Australia and New Zealand, South American countries as well as South Africa, all of
which would introduce legislation that would make the lethal taking of seals (and
other marine mammals) illegal in the course of the 1980s and 1990s. The worldwide
discourse on sealing, it seemed, would in the end lead to the legal consensus of
making commercial sealing an unwanted and unacceptable activity.
Naturally, the world does not function in unanimous ways. Unimpressed by these
developments, Canada, Namibia and Norway continued their seal hunts. Particularly
Canada is important to mention in this context since it introduced its Marine
Mammal Regulations (MMR)
28 in 1993. While very protective of its marine
mammals, Canada did not outlaw the taking of them, particularly not seals. The
MMR’s provisions on sealing are the culmination of national interests and international influence. On the one hand, the MMR protect sealers from unwanted interference by anti-sealing activists through a strict licencing system and through the
establishment of a minimum distance of observers to the ongoing seal hunts. On
the other hand, the MMR hold provisions on animal welfare, which had been made
somewhat more specific compared to its predecessor, the 1964 Seal Protection
Regulations.
29 Since the main international focus still rested on Canada and its
commercial East Coast seal hunt, the introduction of the MMR did not bode well.
Moreover, since TACs were based on scientific findings and the harp seal population
had grown significantly, the Canadian government raised the TAC for harp seals
form 185,000 to 250,000 in 1995. Naturally, the international community did not
approve and as a consequence, organisations such as IFAW or the Humane Society of
the United States/International (HSUS/HSI) increased their presence on the ice and
produced well-produced imagery in order to make Canada end its seal hunts.
Canada, however, did not yield.
6.7
The European Union as the Forerunner of the New
Paradigm
With this we enter the new millennium and the ever-growing notion of sealing
belonging to the past, as being outdated, and as no longer being fit for the twenty-first
century. But once again, Canada was not impressed. And in the early years of the
2000s, two important events came together that would manifest a new international
paradigm: the banning of the seal trade as a weapon in the fight for seals. The first
event was Canada’s raising of the TAC of harp seals in 2003 that allowed for the
landing of 975,000 seals within a time period of 3 years. This TAC was, once again,
rooted in the finding that harp seal populations were thriving. Once again, the
international community did not respond favourably and calls for international
action against Canada’s seal hunt grew stronger. The Seal Pups Directive, it seemed,
28 Marine Mammal Regulations, SOR/93-56, 4 Feb 1993.
29 Regulations Respecting the Protection of Seals, Statutory Order Regulations 64/443 (Order in
Council P.C. 1964/1663), 29 October 1964.
6.7 The European Union as the Forerunner of the New Paradigm
149
which would introduce legislation that would make the lethal taking of seals (and
other marine mammals) illegal in the course of the 1980s and 1990s. The worldwide
discourse on sealing, it seemed, would in the end lead to the legal consensus of
making commercial sealing an unwanted and unacceptable activity.
Naturally, the world does not function in unanimous ways. Unimpressed by these
developments, Canada, Namibia and Norway continued their seal hunts. Particularly
Canada is important to mention in this context since it introduced its Marine
Mammal Regulations (MMR)
28 in 1993. While very protective of its marine
mammals, Canada did not outlaw the taking of them, particularly not seals. The
MMR’s provisions on sealing are the culmination of national interests and international influence. On the one hand, the MMR protect sealers from unwanted interference by anti-sealing activists through a strict licencing system and through the
establishment of a minimum distance of observers to the ongoing seal hunts. On
the other hand, the MMR hold provisions on animal welfare, which had been made
somewhat more specific compared to its predecessor, the 1964 Seal Protection
Regulations.
29 Since the main international focus still rested on Canada and its
commercial East Coast seal hunt, the introduction of the MMR did not bode well.
Moreover, since TACs were based on scientific findings and the harp seal population
had grown significantly, the Canadian government raised the TAC for harp seals
form 185,000 to 250,000 in 1995. Naturally, the international community did not
approve and as a consequence, organisations such as IFAW or the Humane Society of
the United States/International (HSUS/HSI) increased their presence on the ice and
produced well-produced imagery in order to make Canada end its seal hunts.
Canada, however, did not yield.
6.7
The European Union as the Forerunner of the New
Paradigm
With this we enter the new millennium and the ever-growing notion of sealing
belonging to the past, as being outdated, and as no longer being fit for the twenty-first
century. But once again, Canada was not impressed. And in the early years of the
2000s, two important events came together that would manifest a new international
paradigm: the banning of the seal trade as a weapon in the fight for seals. The first
event was Canada’s raising of the TAC of harp seals in 2003 that allowed for the
landing of 975,000 seals within a time period of 3 years. This TAC was, once again,
rooted in the finding that harp seal populations were thriving. Once again, the
international community did not respond favourably and calls for international
action against Canada’s seal hunt grew stronger. The Seal Pups Directive, it seemed,
28 Marine Mammal Regulations, SOR/93-56, 4 Feb 1993.
29 Regulations Respecting the Protection of Seals, Statutory Order Regulations 64/443 (Order in
Council P.C. 1964/1663), 29 October 1964.
6.7 The European Union as the Forerunner of the New Paradigm
149