they were skinned alive.
That same year postmortem examinations revealed 25% of seals showed minimal or moderate signs of injury when the skinning occurred. This is proof that the seals were still alive and well.
In 2001 video evidence indicated that in nearly 80% of instances, sealers did not examine the body to check if the seal was dead or unconscious prior to skinning the body. This same evidence indicated that in 40% of cases the hunter left an animal clubbed and suffering for extended periods of time before returning to club it a second time or to skin it alive.
IFAW which is one of the most world renowned animal rights groups charges that seals are often "skinned before being rendered fully unconscious" and that few sealers check for a blinking reflex to confirm the brain is dead prior to skinning. Some studies indicate that up to 45% of seals are skinned alive





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Seal Slaughter Myths

In the Canadian commercial seal hunt, there are no aboriginal hunters, and no part of the seal is eaten. The slaughter is conducted by fishermen to supplement their income, not as their main source of income. Some claim that the seals eat the same cod that the fishermen are after, but cod is less than 3% of a seal’s diet. A seal also eats animals who prey on cod, so a seal is part of a natural, balanced ecosystem.

2008 Seizure of the Sea Shepherd Vessel

On April 12, 2008 the Canadian government seized the Farley Mowat, a ship belonging to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. The crew was attempting to document the seal slaughter, and according to Canadian officials, came within 300 feet of a sealer, in violation of their regulations. Sea Shepherd calls the seizure an act of piracy, and announced that they will bill the Canadian government $1,000 per day of the seizure (http://animalrights.about.com/b/2008/06/27/sea-shepherd-to-bill-canadian-government.htm).



Sealers Block Environmental Observers From Reaching Seal Hunt

BLANC-SABLON, Quebec, Canada, April 13, 2006 (ENS) - <!--Body starts here-->About 60 sealers and fishermen in Blanc-Sablon today prevented a seal hunt observation team from two environmental groups, with a member of the European Parliament and several independent journalists, from observing the seal hunt by keeping them under seige in their hotel. Others in a Labrador town were able to keep a helicopter filled with anti-sealing activists from landing.
Hunt observers from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Franz Weber Foundation along with MEP Carl Schlyter of Sweden and the journalists said today that they were "under threat of physical violence" and had "taken refuge in their rooms" at the Four Seasons Inn in Blanc-Sablon.

The angry sealers gathered outside the hotel and refused to let the group leave for the ice, where they intended to film the seal hunt.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/20060413_quebeccrowd.jpg Crowd of sealers, fishermen and cameramen surround the environmentalists at the Four Seasons Inn in Blanc-Sablon. <SMALL>(Photo courtesy HSUS (http://www.hsus.org/)) </SMALL>

Earlier this morning, while attempting to drive to their helicopters, a car containing some of the environmentalists and four journalists was run off the road into a ditch. The vehicle sustained damage but there were no injuries.

HSUS officials have placed calls to the American State Department, the American Embassy and the local police. Two police officers attended the inn but did not disperse the sealers.

"We are appalled by these violent tactics used by the local citizens in an attempt to prevent our team from documenting the cruelty of the seal hunt," said Dr. John Grandy, HSUS senior vice president. "Our team is there as peaceful observers and they should not have to fear for their safety."

"This is the second incident where the team has been physically placed in danger," said Grandy. "The first time was during the Gulf hunt when their boat was rammed by a sealing vessel."

Canada's commercial seal hunt has two phases, the hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which begins in late March, and the largest part of the annual hunt, which opens several weeks later on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the Front.
Blanc-Sablon is near the border with Labrador and close to areas where the Front hunt opened Wednesday.

"We cannot understand why the Canadian government is allowing these people to break the law and endanger lives but revoking our team members' permits and infringing on their rights," Grandy said. "This is a terrible injustice and Canada should be ashamed."
"After all, the tragedy here is the cruel slaughter of the seals and having sealers try to hide it from the world only compounds the grievous wrongs," Grandy said.

"What has happened out here has crossed a line," said Rebecca Aldworth, a Newfoundland native now based in Montreal, who works with the HSUS to document the seal hunt.
"Of course they have a right to protest, and I respect that," Aldworth said. "But when you put human lives at risk and prevent people from engaging in lawful activities, you've crossed the line into assault and reckless endangerment. That is not legal in this country and this is still Canada."

But provincial politician said hunt supporters did not threaten or harm the environmentalists. Instead, she said, the environmentalists nearly killed a sealer.

"These individuals who decided to take a van and go to the airport actually plowed through a group of the protesters to get out of there," Yvonne Jones, a Liberal who represents the southern Labrador district of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/20060413_jonesyvonne.jpg Yvonne Jones, MHA for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair serves as opposition critic for health and community services, status of women and Labrador affairs. <SMALL>(Photo courtesy Office of the Member) </SMALL>

"One young fellow, whom I actually talked to myself, ended up on the hood of this vehicle and was driven on the hood of the vehicle for several kilometers before the animal-rights activists stopped to let him off," said Jones, who served as Minister of Fisheries & Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador for several years until October 2003.

The environmentalists left Quebec this evening. Tracy McIntire, an HSUS spokesperson based in Washington, DC, said pressure from the American Embassy brought the police to escort them to the airport and they are heading back to Newfoundland.
Also on Thursday, about 25 residents of Cartwright on the central coast of Labrador twice prevented a helicopter carrying environmentalists from refueling. Police stepped in, allowing the helicopter to land at an airstrip and refuel.

On Wednesday, several dozen people in Cartwright temporarily blocked two helicopters from observing the hunt. About 60 people from Cartwright now are out sealing.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is flying over the Front hunt, monitoring and documenting the sealers' actions.

IFAW says the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has allowed the Gulf of St. Lawrence sealers to go nearly 20 percent over their DFO quota.

For 2006, the Gulf hunt quota was 92,343 seals. DFO announced Wednesday that sealers have so far killed 108,653 seals - 16,310 seals over the quota.

There is no penalty for going over the quota and DFO officials did not adjust today's hunt quota to reflect the overrun.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/20060413_sealer.jpg A sealer lifts his club, called a hakapik, to kill a harp seal, as Canadian sealers have done for generations. <SMALL>(Photo courtesy Respect for Animals (http://www.boycott-canada.com/photos/index.htm)) </SMALL>

"This cruel and unnecessary hunt is a mismanaged mess," said Olivier Bonnet, IFAW's Canadian director. "DFO is utterly incapable of effectively regulating and managing this slaughter. Repeatedly sealers take more than the quota and DFO lets it happen. Combined with the extreme cruelty we witness every year and raging negative publicity for Canada, the time has come to finally end the seal hunt and move on."


The quota for the Front hunt is 232,657 seals. Most of this hunt begins by being open for one day, and then DFO assesses whether it will re-open. "The Front hunt is an extremely competitive, reckless environment that is known to be extremely difficult to regulate and monitor by authorities," Bonnet said.

The overall seal hunt quota in Atlantic Canada for 2006 is 325,000 seals. The DFO says the harp seal herd now consists of about 5.8 million animals.
Regina Flores, IFAW's seals campaigner said, "As IFAW, our role is to show the world that this is happening and encourage everyone to pressure the Canadian government to end it once and for all."

Several environmental groups are attempting to end the hunt with a boycott of travel to Canada.

From Darien, Connecticut, Friends of Animals announced an international tourist boycott today.

