The hunt is well regulated
The fact that regulations are upheld and that a deed is not illegal is no defense of the moral caliber of a deed.
The seal population is stable and healthy and is barely affected by the hunt
The fact that the sort survives does not justify killing individuals.
There is a demand for fur and (seal) blubber on the world markets

The economy is the driving force behind the hunt and is not a justification for the manner in which trading comes about.

If the local population cannot hunt seals, it will go bankrupt
This applies to a very limited number of the population. If they concentrated on other business, or even moved to another location, they would not go bankrupt.
In other parts of the world, many animals in factory farming are slaughtered and skinned, unknown to the public
Although this is true, it is a tit-for-tat argument. The injustice committed by others gives nobody the right to commit injustice himself.
Hunters do all in their power to prevent injuring wild animals.
30-60% of migratory geese die with bullets in their bodies. The most effective way of preventing this, is by not shooting at all.
Seal hunting is a form of fishing and nobody objects to fishing
Seals are mammals which are hunted illegally. Giving this deed a different label does not make the deed any more acceptable. There are also moral objections thinkable to catching fish.
Canadian seals have been hunted for centuries by Eskimos for their fur
The Eskimos used this fur for their clothing and they ate the meat. Nowadays animals are cudgeled unconscious in uncountable numbers for commercial reasons and are skinned alive. This causes extra and unnecessary animal suffering.
The hunt does not lead to extinction of the species
The ethical objection to hunting for economical purposes bears no relation to the continuation of a population.
The local population enjoys an extra income from the hunt
Nowadays seals are hunted for economical reasons (export of fur and blubber), formerly they were hunted for consumption. The original inhabitants of the polar regions did not form part of the global economy. If they now find that their income is too low, they should move elsewhere and earn their salaries without hunting.

This article is part of a series on falsities and demagogy

Some arguments used in debate on the topics in the title simply are invalid.

That goes for pro and contra.

We selected a few of the most rigid arguments from different situations and placed an appropriate counterargument.

Because a more clear and honest way of reasoning helps improve the circumstances animals live in.

Mail us if you encounter other or new (counter)-arguments.

Apart from the specific issues there are the types of arguments in general.

Fallacies are deliberately or accidentally used in a debate. So be aware of the principles and the integrity of an opponent. Click here for tips on how to react to animal-unfriendly behavior of others.

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups:

meat-eaters

vegetarians

10 myths about Vegans

factory farming

ignoring animal rights

advocating animal rights

experimentation with animals

circus

hunting for pleasure

seal hunt

mink farming

bullfighting