A Seal Walks Into A Bar......................

This thread doesn't deliver.

The beer hits the brain from the inside. The club hits the seal from the outside. The joke is funny.

Sid, I think you missed my other thread.

Are you Docputer? Just curious about that. I thought he was an old guy in a wheelchair out in western Kansas who posted on hahahahahahaha a few years back for a while. When he disappearred, I thought perhaps he died or something.

If you and he are one and the same then cool. If not, are you employing him? I saw that he did the announcement for adultadsusa but then I realized that that was your site so I figured either you is he or he is doing some work for you.

Like I say, its cool either way, I just sort of liked the guy and was wondering what actually happened to him.

Edited in: Fuck. The hahahahahah shit was a board that starts with N and ends with D and has etpon in between ;p

yuck, seal brains.

Its funny

those guys probably don't like their jobs, however it is done with a purpose in mind

Hey Sally, is that prostrate flaring up again? As much as you hate canadians they hate you more

Sorry, Charlie, we accept only the finest tuna and you ain't it!

I do not "hate" Canadians, I simply wish for this senseless and cruel slaughter to stop and stop NOW.

It is total bullshit that killing the seals will cut down on the fishing catch.

Maybe stop OVER FISHING?

oh wait

THAT would make to much sense!

http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_..._a_problem.php

"Why is overfishing a problem?

In the first chapter we already discussed that globally fishing fleets are at least two to three times as large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species. To explain why overfishing is a problem we first have to get an idea on the scale of the problem. This is best done by looking at some figures published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. 1 The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time of the real situation.

52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
20% are moderately exploited
17% are overexploited
7% are depleted
1% is recovering from depletion

The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation (maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about 90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone. In the real world all this comes down to two serious problems.

We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and at risk of collapse.
We are in risk of losing a valuable food source many depend upon for social, economical or dietary reasons.

The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000 people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the Newfoundland fishermen."

who gives a flying fuck, go hug a tree

I am just kinda wonderin' if you are on drugs and if so what kind?

Wow you can cut n past information.... YOU SO SMART Silly Rant

fucking loser go put on your high heels and jerk off to the ellen show

Look old man, no one gives a shit here. Take your idiotic crusade to one of your senior's boards.
<insert denture paste ad>
<insert depends ad>

GFY Rules and Regulations!


Follow these simple rules:

8. Posting images of death, dismemberment, or animal cruelty will not be permitted and will be removed. Violation will result in a banning. We don't want to see that shit here!

i will tell the seals that the next time they steal my salmon.

do you know how much fish a seal eats ? 10 pounds a day.. 8 million seals = 80 million pounds per day of fish.. in 10 days they eat close to a billion dollars in fish

I agree with DBS, please no dead animal pictures.

Now now Sidney, no reason to get nasty. It was an innocent question.

So, once again, are you also Docputer here on the board ? Or is he another actual person and if he is, how the hell is he doing?

I am really trying to be civil here, ya know. Let bygones be bygones and all that.

'

Well, I do not advocate for any sort of animal cruelty and in fact,I fight against it! I don't think that posting of pix of what unfeeling animal haters do to animals is what ADMIN has in mind.

As far as animal cruelty is concerned, please talk to the Canadians!

If the images I have posted are in violation of GFY rules, I apologise and will post no more.

Instead, I'll post pix of heavily tattooed, track-marked, obese bitches with one cock up thier ass, another in their pussy, one in the mouth and three guys jacking off over her as it appears that such a pic is preferable to any image of the misery Humankind can impose on animals.

I'll bet we can get these bitches all needled and tattooed-up for a few bucks.

What do you think?





How are these for candidates?

oh wait

fat woman fucking:

Please cite us a peer-reviewed study which supports you claims.

You haven't a civil bone in your body and you can go fuck yourself.

Moi? Au Contraire. I am one of the most civil people on the board for the most part (imho of course).

C'mon, be a guy man. Forgive, forget, all that shit and let me know about Docputer. I am concerned for him, really.

Yeah, you're prolly right.

No more pix of TRUTH!

You can't handle the TRUTH!

I know; it's just the times............................................. ...............

If it means no cut n past from you I say YAY!!!

A seal walks into a club....

You are a man pretending to be a woman.

Please, tell us again who can't handle the truth.

What's in name?

Not to put too fine a point on things but you sir are welcome to fuck off and..............

...........well, you know.............................................. ............................

And I NEVER forgive and I most certainly NEVER forget.........................................

Once you are on my shit list, you remain on my shit list................................

............forever.

You want to know about Docputer?

Ask him asshole.

You could stop reading my posts if you don't like them but that would require that you take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and I suspect that you are unacquainted with the meaning.