Friends of Animals president Priscilla Feral said, "We ask people everywhere to avoid travel to Canada until its government stops this miserable seal slaughter. The government sets the kill quotas. Government funds assist the kill. These resources must be redirected to build a real economic foundation for Canada’s coastal residents."
"Don’t wait for the Olympics," said Feral, referring to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games scheduled for Vancouver, British Columbia on Canada's Pacific Coast. "Stay away and end this now."
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2006/20060413_sealerskinning.jpg A Canadian sealer skins a seal he has killed offshore Cape Breton, March 2006. <SMALL>(Photo courtesy Respect for Animals) </SMALL>

The Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment reports that over $20 million in Canadian federal dollars supported seal processing between 1995 and 2001. The funds also maintain plants, cover ice-breaking support, and sustain research and marketing for seal products.

The sealers and the DFO maintain that seal hunting is an important source of income for sealing communities. In 2005, The average price per pelt received by sealers was approximately C$52, an 18 percent increase over the 2004 average value, according to DFO figures. The landed value of the 2005 harp seal hunt was close to C$16.5 million, the DFO says.
The boycott aims to hurt Canada in the wallet to pressure the country to end the seal hunt. It will target on Canada’s top visitor markets - the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Australia, says Friends of Animals. As hundreds of thousands work in the travel sector, the boycott will impact the Canadian people, who, Feral says, "must be moved" to hold their own government accountable.

Other groups such as Respect for Animals, a UK charity, also support a boycott.
Once the seal killing ends, Feral says the group will support ecologically sound travel to Canada.

"Seal watching and ecotours, launched in the 1980s through businesses such as Habitat Adventures and Travel Wild Expeditions, are a much better bet to address the province’s 15 percent jobless rate," said Feral. "That was proven when the whale-killing communities adjusted their economy. We have and will support careful, prudent ecotourism." National bans on Canadian seal products are in place in the United States, Mexico, Greenland and a number of European countries.

Breaking News: March 4th 09

For the first time in Canadian history a Canadian politician is proposing a law to end the suffering of baby seals.

Senator Harb consulted with IFAW on this critical legislation and now he has asked us to help flood Canada's Senate with messages of support. Please help us reach 200,000 emails and letters in the next few weeks: one for every seal killed this year.

This is our chance to end the hunt forever.



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="90%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%" height="100%">New Seal Hunting Amendments:

December 27, 2008 - Amendments were released and are active as of this date
In an effort to thwart a complete European ban on sealing products the Department of Fisheries and Ocean made some amendments to current seal hunting regulations.
On the surface these new regulations give off the illusion that seal hunting will be performed in a humane manner, but the truth is that the regulations will change next to nothing. We will post the regulations, with our comments in bold.
'REGULATIONS AMENDING THE
MARINE MAMMAL REGULATIONS
AMENDMENTS
1. (1) The definition “blinking reflex test” in subsection 2(1) of the Marine Mammal Regulations (see footnote 1) (http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2008/20081227/html/regle1-e.html#1) is repealed.
(2) Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
“crushed”, with respect to a skull, means that the cranium has been broken so that it does not present a solid structure on either the right or left half when palpated; (écrasé)
“palpate” means to examine the right and left halves of the cranium by pressing it by hand from the top; (palpation)
2. Subsections 28(2) to (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:
(1.1) No person shall use a club or hakapik to strike a seal older than one year unless the seal has been shot with a firearm.
(2) Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the top of the skull until it has been crushed and shall immediately palpate the cranium to confirm that the skull has been crushed.
The main problem with this is that sealers do not target seals over 1 year of age. Sealers target baby seals that are over 3 weeks of age (old enough to shed their white coats) In essence this new regulation changes nothing. 99%+ of clubbed seals are under 1 year of age. This rule looks good on paper to people who are unaware of how old the seals being hunted are.
(3) If a firearm is used to fish for a seal, the person who shoots the seal or retrieves it shall palpate the cranium as soon as possible after it is shot to confirm that the skull has been crushed.
This looks good on paper but it would be nearly impossible to enforce.
(4) Every person who palpates the cranium of a seal and determines that the skull is not crushed shall immediately strike the seal with a club or hakapik on the top of its skull until the skull has been crushed.
This is nothing different then what transpires now. The term immediately is loose and can be interpreted differently based on the sealer.
3. Section 29 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
29. No person shall skin a seal until the skull has been crushed and at least one minute has elapsed after the two axillary arteries of the seal located beneath its front flippers have been severed to bleed the seal.
A step in the right direction that addresses the problem of some seals being skinned alive which is one of the main objections the European Union had. This amendment was introduced to appease the European Union. Regardless its a positive development. But again this would be nearly impossible to enforce.
4. The table to paragraph 37(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=450><TBODY><TR><TD class="border-td border-b" vAlign=top>Point



</TD><TD class="border-td border-b" vAlign=top>North Latitude



</TD><TD class="border-td border-b" vAlign=top>West Longitude



</TD></TR><TR><TD class=border-t vAlign=top>1.



</TD><TD class=border-t vAlign=top>47°27′12″



</TD><TD class=border-t vAlign=top>61°49′18″



</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>2.



</TD><TD vAlign=top>47°28′03″



</TD><TD vAlign=top>61°47′42″



</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>3.



</TD><TD vAlign=top>47°27′36″



</TD><TD vAlign=top>61°47′06″



</TD></TR><TR><TD class=border-b vAlign=top>4.



</TD><TD class=border-b vAlign=top>47°26′36″



</TD><TD class=border-b vAlign=top>61°48′42″



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>5. The portion of item 6 of Schedule V to the French version of the Regulations in column I is replaced by the following:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=450><TBODY><TR><TD class="border-td border-b" vAlign=top>Article



</TD><TD class="border-td border-b" vAlign=top>Colonne I Espèce de phoques



</TD></TR><TR><TD class="border-t border-b" vAlign=top>6.



</TD><TD class="border-t border-b" vAlign=top>Éléphant de mer



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>COMING INTO FORCE
6. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

'Cost-benefit statement: Implementing the proposal would help to maintain market access for an industry with a present export value of $13M. The costs of implementation are estimated to be between $1.8M to $3.6M. These costs are associated with increased costs to sealers (fuel, crew wages, vessel maintenance, failure to attain allowable catch, lost opportunity to engage in other fisheries/employment), to fisheries management and enforcement (vessel time, aircraft, observer deployment, dockside monitoring) and to Coast Guard (maintaining dedicated search and rescue capability).
The proposal makes it possible to maintain an important economic activity for the coastal people of Canada. It would also align itself with the latest veterinary advice and recommendations, requests of the European Union (EU), and concerns from animal welfare groups.'
At least they are honest as to why they passed these new 'regulations' it has nothing to do with animal welfare. It's all about giving the illusion of policing the hunt as to prevent Europe from banning seal products as to protect an industry that is apparently worth 13 million.
Implementation of the proposed Regulations and associated conditions of licence would require very specific practices to be carried out by the sealers. This in turn requires training for thousands of sealers. For 2009, a training program is being implemented beginning with workshops, development of training tools, and the delivery of a series of pilot training sessions.
To enhance enforcement, DFO plans to implement remote camera monitoring of the 2009 seal harvest. The system requires reliable remote stable imaging using a helicopter-mounted camera. The leasing of the equipment and the helicopter, installation, and training is expensive but is expected to result in a highly enhanced capability for remote surveillance. Existing surveillance equipment would also require upgrading. Enforcement would be supported by a dedicated Coast Guard icebreaker presence.
Having the seal hunt regulated and enforced is a very positive development. We can only recommend the following for this to be taken seriously:
1. The Seal Hunt Protection Act has to be amended to describe fines and prison terms for sealers who do not abide by these regulations.
2. The Seal Hunt Protection Act has to be amended to allow the media and animal rights groups to be able to openly film the hunt without fear of prosecution. Independent third parties are needed to verify that these amendments are being followed.
Lastly the government has to address the overall unsustainability of the hunt. There has been no research behind the number of seals that are allowed to be killed each year or how these figures are reached.
Also, why do some of the rules only apply to seals that are one year of age or older? The rules need to apply to all seals regardless of age otherwise a sealer can claim that he was unaware of the age of the seal. When the amendment applies to all seals only then can it be taken seriously.
Full amendmends available here (http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2008/20081227/html/regle1-e.html)



NativeRadio.com's position on the Harp seal slaughter:


NativeRadio.com has always supported indigenous culture and causes. The Inuit have the sovereign right to subsistence hunt seals for food and commercial needs. The Inuit are not hunting baby Harp seals, but rather adult Ring seals. They also do not use brutal killing tactics, and are not decimating a species of animal.

