I'm sure my time is reduced a little, but that was worth hearing, so thank you for that.

Mr. Dakins, I think you've done a great a job of talking about the need for market and social confidence coming from that third party validation so that domestically and internationally there's confidence in the ethics and sustainability of the seal hunt.

My question isn't really relating to the bill. When we deal with the licensed observers, if I'm reading this correctly, the intention is that licensed observers are there presumably because they have a level of training, skills, and expertise to observe, there's quality in their ability to observe something, to provide that validation and confidence. So they're an important component of the hunt to be there, licensed with quality management control, and able to observe and then provide some unbiased commentary on the hunt itself. The unlicensed observers don't necessarily have that. They can be there for whatever intent and purpose, and it's that group that we regulate away from it and they can be there as long as there is safety and security.

My question is twofold. You did touch on it a bit in your recommendations, that moving the licensed observer category to farther out is needed as well for purely a safety reason. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm taking from that point that you're really focused on the safety angle and that there isn't an element of obstruction of the hunt going on by the licensed observers. Are there cases though where the licensed observers have been obstructionist, have been interfering, and have intentionally caused safety concerns—not the unintentional safety concern, because you're point is taken that when you have firearms in close proximity and the stress of that, the hunters are paying attention to something going on when they should be focused on the issue and it can generate some safety issues.

My focus on the question though is the intentional obstruction of the hunt by licensed observers.

Ryan Leef

Transcript

Discussions (0)