If you can read that letter, that is how they edited my email to them. While some of the message is the same they drastically changed the context and certain nuances. Here is the original I sent them:
COMMERCIAL Seal hunt IS Inhumane (Like all Commercial Slaughteri
As an ethical vegan, I took a strong contention with two straw man editorials in Saturday's paper: "Seals vs. pigs" and Terry Mester's letter to the editor. Both seem to be implying that all those who oppose the COMMERCIAL seal hunt must be hypocrites. While the majority of people have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals (i.e. Terry's allusion to eating meat - by only saying he wouldn't eat uncooked meat - while still proclaiming to be "an animal lover"), they understand animal cruelty is wrong. In a website provide to me by Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette (www.sealsonline.org), it states that only 98% of seals are killed humanely. So if sealers killed their full quota - luckily they haven't been due of lack of demand - 5600 seals would still be killed inhumanely; by the sealers' own statistics! This also assumes there is actually a witness to every, or even most, seal death(s) as the St. John's Telegram article wrongly implies there could be (hence why would-be third-party observers have to apply for an observation permit...). But that still begs the question: when has bludgeoning a feeling being with a spiked club (or even shooting one from a distance) ever been considered humane?
While some who oppose the seal hunt certainly are hypocrites, I am willing to call them an "ally" in the animal rights movement, provided it could lead to a decrease in the amount of animals killed for commercial gain. In return, I hope they can reconcile their cognitive dissonance and learn to be someone who actually respects and cares for all animals.