Our fight is not with the Inuit, but rather the Canadian government and the commercial slaughter of baby Harp seals. The Canadian government likes to tell the world that this slaughter is "98% humane". The facts and documented evidence shows that to be an outright lie.

What is 98% humane about clubbing to death 12 day old baby harp seals, with a large ice-pick-like hakapik (many requiring second strikes)? What is 98% humane about skinning alive these defenseless creatures? What is 98% humane about killing baby Harp seals so someone can show off their expensive seal pelts?
There is a difference in an indigenous culture's right to hunt for food and economic survival, and the non-indigenous Newfoundlander's massive slaughter of defenseless animals for profit and vanity!

NativeRadio.com does not condone the killing of any creature, but we do understand the Inuit's right to do so.

We believe that baby Harp seals have as much right (if not more) to be on this planet, than we do. We will continue to do what we can to make the world aware of this slaughter and to do what we can to stop it.
With respect, Patrick Doyle
CEO
NativeRadio.com


BARACK OBAMA OPPOSES THE CREUL BABY SEAL SLAUGHTER AS DO MOST CANADIANS:

In 2006, when Barack Obama was an Illinois Senator, he wrote a letter (http://blog.peta.org/archives/obama%20and%20seal%20slaughter.jpg) to a group of constituents to thank them for their support of a resolution against the Canadian seal slaughter (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/seal_hunt_09). He assured them that he would use his seat in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to support the resolution.
"But Amanda," you may be thinking, "what does a three-year-old resolution have to do with the price of tofu?"
The resolution, S. Res. 33 (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109sres33IS/pdf/BILLS-109sres33IS.pdf), wasn't just any old resolution. In no uncertain language, it listed a number of reasons why the "cruel and needless" Canadian seal slaughter (http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/seal_hunt_09) is "inconsistent with the well-earned international reputation of Canada" and urged the Canadian government to "end the commercial hunt on seals."
In his letter, then-Senator Obama wrote that "the United States should not condone" the slaughter, and vowed, "As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that we take the necessary steps to express our outrage with this inhumane measure".


Comments

<HR style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e1e1e1 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #e1e1e1 1px solid; WIDTH: 98%; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e1e1e1 1px solid" width=1 noShade>
I'm glad to hear that the President is on board to end this horrific practice. I also wanted to point out to PETA people that the New York Times Editorial section has a piece by Nicholas Kristof today on Peter Singer and ending the cruel practices of factory farming! If the Times is staring to get involved, we really ARE getting somewhere!

Posted by: Susannah S | April 9, 2009 10:19 AM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437259)



I wish my Canadian government had Obama's attitude (yes, there is one lone Canadian Senator who has been fighting to get the commercial seal hunt banned, but so far no other reps have overtly supported him!).
The majority of Canadians do not support the hunt.
Please Mr. Obama, do what you can to shame the Canadian government into agreeing to stop the cruelty!

Posted by: Michele | April 9, 2009 11:49 AM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437281)



Wish my government felt the same way as Obama does about the seal hunt.

Posted by: Aneliese | April 9, 2009 11:58 AM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437285)



Obama , That's wonderful! I was so happy to see this today! There is still hope to kill this Seal Hunt I just know it.
Please Obama, Now is the time to make a difference.
God Bless you and do it, please stand by your words!

Posted by: Vinessa | April 9, 2009 01:59 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437336)



Thank you Mr. President for not condoning this horrible activity. Hopefully as a world leader you will take some of these causes to heart and give a very important and necessary voice to these situations that someone like me can't carry across.
Respectfully submitted

Posted by: Jennifer Roque | April 9, 2009 02:40 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437359)



Thank you Mr. President for standing up for what is right! This is an inhumane act of violence against these helpless innocent animals! Their babies are being slaughtered for nothing, it's not right, we need to save these animals!!!

Posted by: Jannet | April 9, 2009 04:44 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437424)



I kiss his feet and do everything he wants if he's successful in stopping the Canadian seal hunt.

Posted by: France | April 9, 2009 05:11 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437438)



Thank you so much Mr. President! This means so much to all that are trying to help stop the slaughter, and by you helping out, it will encourage many others to follow your example! Thank you!

Posted by: Alissa Dais | April 9, 2009 06:16 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437466)



the slaughter of seals in Canada, is one of the worst workfare Government program ever invented.
it's purpose is to access government money in every sleasy way these criminals can imagine.
the DFO is an abomination, whose evil infuence is felt wordwide in the destruction of the Oceans.
from the Atlantic to the coast Of Africa(Naminbia), the DFO continues to use Government resourses to destroy the Oceans' life.
their propaganda poisons Radio-Canada and the CBC.
Evil walks the face of the Earth, and the DFO is definetly one of it's tool.

Posted by: joseph thibeault | April 9, 2009 06:20 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437474)



President Obama has long been an inspiration to me and I hope he continues to be by fighting to end the seal slaughter.

Posted by: Alyson Paige Warren | April 9, 2009 06:35 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437478)



Thank you Obama!!!!!!

Posted by: carla lesh | April 9, 2009 06:53 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437491)



President Obama, I urge you strongly to protect these beautiful marine animals,to be a voice in their defence and to ensure that the necessary legislation is put in place to protect them from certain destruction, make your previous abhorence of this cruel and unethical practice truly count. Respectfully yours, Ms.Etain Feeley

Posted by: Etain Feeley | April 9, 2009 07:14 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437506)



Please, President Obama, find away to convince Harper to abolish the seal hunt. It is horrific to know that Canada still participates in such a barbaric activity, if you could even call it that.

Posted by: Cristina Mastromonaco | April 9, 2009 07:32 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437514)


Yes!
I love Obama so much more now.
I'm so glad that he's adding the end of unethical animal treatment to his to do list. I hope he keeps it up as president!

Posted by: Cecilia | April 9, 2009 07:49 PM (http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/04/obama_outraged.php#comment-437522)


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Oldman]

http://digg.com/pets_animals/First_Baby_Seal_Killed_Today_In_2009_Canadian_Hunt ing_Season/t.jpg (http://digg.com/d1mzPp)
First Baby Seal Killed Today In 2009 Canadian Hunting Season (http://digg.com/d1mzPp)

care2.com — Baby seals are being killed on the ice in Canada as you read this - observers from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) confirmed the first seal death just moments ago.



Funny how some just won't accept reality and keep repeating the same old tired false information over and over again with absolutely NO proof to back any of it up. Sadly, there are far too many baby seals killed and this has been documented over and over again in many respected sources of information. What is the response to this? Posts of propoganda, opinions based upon nothing but hot air, and a steady stream of personal attack. Is any fooled by this opinionated deception? I don't think so . That's the problem and hence why they keep resorted to personal attack over and over again. They lost the debate and just can't accept that. Too bad they just can't accept that they are losing out to the environmentalists and animal rights activists who care deeply about the environment and animals. If animal abuse is justified, can human abuse be far behind from such individuals? Is such callous disregard for life the sign of a caring and compassionate person? I think not. Just goes to show what kinds of cruel and inhumane people that we have to deal with on this planet.