.......................................idiot/./////////////////.....................................needs........ ...............................................new ...,.,..,.,.,.,.,,..,.,.,.,.....tricks............ ......................

IS the seal a college girl ???

Um, that is exactly what I am doing. lol.

You are quite transparent and nowhere near as smart as you think you are.

As far as never forgiving and never forgetting goes, well, I would agree with the never forgetting part but if you never forgive you will get old and cranky well before your time. Just my

Hows the adultadsusa thing going for you. You still trying to figure out how I knew it was your site ?


.

Might have been had it not been clubbed to death as a pup.

You trolls have a nice night now!

Why do you use photobucket for all the pics? Why don't you use your own server like an actual webmaster? Its not like bw costs a whole lot nowadays, ya know?

If you are gonna pretend to be a webmaster as least try to look the part.


Goodnight now Sid, see you next round


.

Night Sidney...er, I mean Silly Rant.

ADG

Let's not cloud this important thread with facts.

You first.

it is called math..

what study would you like to see. my estimates were low

How many pounds of fish does a seal eat per day?
It is widely known that seals eat between 6%-8% of their body weight in fish per day. Which doesn?t seem like all that much. Now let?s scale it a bit. How much fish will 10,000 seals eat in a day? Well, if those 10,000 seals weigh 500 pounds each, they would consume 350,000 lbs. of fish per day or 2.45 million pounds of fish per week.

The likes of sexeducation, sally rand and cam_girls ensure that this place is never short of fruitloops and the entertainment they provide.

It is estimated that bears kill over 2 000 000 salmon a year. Attacks by salmon on bears are much more rare.

(anyone recognize that? :D)

interesting lol!!

I believe you are referring to:







ADG

Much easier to club a seal than bear tho.

So, according to you, the financial bottom line takes precedence over the abusive and unnecessary killing of animals and the fish catch, which catch is already in danger from over-fishing?

got it

you will not be able to EAT those paper dollars when the fish catch truly goes to Hell.

oh wait

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/cbio/cancod.html

From the citation:

"In 1992, the devestating collapse of the cod stocks off the east coast of Newfoundland forced the Canadian government to take drastic measures and close the fishery. Over 40,000 people lost there jobs. The communities are still struggling to recover. The marine ecosystem is still in a state of collapse.

The collapse of this vital and important fishery sounded a warning bell to governments around the world who were shocked that a relatively sophisticated, scientifically-based fisheries management program, not unlike their own, could have gone so wrong. The Canadian government had been warned by scientists and environmentalists that the cod stocks were overexploited and that there fleets were employing destructive fishing practices. The refused to significantly reduce quotas sighting the loss of jobs as too great a concern. The cost of their short term outlook and refusal to acknowledge ecological limits was devestating.
THE STORY

The ocean around the rocky shores of Newfoundland were once so full of cod that explorer John Cabot marveled in 1497 that they virtually blocked his ship. In the centuries to follow, fish became the one of the only reasons anyone ever came to Newfoundland, or stayed. Until the mid-twentieth century,

Canadians had traditionally fished mainly in waters relatively closer to shore, in small craft using traditional techniques such as traps, jigging from a dory, or small inshore gill-nets, longlines or small trawlers. They joined fishing boats from Spain and Portugal whose crews had also traditionally fished in the northwest Atlantic since before Newfoundland was colonized.

The most productive cod fishing area in the vast northwest Atlantic region was located off southern Labrador and to the east of Newfoundland where the highly productive population of "northern cod" had yielded an overall annual catch of about 250,000 tons for more than a century prior to the mid-1950s.
INVASION OF THE DISTANT-WATER FISHING FACTORIES

The northern cod fishery entered its boom-bust phase in the mid-1950s. It was then that Newfoundland's "banks" or "deep sea" schooner and dory fishery, which had been established in the late nineteen century, was displaced by a new breed of factory-fishing vessel.1 Modelled on the distant-water whaling factory ships, these new "factory trawlers" came from countries thousands of miles away in search of herring, haddock, flatfish, capelin, redfish, and, of course, the valuable northwest Atlantic cod. Up until the late 1970s these distant-water factory trawlers from Germany (East and West), Great Britain, Spain and Portugal, Poland, the Soviet Union, Cuba and even from as far as east Asia had legally fished to within 12 miles of the eastern Canadian and New England (US) seaboards. They set and hauled their collosal nets from the stern, quickly processing and deep-freezing nearly all the fish they caught, working around the clock in all but the worst weather conditions.
DESTRUCTION OF THE NORTHERN COD

With the increased effort by distant-water fleets, catches of northern cod increased in the late 1950s and early 1960s and peaked at just over 800,000 tons by 1968.3 The distant-water fleet were subjecting the northern cod to intense, unprecedented fishing pressure, and by 1975 the declining northern cod population was insufficient to yield even 300,000 tonnes, while various species of hake, and other groundfish populations showed dramatic drops too. Canada (and the U.S.), concerned that stocks were being reduced to almost nothing, passed legislation in 1976 to extend their national jurisdictions over marine living resources out to 200 nautical miles. The "foreign" fishing fleets were banished to the "high seas".

