Andy Butterworth, senior research fellow, wrote that "although many of the seals observed were clearly wounded by the clubbing and shooting, sealers did not routinely monitor for unconsciousness (as required) before skinning them."

Too gruesome to consider, but then, hunters argue, so are slaughterhouses. The baby seal "harvest" is simply more visible than, say, the factories where baby calves and lambs are destroyed for scaloppini and party chops. But does one cruelty justify another?

Increasingly, the answer is "no," as other countries follow the lead of Americans, who banned seal products in 1972.

As of March 18, Russia has banned its own seal hunt after the bear-hunting Vladimir Putin called sealing a "bloody industry." And, the European Parliament has adopted a declaration banning commercial seal products (but still allows for traditional hunting, e.g. Inuit). The Parliament plans to vote on a complete ban later this month, which could further emasculate the seal market.

In the meantime, market and other forces seem to be tilting favorably toward the baby seals. Pelt prices are down from $100 per animal in 2006 to just $15 this year, thus undermining government claims of the seals' economic importance.

In other news, which one may interpret as one wishes, the weather is making life difficult for sealers. Strong winds and freezing rain have been slowing them down. The pelts they seek so that human bipeds can be fashionably warm are secure for the time being on the animals who need them most.

Pressures, meanwhile, are mounting across the border where U.S. Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, recently introduced a resolution urging the Canadian government to end the commercial seal hunt.

Come on, Canada. See things Putin's way and I'll donate my hakapik to the museum of your choice.