And that big government that is going to protect us from pollution just stood by and let it happen. Uh Huh

Tell me, with the eyes of the world watching, how did these baby seals get killed with observers on hand including ministry officials?

Oh, Look at the source. Surely the Humane Society of the US must be a clearly independent non-bias source. ROTFLMAO


Typical Yanks. Imposing their world view on other nations. Silly buggers.

[Oldman]

Yes poor old Oldman......cant' defend his position with facts so he resorts to outright fallacies and a steady stream of personal attack. He knows that he is losing the battle and can't present a viable defense of his position. In the end, it doens't really matter how many disguisting attacks that he launches against myself or others for no one will take him seriously and we will all just brush him aside for the irrelevant person that he is. He certainly knows this and hence why he resorts to such immature tactics. We certainly have no time for those who promote heartless animal cruelty for we know that they are anything but compassionate and caring individuals. Anyone who would openly advocates the slaughter of defenseless creatures has much to answer for. Some day they will.

Fallacies? Who's the person who keeps quoting 400000 baby seals as being killed.
When that is a known lie.

And who ran away when he got caught in a logic trap of his own making.

BTW, Sanslines will probably ignore these quotes, since they prove him wrong.


The Inuit and the Inuk both support the hunt. Now recall, Sansline praised the Nations people as being closely in tune with nature....

"The group collided with Anaogok Alakee, an Inuit elder from Nunavut, who said the seal hunt isn’t about killing and selling; instead, it’s a way of life for her and her people.

“We’re protecting our own culture,” Alakee said. “(PETA’s) activity is killing a way of life.”


I am writing to you concerning the seal hunt. Let me begin by stating there are two primary types of seal hunting in Canada: traditional Inuit hunting (subsistence) and commercial.

As an Inuk Senator and hunter, my concerns are for the economic well-being of my people. Contrary to popular belief, when the Inuit harvest seals, we use the entire animal: we use the pelts for clothing, the meat for sustenance, and the oil is very valuable to us. We rely on the seal hunt as one of our food sources. In the north, pre-packaged food is a luxury that few of us can afford, so we harvest our food from the land and the sea.

We perceive the seals differently than people in the south. Some groups like to portray them as cute, blue eyed animals with a playful character, but to us, they are the wild dogs of the sea and they are direct competitors for food. Seals, like humans, hunt fish. In areas prolific with seals, our ability to feed ourselves is greatly diminished.

Inuit hunters are few in number. We catch the seals and process them in the ocean and along the shore. The meat that we collect goes into the community freezer and is used to feed the less fortunate in our communities. This is our traditional way. As Inuk-Canadians we also believe we are keeping the ecosystem in balance – if we let the seal population get out of control – we might not have anything left for ourselves. This is a real threat. Since quotas on the harp seals were introduced, their number has tripled.

From an economic perspective, the commercial seal hunt is our main industry and the only source of income for many Inuit. In order to make up the volume that we need for our Inuit commercial hunt, we rely on other non-Inuit hunters to supplement our catch. We also rely on the Newfoundlanders to harvest the harp seals when they are migrating. This is a seasonal activity.

We appreciate the understanding of the European Community in their attempts to exclude the Inuit from their ban on the subsistence hunt. Nevertheless this is not the issue – we are concerned about the commercial hunt. We market our product abroad, and internationally. We rely on the sale of our pelts and by-products. We need this industry for our economic survival.

We strongly support the commercial hunt in Canada and we continue to support our brothers in Newfoundland and the lower St Laurence.

Nakurmiik,"

So Sansline would practice cultural and economic genocide on the Inuk and the Inuit.

What next? Smallpox contaminated blankets for the First Nations?


How elitist, typical left winger, looks down at the aboriginals as being unable to rised up to his standards. What a Racist you are Sanslines.

No wonder you hide your location.

[Oldman]

No sooner than the day that Sanslines posts about the great economic boom that Boreal forestry could play by replacing the fur trade, than this little item appears.

<i>OTTAWA -- The Canadian Press has learned the federal government plans to release a report Thursday that finds half the caribou herds in Canada's boreal regions are in decline and they may die out in the next century without changes to their habitats.

The finding that 29 of the 57 herds are `not self-sustaining' brings the boreal caribou another step closer to possibly being bumped up to endangered species status.

The Canadian Press obtained parts of the 300-page report, which shows caribou herds are likeliest to decline in northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.

A boom in natural resources such as oil and gas has spurred industrial development in those parts of the country, disturbing the caribou's habitat.</i>

So save the cuddly seals and kill the caribou by destroying their habitat.
There is an environmentalist for you.

See, dear boy, there is more to debate than just clipping and pasting Agit Prop articles.

You have to know what you are talking about. Who was the one who said that the Boreal region was fragile and couldn't take the abuse of having roads carved through it? The Oldman. Who said it was an economic solution for the First Nations? Sanslines.

Debate is Over.

Chalk up another victory for the Oldman.

Got any other ideas on how to attack and destroy the First Nations as a culture, SaniFlush?

[Oldman]

How kind, The great white fathers of Euro-land will allow the Inuit and Inuk to kill seals for ceremonial purposes(under certain conditions). How condescending. So now the Inuit have to apply to their Great White Fathers for permission?
Typical Elitist Left Wingers.


Nunavut MLAs vote to oppose EU seal product ban
Last Updated: Thursday, March 26, 2009 | 10:53 AM CT Comments24Recommend6CBC News
Politicians in Nunavut are making a last-minute effort to fight the European Union's proposed ban on the import of seal products from Canada and other sealing nations.

Members of the territory's legislative assembly unanimously passed a motion Wednesday to oppose the EU ban, which the European Parliament is scheduled to consider on April 1.

MLAs worry the ban could threaten the livelihoods of Inuit sealers in Nunavut, despite the addition of an exemption for seal products from Inuit.

"The seal hunt will always be at the heart of Nunavut," Environment Minister Daniel Shewchuk said in introducing the motion to the assembly.

"I urge all members to vote unanimously to support the motion, so that we can send a clear message to the misinformed animal rights activists and the European Union."

'Exploited' by Inuit exemption
The EU ban provides a limited exemption for seal products hunted by Inuit to be traded only for cultural, educational or ceremonial purposes. That exemption would be subject to a number of conditions.

But Iqaluit Centre MLA Hunter Tootoo, a cabinet minister, said the exemption is meaningless to him.

"They're using the exemption for Inuit, knowing full well that it's not really going to mean anything," Tootoo told the assembly.

"To say, 'Oh, it's OK, we're taking care of these guys' to get support behind it, to me, I feel, as [an] Inuk, exploited."

Tootoo said the Nunavut and Canadian governments have been working together to stop the EU's ban.

Speaking in Inuktitut, Nanulik MLA Johnny Ningeongan said passing the motion makes a clear statement that the EU's ban will have negative effects on Nunavummiut.

The result of the European Parliament vote would still require approval from the European Council.

[Oldman]

Euro-Racists Strange view of ecology


Do As We Say Not As We Do
Date: January 12, 2008


The single most important point that can be made about the seal hunt issue would not be the protesters or the sealers or the governments or the conflicts between them or even the seals themselves but rather the overwhelming level of hypocrisy.

In the Netherlands and Belgium, both countries have banned seal products, they have what they like to refer to as “a problem”, “a pest” and “a nuisance”. When you read the history of the Muskrat in the Netherlands it is told something like this, “the Muskrat invaded from two directions, Belgium to the south and Germany to the east.” Such a description conjures up images of tanks with little muskrat heads peering over the top and thousands of muskrat troops, all adorned with tiny helmets and miniature rifles. Every year millions of Muskrat are killed in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany in a bid to eradicate the species with most being incinerated, nothing of the animal is utilized. There is no age restrictions to killing the Muskrat, they are trapped in cages then submerged in water to drown.