Catches naturally declined after the departure of the foreigners to just 139,000 tonnes in 1978, which is probably the level where the federal government should have capped it then, and left it for many years, to give the stock the chance to recover. Instead, government and investors in fishing were, like the foreigners, thinking big. Soon, the stern factory-trawlers, or draggers as they became known, became the mainstay of Canada's Atlantic offshore fishing fleet, and the northern cod catch began a steady rise again as a result. By the mid-1980s, it was the Canadians who were landing more than 250,000 tonnes of northern cod annually.4
DESTRUCTIVE DRAGGER TECHNOLOGY

Massive investments poured into constructing these huge "draggers". Draggers haul enormous, baglike nets, as long as a football field, held open by a combination of huge steel plates or "doors" and heavy chains and rollers that plow and scrape the ocean bottom. They drag up whole schools of fish and anything else in the way, inflicting immense damage to immature target and non-target fish and the benthic (bottom-dwelling) community. They were not only destroying critical habitiat, but they also contributed to destabilizing the ecosystem of the northern cod.

The draggers targetted huge aggregations of cod while they were spawning, a time when the fish population is highly vulnerable to capture and to the physical impacts of the bottom-trawling gear on the environment. Detractors of the technology claim that the excessive trawling on spawning stocks became highly disruptive to the spawning process, negatively impacting the reproductive behaviour of the fish.5 In addition, the trawling activity is thought to result in a physical dispersion of eggs and milt leading to a higher fertilzation failure. Physical and chemical damage to larvae caused by the trawling action may also reduce their chances of survival.

The effect of selective fishing on spawning grounds - that is, selectively over-exploiting one species in an ecosystem -- can have disastrous effect on the feeding relationships in that ecosystem. This contributes to the overall reduction of spawning stock biomass of the targeted species, but also an increase in the number of invertebrate and vertebrate predators such as crustacean and fish which will prey on cod eggs, larvae, and younger fish.6 It is little wonder that a species, like cod, would eventually run into difficulties struggling to survive when its habitat is being continuously destroyed and the balance of their food chain has been disrupted.

Continued in following post.


T

HE PERMISSIVE APPROACH TO FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT

Throughout the 1980s, the annual catch of Canada's northern cod fishing fleet hovered around the 250,000 tonnes mark, as the Canadian government kept promoting more investment. Newfoundland's small-scale, inshore cod fishermen, however, were voicing concerns long before anyone else that the abundance of the northern cod population was not as healthy as scientists were reporting. Contradictory to scientific data, traditional inshore fishermen in Newfoundland began to notice declining catches before the mid-1980s. By 1986 the scientists also realized that the stock was declining, and by 1988 had recommended the total allowable catch be cut in half. Instead of acting immediately, in a precautionary manner to protect dwindling fish stocks by substantially reducing catch quotas at the first signs of overfishing, the federal government delayed conservation action, choosing instead quite moderate reductions of the total allowable catch beginning in 1989. It wasn't until 1990, following several years of analysis and re-analysis of data from stock surveys (without simultaneously reducing catch quotas) that the

Independent Review of the state of the Northern Cod stock concluded that the population, the biomass, the spawning population, and the spawning biomass of the Northern Cod were all in decline and that fishing-related mortality was at dangerously high levels.

By 1992, the biomass estimate for northern cod was the lowest ever measured. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had no choice but to declare a ban on fishing northern cod. For the first time in 400 years the fishing of northern cod ceased in Newfoundland. The fisheries department issued a warning in 1995 that the entire northern cod population had declined to just 1,700 tonnes by the end of 1994, down from a 1990 biomass survey showing 400,000 tonnes, and showed no sign of recovery - just 1700 tonnes remained in a fishery that had for over a century yielded a quarter-million ton catches, year after year. The fisheries department also predicted that, even in the unlikely event that the fish stock started an immediate recovery, it would take at least 15 years before it would be healthy enough to withstand significant fishing.