Throughout Dutch restaurants young Wild Boar is served with the motto in relation to meat quality being, “The younger the better”. Kangaroo can also be found on restaurant menus even though animal rights groups have questioned the humaneness of hunting Kangaroo and roughly 5,000,000 of the animals are killed annually.

Another banning country, Germany, has also declared war on the Muskrat and since the early 1900’s has dedicated much time and effort to “exterminate” the species. At one time the government had even gone as far as to set up a government department dedicated to exterminating the species. During the 2005 hunting season in Germany, 500,000 Wild Boar were killed and 1.2 million deer. Again, the prevailing theme is the younger the boar the better the taste with the un-weaned “squealers” being a prized delicacy. The acceptable nature of these actions is probably due to the prevailing attitude in Germany that the Wild Boar is also a pest species. Trophy hunting is quite popular in both the Wild Boar and Deer hunts but is not exclusive to these species as it is also popular in other large game hunts such as Big Horn Sheep and others.

In Italy, a country in the process of banning seal products, many species have been hunted into extinction. Many would say that they have learned their lesson which is why they take banning action against the seal hunt. Not so. In fact, the EU is currently taking legal action against Italy for continuing to hunt endangered bird species. In reality, the Italians have not learned anything from their past in this regard which begs the question, do they really have the right to dictate what can be hunted in Canada while having and continuing to have such a poor record themselves?

One of the more vocal countries, the United Kingdom, does not just kill seals but does so indiscriminately with no regard for using anything from the animal and no monitoring of killing methods. There are two species of seal which call the shores of the British Isles home. The Common or Harbour seal and the Grey seal. The Grey seal population stands at approximately 110,000(2002) while the Harbour seal numbers are approximately 55,000(2002). In 1988 and 2002 outbreaks of the deadly Phocine Distemper Virus(PDV) had devastating effects on UK seal populations. The virus mostly affected the Harbour seal and in some areas reduced the population by over 50%. Not exclusive to Harbor seals, the virus was shown to have reduced the pup production in Grey seals by 12%. Throughout these times of disease and still today, UK fishermen and fish farmers are permitted by their government under what is called the "Fisheries Defense Clause" to shoot any seal on sight which is seen in the vicinity of fishing/aquaculture gear. The killing of these seals goes unreported thus scientists do not have accurate numbers as to what type and how many seals are being killed in any given area. Effectively, the seals are pests and are treated as such with nothing of the animal being used. Some estimates have placed the number of seals killed under the "Fisheries Defense Clause" to be in the area of 5000 annually. If this number translated into 1500 Harbour seals killed and 3500 Grey it would represent roughly 3% of the Harbour seal population and 3% of the Grey seal population. Figures which do not take into account the number of seals killed annually by permit hunters. During the Canadian Harp seal hunt roughly 5% of the population is culled.

France has also contemplated ban action even though fox hunting is a popular pastime. Not to mention it is the home of Foie Gras, pate made from the livers of force fed Ducks and Geese, many having their feet nailed to the floor so they can not move.

The home of bullfighting, Spain, is also thinking of taking ban action. If bullfighting was not cruel enough they also barricade themselves behind caged protection to watch a bull set free with its horns set on fire. They point and laugh as the bull runs around in a fear induced frenzy. Now they are thinking of banning seal products from a humane and conservation minded hunt because they feel it’s cruel.

The EU as a whole seems to have its own problems in regards to controlling animal species. It would appear the EU should concentrate more on internal management rather than buckling to the will of small special interest groups. Ultimately they have little right to dictate how Canada should change it’s proven management practices. Recently the IUCN announced that 1/3 of Europe’s fresh water species face extinction, species which exist in every banning and potential banning country. IUCN representatives of banning countries agreed that action should not be taken against the Canadian seal hunt but contrary to their recommendations easily manipulated politicians have proceeded. Not to mention the fact the EU condones and supports seal hunting in the Baltic, again the animals are viewed as pests.

On a political level, the proverbial win win situation does not come along very often but to European politicians this is what the Canadian Harp seal hunt represents. In effect, they can appease and win support from a small portion of their constituency by agreeing to ban seal products while the majority of their constituency will not change their political stance because the seal hunt represents a non-issue. Ultimately, these people could care less either way. Within this dynamic there are no repercussions for giving into the vocal minority, a perspective which may be true in the short term but is painfully naive in regards to the long term.

[Oldman]

Facts that the Eco-Racists don't want you to know!

Who are the Sealers?

Sealers are rural peoples residing in coastal villages throughout the eastern, northern and northwestern coasts of Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, Namibia and similar environments throughout the world. Sealing is also an integral part of the life of Inuit and Innu people throughout the North.

Sealing is a worldwide activity undertaken by rural villagers wherever seal populations are healthy enough to allow a harvest of animals under the principle of the sustainable use of a natural, renewable resource.

Canadian sealers, Canadian marine mammal biologists and the Canadian Government are world leaders in the field of resource utilization using scientific management principles combined with an educated workforce and a strict monitoring protocol to ensure the continued viability of sealing from both the economic and species perspectives. Canada is a world leader in the sustainable use of natural, renewable resources.

In addition to sealers, biologists, enforcement officers and bureaucrats the sealing industry employs men and women in the tanning and processing sector, the manufacturing sector, the design sector, the research sector and the marketing sector. There is a high “spin-off” employment ratio from the sealer to the end product in this industry.

The primary producers, sealers, receive 40% to 60% of the value of tanned pelts. This figure compares more than favourably to the amount received by farmers, fishermen, loggers and so on in their respective industries.

Economics:

Rural, maritime peoples are dependent on their environment for their livelihood. They utilize resources such as fish, crustaceans, mollusks, seals and other wildlife for exactly the same reason urbanites hold jobs in factories and offices – to provide income to feed and cloth their families.

Rural peoples do not earn weekly salaries but are dependent on a variety of activities to earn an annual income. Sealing is only one part of their earnings. The monies earned from sealing may range from hundreds to thousands of dollars – depending upon markets and environmental conditions - and combined with fishing, farming and other activities enables them to maintain the life force of coastal villages.

It is the total earnings from all their economic activities – including sealing – that enables rural peoples to survive. Rural life is much like a mosaic composed of small stones. Remove one stone and the beautiful mosaic crumbles as the cohesion of all the stones holding the mosaic together. This is the reality of economic life in rural communities.


Sustainable Use


Sustainable use of a natural, renewable resource is the internationally accepted principle of man’s use of animals for food, clothing and income in a manner that ensures the continued existence of healthy, stable (or growing) population levels of the species being utilized.

The concept is rooted in scientific management principles to determine appropriate usage levels given the biology, natural mortality and environment of the species. These factors are used to set conservationally sound, conservative quotas, which are monitored and modified on an on-going basis.

The Harp seal population of the northwestern Atlantic is a prime example of the sustainable use principle, as the population has tripled under this management regime to the present level of approximately 5.9 million animals.

Man’s presence in the eco-system requires a “green” approach to the use of animals. The principle of the sustainable use of a natural, renewable resource meets this requirement ecologically, conservationally and morally. The Canadian seal hunt is one of the world’s best examples of a “green” approach to the use of a natural, renewable resource: seals.

Harp Seal : Maternal Nurturing


Before birth the female seal, cow, is highly aggressive toward any seal which happens to come close to her birthing patch. After birth she will continue to protect the area, not the young but the area fore this is her place of rest. She demonstrates a lack of protection for the young by leaving it for long periods of time and only returning to rest herself or feed the pup which occurs approximately six times a day. Even during these times the mother, dame, will only interact with the pup long enough to feed it, after which she displays indifference to its existence. It has been reported that only one in roughly one thousand dames will stay to protect their pup when people approach.

While the pup is alone it will fight with any other pups which happen to wander close. They do not frolic and enjoy each others company. In reality, harp seals are indifferent to the existence of other seals and display more annoyance at their company rather than enjoyment. Just because an animal has a herd designation does not mean it is a highly social creature. Mainly, the only exception to this rule is during breeding season and interaction under water such as feeding.

Harp seals have one of the shortest maternal nurturing periods of any marine mammal. At about 12 to 15 days old the pup is abandoned by its dame. The pups soon begin to moult and are referred to as a “raggedy jackets”. At this point sealers can kill them but prefer to wait until the new fur is “fast”, roughly 33 days old. After the pup has been abandoned by its dame and it becomes acclimated to the water, it heads north with the rest of the herd. It is an individual and does not rejoin its dame or have any type of family structure.



Faux Fur & Synthetic Leather


Faux fur and synthetic leather are produced from materials derived from the refining of crude oil.

Substituting natural products derived from the sustainable use of a natural resource, seals or other animals, certainly is neither a “green” decision nor an “eco-friendly” decision.

Those who make such suggestions are either woefully ignorant of the source of faux fur and synthetic leather or unconcerned about the depletion of the world’s oil reserves: a non-renewable resource.

In addition, the factories for producing such materials are located in “cities” and not in the villages and towns that are home to sealers in Canada, USA, Greenland, Norway, Russia or Namibia.

[MoonShadow]

Criminy! This thread has now turned into an assault on the forum with hysterical barages of insults being hurled to another as well as to anyone who stands for animal or environmental rights.

Oldman has lost any sense of decorum whatsoever with his irrational and hysterical postings. How many more TOS has he got to violate before he shuts up?

[FreeinNJ]

it has gotten so bad no one knows what the thread was really about

[Noodlebug]

Stu, my defiantly irrational friend!

Personal taste is not a good reason for banning something. Lots of people (arguably "the prevailing culture" by your definition) don't like rap music, but they don't demand that rap music is never played in public. Lots of people don't like bare midriffs but they don't demand that bellies must be covered up at all times. You say nudism is more like swinging than midriff-baring because it causes "serious offence" (meaning it causes YOU serious offence). But it does not cause most people serious offence. Think about how midriff-baring is viewed in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, then think again about how nudity is viewed here. This is where you are incorrect about your views being the prevailing culture.

Nudity - occasional, random, unexpected nudity - does not cause most normal, rational people grave offence. I'd go further, it does not cause most normal, rational people even mild offence. It may cause snooty, haughty, conservative God-botherers offence, in the same way that Darwin or punk rock does, but they are a minority themselves and are no longer in a position to dictate to the rest of us how to behave.

When someone streaks at a football match or a cricket match, exposing their body in front of 50,000 people of all ages, how much grave offence is caused? What's the usual reaction? Mass retching throughout the crowd? Screams of anger and the thuds of hundreds of ladies fainting? Or would it be... erm... wolf whistle, laughter, cheers and applause? Maybe people who like football are abnormally tolerant of such disgusting behaviour, surely you would get a totally different reaction if someone streaked, say, a Crown Green Bowling event. Guess what, someone did a few years back. And guess how people reacted?

Our prevailing culture (Europe and the UK, at least) is remarkably tolerant of nudity. No, 90% of us would never ever contemplate removing our clothing in public (in that sense nudists are in a minority, of course), but the majority have no particular problem when someone else does, certainly where there is no sexual or criminal intent. "Serious offence" is a response peculiar to you, and a rather small minority of similarly easily-offended people. And because you are in the nudity-tolerant majority culture, you need to learn how to conform. Learn to love Spencer Tunick, the WNBR, and even your stray local neighbourhood nudist.

Most people, of course, don't want to cause serious offence to anyone. But when it is the taking of offence that is unreasonable, rather than the behaviour in question, you have to make a decision when to stop pandering to an irrational minority. Nudity is harmless.

[Stu2630]

RichO

Something can be a logical conclusion but not be rational. Likewise something can be reasonable and not be logical (though that's rarer).

I'm really struggling to get my head around this. Maybe you could give me some examples of something being logical but not rational, and vice-versa.

But that's a cultural choice, not a legal one. Again, emotional choices are fine as long as they're not encoded in law.

Law takes account of "community standards" of behaviour, and many of those standards are based on cultural values and people's emotional responses to those values being infringed.

Beauty, soul, and value are in the eye of the beholder. They are not dependent upon emotion or irrationality. To assume so is to bias the context of the issue to before the issue is even discussed.

You've lost me again. Beauty (like ugliness) is an aesthetic judgment and that's 100% emotion - there is nothing rational about that.

That is a rational answer - for beaches. Now, accomodate nudists in all parts of life, not just the beach, and we'll be approaching the issue.

It's nudity we're talking about rather than nudists. Most people don't want nudity around them (outide of certain, limited contexts at any rate). That's their lifestyle choice.

Non-caucasians outnumber caucasians in the world. By your logic, if they decide to strip causacians of our freedoms, they should be able to - simply because they outnumber us (assuming you're caucasian)

Hang on. I'm talking about developed, educated societies with advanced communications and high levels of social awareness, like those in Europe and North America. In such countries, we can surely trust the people not to resort to slavery and similar evils. If not, then such people shouldn't even be allowed to vote, because there is nothing to stop them electing people who would carry out their wishes in any case! Wherever politicians are elected by the people, to represent the people, you have a system of majority rule. Because in your country (and mine) we have allowed the establishment of a new political class - the people who are in the pockets of financiers and bankers and who attend the Bilderberg events etc - the truly democratic nature of our governmental system has been undermined. Personally, I abhor that. But these crooks tell you that the people can't be trusted and make you fear the "tyranny of the majority". It's one BIG con trick that justifies them holding on to power and using that power as they please.

The point of a government - at least here in the US - is to serve *all* the people, not just the people in power, or the people who have a majority.

But their power derives from the majority - can't you see that? Your politicians, like ours, are elected by their supporters, who happen to outnumber the opposition's supporters: they are creatures of the majority, put there by the majority and answerable to that majority if they want to be re-elected. You have fallen for a big fallacy perpetuated by the political classes who have managed to convince you that the people can't be trusted to govern themselves. You are being lied to!

Stu

[Noodlebug]

Most people don't want nudity around them

Technically true, but equally true is that most people don't want nudity not around them. Most people don't really care so much as you think whether there is nudity around them.

Needless to say, the ones who DO care are very, very, very vocal about it, giving their opinions unmerited prominence.

[Stu2630]

Noodlebug

Personal taste is not a good reason for banning something.

I completely agree - as would most people. But offending against the aesthetics of taste is one thing, while offending someone's value system to such a degree that they feel they are witnessing something akin to obscenity is something else entirely. We Brits are famed for our saucy postcards, even though they may be in poor taste, but send a postcard bearing a photograph depicting oral sex, and you have crossed the line. Similarly, there is a world of difference between someone walking on a beach in very skimpy swimwear, and someone walking on a beach completely naked. Bad taste, while we may prefer not to see it, is generally acceptable, whereas something which causes genuine shock, offence or annoyance is not.

You say nudism is more like swinging than midriff-baring because it causes "serious offence" (meaning it causes YOU serious offence). But it does not cause most people serious offence.

The only reason it does not generally cause "serious offence" is because people don't encounter it. Most nudists are considerate enough to confine their nakedness to places where it can reasonably be expected, and they are places generally avoided by textiles such as me. If you doubt that, try walking through your local shopping mall naked and see how people react - especially those with small children.