Following on the heels of the '92 ban on northern cod fishing, fisheries for cod in other areas and for most other species of groundfish around eastern Canada also had to be either severely curtailed or closed altogether because of serious depletion. An estimated 30 thousand people that had already lost their jobs after the 1992 Northern Cod moratorium took effect, were joined by an additional 12,000 fishermen and plant workers following these additional cutbacks and closures. With more than forty thousand people out of jobs, Newfoundland became an economic disaster area, as processing plants shut down, and vessels from the smallest dory to the monster draggers were made idle or sold overseas at bargain prices. Several hundred Newfoundland communities were devastated.

In response the federal government put up nearly a billion dollars as a stopgap measure to assist with social welfare payments and retraining of dispossed fishing people in 1993 and 1994. But that would only be the beginning of the taxpayer funded payout to cover the calamity, with forecasts that the social welfare bill would hit at least another billion dollars, and possibly even more.
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED:

Government and industry must share the blame for allowing the seemingly limitless stocks of cod to dwindle to near-extinction. They were too busy, following the takeover of the 200 mile zone, with making plans, setting expansive goals, and then allocating fish, and lots of it, instead of making sound, conservative business plans to match fishing effort with the limited availability of the resource. Blame also lies with the federal government for its overly optimistic reliance on science in predicting a large increase in Canada's cod catch in the 1970s and 1980s. Instead of giving the severely stressed cod and other groundfish populations a respite from fishing pressure, Ottawa began freely issuing liscenses, and subsidies were provided big companies to build bigger ships and processing plants. Industry employment rose 60 percent in two decades.

It is at such points that the dynamic known as "the ratchet effect" sets in, as it classically does in virtually all fisheries in modern times. The "ratchet effect" takes hold in the initial stages of exploitation of a new fishery, expansion of an existing fishery, or deployment of a new technology or fishing method. During this stage, harvesting rates increase rapidly and stabilize at excessive, unsustainable levels. Government, which is supposed to regulate the fishery, is motivated instead to remove obstacles so that profits from the fishery can grow. Often, governments offer attractive subsidies, with ready takers drawn by high yields and substantial profits during this initially stable period. Investment in vessels and/or processing grows rapidly.

Conditions soon change, however, and yields start to decline. Then, when the results of additional scientific research and improved knowledge necessitate calls for reductions in the allowable catch, industry appeals to government for help or special consideration, because, by this point, substantial investments and jobs are at risk. The typical response by government at this point is to delay a decision, pending the results of more research. Government procrastinates, arguing that no substantive data is available upon which to base a decision to reduce fishing effort, and without conclusive information the status quo is maintained. The scientific process required to acquire, analyse and respond to such information can take several years. Government often agrees to commit even more subsidies to bolster troubled investors, which only masks the real problem -- the need for (often dramatic) cutbacks. But, the overall effect of government subsidies is to encourage over-harvesting. The ratchet effect thrives on government's failure to regulate the tendency for fisheries investments to expand during good periods, but applies strong pressure not to dis-invest at the first evidence of poor periods.

The Canadian Atlantic fisheries collapse illustrates how government support for the expansionist motivations of private investors in fisheries often results in society at large being long term losers. The profits from capital intensive, hi-tech, industrial scale fisheries are privatised by investors during the boom years, while the costs of such irrational economic behaviour are socialised for years after the crash. In Canada's, case a two- billion dollar recovery bill may only be a part of the total long term costs. The human costs to individuals and desperate communities now deprived of meaningful and sustainable employment is staggering. The trauma suffered by some 40,000 workers and their families in Newfoundland cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

The Canadian calamity also demonstrates that we now have the technological capability to find and annihilate every commercial fish stock, in any ocean and sea, and do irreparable damage to entire ecosystems in the process. Newfoundland and the Northern Cod fishery might still be thriving today if Canada had taken a precautionary approach to the development of its Atlantic fisheries back in the late '70s, instead of the permissive approach which doomed the fishery to collapse.
ENDNOTES

1 Raoul Anderson. "Usufrucht and Contradiction: Territorial Custom and Abuse in Newfoundland's Banks Schooner and Droy Fishery" in Maritime Anthropolocial Studies, MAST 1988, Vol. 1, No2: 81-102.

2 William K. Warner. Distant Water - The Fate of the North Atlantic Fisherman. Penguin Books, 1984. p .viii.

3 Report on the Status of Groundfish Stocks in the Canadian Northwest Atlantic. Atlantic Stock Assessment Secretariat, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. June 1994. p.19.

4 Ibid. p.20.

5 Reproductive Success in Atlantic Cod (Gadus Morhua): The potential Impact of Trawling. A report prepared by: OCEANS Ltd., Newfoundland for the Newfoundland Inshore Fisheries Association. Feb. 1990. pp79-89.

6 Ibid. p. 88."

Couldn't agree more. Wake up Eric.

.

No one will read it. Get over it.

This is what everyone sees when you post no one reads your shit save yourself some time old man.