Think about how midriff-baring is viewed in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, then think again about how nudity is viewed here. This is where you are incorrect about your views being the prevailing culture.

If I were in Saudi Arabia, I would conform to their dress standards, just as I did when I was in Iran. They are entitled to impose their own public dress standards just as we are. Our prevailing culture makes nudity a taboo outside of certain, limited, contexts.

Nudity - occasional, random, unexpected nudity - does not cause most normal, rational people grave offence. I'd go further, it does not cause most normal, rational people even mild offence.

I disagree. OK, you can get the idiot who streaks, and the well-established stunt, which involves momentary nudity, often results in amusement for any nearby buffoons. But try normalising sustained nudity by, for example, going shopping in the nude, or washing your car in your front drive naked or collecting your kids from school in that state. See how funny people find that.

It may cause snooty, haughty, conservative God-botherers offence,

No. It causes ME offence, and I am none of these things. It would cause lots of people offence, especially elderly people, those with young children and so forth.

but they are a minority themselves and are no longer in a position to dictate to the rest of us how to behave.

Those who want to get nude in public are a far tinier minority than those who find it objectionable.

but the majority have no particular problem when someone else does, certainly where there is no sexual or criminal intent.

Really? Test out your theory. Go and enjoy a day naked in a public park, or on a popular public beach, and see if nobody is bothered.

Learn to love Spencer Tunick,

I have no problem with Spencer Tunick. I think the pictures he calls his "art" are about as artistic as what my dog deposits when I take her for a walk in the woods, but fair play to him, he only does his photo shoots in the presence of people who consent to being around the nudity.

Nudity is harmless

Public nudity is as harmless as shouting obscene language in public, or masturbating in public, or defecating in public. It is offensive and distressing to many people and, as such, the police are empowered to deal with it if those affected will make complaints.

You have nudist places. Fight for more and better places to enjoy your nudism. But in non-nudist places, keep your pants on!

Stu

[Boreas]

Face it noondlebug, it offends Stu, that is all that matters. :)

I like your points though.

[Keith58]

The idea that profanity is illegal is flawed, as stated above. The idea that it's wholly allowed is also flawed. The trick is defining the limits of either - just like defining where nudity should or shouldn't be allowable.

Yes, but the assertion was that one consents to profanity by default and I presented evidence to the contrary. Whether or not the USSC finds a particular incident of use acceptable does not grant that in all or any case it may be and thus, under suit, it'll take months of litigation to defend and prove one's "right" to subject others to that.

That is basically what I'm stating - there is no DEFAULT.

Regards

[Noodlebug]

But offending against the aesthetics of taste is one thing, while offending someone's value system to such a degree that they feel they are witnessing something akin to obscenity is something else entirely.

Nudity - the naked human body - is not obscene. I am very confident that most people agree with that, even a large section of the minority who don't particularly care for it. I think there is a broad consensus on what constitutes obscenity, and an ordinary naked human body most certainly does not.

We Brits are famed for our saucy postcards, even though they may be in poor taste, but send a postcard bearing a photograph depicting oral sex, and you have crossed the line. Similarly, there is a world of difference between someone walking on a beach in very skimpy swimwear, and someone walking on a beach completely naked. Bad taste, while we may prefer not to see it, is generally acceptable, whereas something which causes genuine shock, offence or annoyance is not.

But can you not see that you are arbitrarily deciding where that line lies based on your own level of tolerance? You claim to speak for the majority, but as I have already shown you, the majority aren't offended by nudity, they are amused, surprised or indifferent towards it. I think it is safe to say that most of us would indeed be shocked and offended by public sexual activity, but I suspect not as many as you believe. I don't believe simple, straightforward, contextually-justifiable nudity causes genuine shock or offence to most people. Annoyance? I've no idea. Are naked people annoying?


The only reason it does not generally cause "serious offence" is because people don't encounter it.

You admit now it does not generally cause serious offence? When people do encounter it, most of them don't object. It's totally natural for people to look, point it out to their friends, take a cameraphone picture. The occasional innocent textile straying into nudist territory is the same, as I'm sure most beach-goers here will testify.

Most nudists are considerate enough to confine their nakedness to places where it can reasonably be expected, and they are places generally avoided by textiles such as me. If you doubt that, try walking through your local shopping mall naked and see how people react - especially those with small children.

Parents are instinctively protective, and a naked person's intentions can be misinterpreted. I can't think of a good reason for anyone to be naked in a shopping mall in the current climate, and the bad reasons I can think of are sufficient enough for anyone to be suspicious. If nudity was commonplace and more familiar, there would be a lot less suspicion and prejudice (that goes for anything that is new and unfamiliar, not just nudity). But in places where nudity is entirely understandable for anyone - beaches, saunas, even city parks on a sunny day - I predict you could lie there for hours, with dozens of unconcerned people passing through before some interfering busybody decided to waste police time.


If I were in Saudi Arabia, I would conform to their dress standards, just as I did when I was in Iran. They are entitled to impose their own public dress standards just as we are. Our prevailing culture makes nudity a taboo outside of certain, limited, contexts.

It's not just taboo, it's law in those countries. As are many other things that you (presumably) don't object to. And you're going back to the "prevailing culture" myth as though your views were majority views. They are not. For the umpteenth time, most people where we live show no evidence of being offended by nudity.


I disagree. OK, you can get the idiot who streaks, and the well-established stunt, which involves momentary nudity, often results in amusement for any nearby buffoons. But try normalising sustained nudity by, for example, going shopping in the nude, or washing your car in your front drive naked or collecting your kids from school in that state. See how funny people find that.

So anyone who is amused by nudity is a buffoon? Just about everyone in the sports crowds, the crowds of people who gather to spectate Tunick shoots, WNBR, and numerous parades, people in nightclubs and parties when one drunk decides they need to see more of him... this is not a narrow cross-section of the public, this IS the public. You might think the majority of the general public are buffoons, but is it wise to actually say so?



No. It causes ME offence, and I am none of these things. It would cause lots of people offence, especially elderly people, those with young children and so forth.

Yes, most of your minority are elderly people, brought up in a different era with different values from the society they are living in now. They have a good excuse, what is yours? And I've dealt with parents and context already - although I've seen first hand parents bringing their kids along to watch (even participate in!) a Tunick event, and heard reports of other occasions where parents will point out the nudie people to their kids rather than cover their eyes and chivvy them away. Are those bad parents?


Those who want to get nude in public are a far tinier minority than those who find it objectionable.

You have no evidence of that. Then again I have no evidence against it, it's just an unsupported supposition. Nice try though, you might convince a wavering juror with such sneakery!


Really? Test out your theory. Go and enjoy a day naked in a public park, or on a popular public beach, and see if nobody is bothered.

Oh, someone will be bothered. No-one is saying that your busybody minority don't exist, or that they are such a tiny minority as to be irrelevant. There are a lot of them about and I think they take pleasure in taking offence! But the fact remains, MOST people will NOT be bothered. Surprised, amused, possibly suspicious. But seriously offended? Seriously?

Public nudity is as harmless as shouting obscene language in public, or masturbating in public, or defecating in public. It is offensive and distressing to many people and, as such, the police are empowered to deal with it if those affected will make complaints.

My, but you have a filthy mind! At least one of your examples is potentially harmful, the other three are related to cultural taboos, and not harmful at all except to those with a particularly sensitive disposition who allow themselves to be offended. But even if you just take the totally subjective criteria of offence caused, do you really think that a naked person is equally or more offensive than a tirade of filthy language or a sexual display? Pick a hundred random people, ask them to rank them on a scale of offensiveness, and throw in a few other things like eating meat, spitting, littering, leaving the toilet seat up, and I predict you will find that nudity is consistently considered relatively innocuous.


You have nudist places. Fight for more and better places to enjoy your nudism. But in non-nudist places, keep your pants on!

I agree it is wise to keep your pants on where you have no good reason not to, and not to risk being considered the cause of a public disturbance if an irrational person makes an irrational fuss. But nudity is harmless, it is not offensive to most people, it is not illegal, and on sunny days in places people go to relax, wearing clothes can become irrational. In such circumstances people should feel free to take their pants off. And in some places many do, and so very few are offended.

[Stu2630]

Noodlebug

Nudity - the naked human body - is not obscene.What is obscene is context dependent and relative to the viewer. Someone performing oral sex on a railway station platform would generally be regarded as obscene, but few people would think it obscene if it occurred in a marital bed. I consider a person walking naked down a street in full view of children to be at least verging on the obscene.

You claim to speak for the majority, but as I have already shown you, the majority aren't offended by nudity, they are amused, surprised or indifferent towards it.Firstly, I don't claim to "speak for the majority", although I my assessment of what the majority would consider to be acceptable is fairly accurate. Secondly, there is no empirical proof that the majority of people in this country consider public nudity to be acceptable. Thirdly, even if it is only a minority (i.e. < 50%) who consider public nudity to be offensive, that minority will be many times larger than those who actually wish to indulge in it or see it. From a utilitarian standpoint, that means public nudity should be prohibited.

Are naked people annoying?Yes, inappropriate nudity can generate anger in some people, as Steve Gough discovered.

You admit now it does not generally cause serious offence?Of course - if people don't encounter something, how can the be offended by it?

When people do encounter it, most of them don't object. It's totally natural for people to look, point it out to their friends, take a cameraphone picture. You can't say that. Yes, you will always notice those who giggle or take a picture, but how do you know you haven't offended or upset some people? Just because they don't kick off, you think they are fine about it? Try throwing down a large item of litter in a street and see how many people confront you about your behaviour - the chances are no-one will, but that doesn't mean they consider your behaviour acceptable.

But in places where nudity is entirely understandable for anyone - beaches, saunas, even city parks on a sunny day - I predict you could lie there for hours, with dozens of unconcerned people passing through before some interfering busybody decided to waste police time.You are seriously mistaken. I once emailed the police about Steve Gough and friends planning to sunbathe naked in Hyde Park to enquire whether they were allowed to do that. The police ordered them to dress. A news report later said the police had received "a number of complaints from people in the park" about this exhibitionism.

To be honest, if, as you say, you are too considerate to go naked in places where it could cause offence, then our debate on this is entirely academic. You're not going to get naked anywhere that would cause offence to me, so I won't bother you.

So anyone who is amused by nudity is a buffoon?To be amused by someone making a spectacle of themselves in that way is peurile. Indeed, even many who are not actually offended by the nudity think people who do this are boring.

You might think the majority of the general public are buffoons, but is it wise to actually say so?I wouldn't say the majority of the British public are buffoons, but very many are. We are known to have a social "underclass" consisting of people who think that the only way to enjoy oneself is to get steaming drunk, fill your face with greasy food and then puke most of it up again. I spend a lot of time in Scandinavia and I see the contrast of countries which do not have this sizable section of ignoramuses.

Yes, most of your minority are elderly people, brought up in a different era .. They have a good excuse, what is yours?My parents and grandparents were brought up to believe that nudity was something private, although there are exceptions such as when using communal showers with people of the same sex. I was brought up that way, too, as, I suspect, are the majority of people even today. There are a handful of events around the country which involve public nudity, but it's only a handful. Nudists are still regarded as a bit odd and there is almost zero chance of seeing nudity in our parks and on our textile beaches. The vast majority of people would balk at the idea of a neighbour, work colleague or stranger of the opposite sex seeing them naked. Like it or not, this is still, overwhelmingly, a textile world, so I don't need an excuse.

I've seen first hand parents bringing their kids along to watch (even participate in!) a Tunick event, and heard reports of other occasions where parents will point out the nudie people to their kids rather than cover their eyes and chivvy them away. Are those bad parents?No, but they are unusual parents. I suggest that a majority of parents would not be comfortable at the idea of their children being taken to an event or location where there was adult nudity. Prove me wrong. Go to your local school and ask their parent/teachers group if they would like you to do a presentation on nudism, and you would do it naked, of course. I bet you get an almost unanimous rejection.

No-one is saying that your busybody minority don't exist, or that they are such a tiny minority as to be irrelevant.Well, you're going to get close to 100% of the Muslims who would object - and that's over 3 million to start with. Then you are going to get other religious groups of various kinds, plus elderly people (and their family who will object on their behalf) and doubtless a sizable proportion of parents with children. Tiny minority? Hardly!

do you really think that a naked person is equally or more offensive than a tirade of filthy language or a sexual display?Equally offensive. Absolutely. I think if you did a survey and posed to a random section of the public a scenario of being in a park or in a railway station waiting room and one person standing close to them was using filthy language out loud, a couple were touching each other up over their clothes and one person was walking around stark naked, you would find all three were considered more or less equally unacceptable.

But nudity is harmless, it is not offensive to most people, it is not illegal, and on sunny days in places people go to relax, wearing clothes can become irrational. In such circumstances people should feel free to take their pants off. And in some places many do, and so very few are offendedIt can be illegal if peiople complain that they are offended - and people often do make such a complaint because there have been convictions (Steve Gough has been convicted twice in Southampton and his appeal to the Crown Cout did not succeed). I do not agree that wearing clothes is ever irrational - except perhaps in the shower or bath because that is the ONLY time I am ever naked. I am fairly normal in that respect - people in this country don't usually even take a sauna naked in mixed company (as Center Parcs learned to their cost!).

Nudism is a minority interest and it looks as though that's not going to change. I know some nudists like to indulge in a bit of wishful thinking, imagining that's all going to change and we are heading full-speed towards a nudist-Utopian world in which nudity is commonplace and accepted just about anywhere. The facts simply don't bear that out: people's reaction to inappropriate nudity is perhaps a bit less hysterical, but it still isn't something they generally want to see in their living environment and, in some respects, people are becoming even more body-inhibited. I recall in the 1960s when the hippy movement predicted that we'd be "letting it all hang out" before the end of the decade. It didn't happen then and it's not going to happen any time soon. Not in our lifetimes at any rate.

Stu

[Noodlebug]

Nudism is a minority interest, and whether it looks like its going to change depends who's eyes you are looking through. You continue to confuse those people who are inhibited about their own body with those who are intolerant of other people's - they are not the same people. Nudity is far more common in magazines and newspapers and on television than it used to be, and the media is normally a good reflector of the public mood - although those who only ever read the Daily Mail may disagree.

Taking offence to nudity is a conscious choice, not an instinctive reaction. If everyone chose not to take offence to it, there would be no problem with it. Nudism and exhibitionism wouldn't exist, public nudity would just be another state of dress, inappropriate nudity would just cause surprise rather than immediate suspicion. This is why we keep telling you that taking offence at nudity is irrational, and is the true cause of any problems which arise.

It's programmed into you but you can overcome it - anyone can and many people have. Look at you, you take serious offence to nudity, and yet you continue to log in every day to a website plastered with photographs of something that totally offends you. Are you a masochist? Or do you have your browser set to text only? Or is your "serious offence" perhaps not quite so serious as you like to portray?

I suspect most of your favourite examples which you return to again and again (nude person in a shopping centre or in a school) the offence is not caused by the nudity but by the inappropriateness of it. Why would someone want to be naked in a shopping centre or a school? Chances are that anyone who is is an exhibitionist rather than a nudist. Chances are that person is only interested in showing himself off inappropriately. Even in the unlikely event his motives are genuine and it is a hot