How to Help | Resources | Spreading the Word | About the Seal Hunt | About Seals | News + Press | Politics + Propaganda | About Us

Sample Letters

It's best to write your own letters and emails. Our automated emails allow you to edit the text and include your own thoughts. We encourage you to do so. Here, we provide a few sample letters to give you ideas and help you overcome writer's block. However, if you wish, you can simply copy the text below.

Example #1- Letter to Red Lobster

Dear _____:

I am but one individual among millions who consider your decision to work with the Canadian government on the issue of seal hunting a bad one.

We will not eat at any of your restaurants until you understand the depth of passion felt by those of us who consider the seal hunts inhumane.

We will stop this practice indefinitely, it will take but a little time. When it is all over, we will remember those who could have done the right thing, but chose not to.

I understand the viewpoint of Red Lobster (yours) is that if you stop purchasing fish from Canada, innocent people will be hurt.

We, in this country, are dead serious in our quest to make the seal hunts stop, so I can guarantee that innocent people (restaurant workers) will be hurt when the layoffs come.

We salute those companies who support the views of the American people, Whole Foods, etc., and they will prosper when 9 million supporters of the HSUS, 8 million from PETA, and thousands of other caring individuals and groups around the country support their businesses.

You do the math. It seems to me that you have a choice - hurt your own people, or hurt the barbarians in Canada.

Contributed by Marlene Behrend - Annapolis, MD

Example #2- Letter to Canadian Politician

Dear Prime Minister _______:

I am writing to express my condemnation of the commercial seal hunt. It has become apparent that the Liberal Government of Canada holds no regard for the welfare, or the very survival of the harp and hooded seals species.Your recent decision to authorize the slaughter of more than a million seals over the next three years is outrageous and indefensible. Already, in 2002, you allowed more than 307,000 animals to be slaughtered - the highest kill level we have witnessed since 1967.

I was horrified to learn of the 2001 report produced by an international team of veterinarians, which concludes that up to 42% of seals are skinned alive. It is deplorable that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans received this report, and still has refused to address the problem. Furthermore, I am aware that more than 660 thoroughly documented violations of the Canadian Criminal Code and Marine Mammal Regulations, including the skinning of live seals, have been submitted to the DFO -and that they have refused to lay a single charge in response.

Equally unacceptable are the recent revisions to the Marine Mammal Regulations, which call for the return of large vessels to the hunt, the establishment of licenses for culling seals, and the reopening of the hunt for blueback hooded seals. Moreover, rather than addressing the problem, the revised MMRs actually legitimize the established practice of shooting several seals prior to ensuring each one is dead.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the federal government of Canada has so deliberately and recklessly encouraged the decimation of a wildlife population that is beloved by people all over the world. Recent polling clearly shows that close to 80% of Americans and Europeans oppose the seal hunt, with a substantial number willing to boycott Canadian products and tourism as a result.

Certainly, your recent actions will guarantee a severe international backlash. I demand that you act according to the will of the majority of Canadian people, 85% of whom believe that seals under a year of age should be protected from all hunting.

End this cruel and unsustainable hunt for harp and hooded seals permanently.

Sincerely,

--Contributed by Global Action Network--

Example #3- Letter to a Canadian Politician

Dear Hon. ________ :

Policies regarding the environment seem to be those for which officials least seek counsel from experts who have spent their professional careers studying ecosystems, the environment, and practices we MUST implement in order to sustain our own species's existence, indisputably and highly dependent on limited natural resources.

You are an intelligent man. If you think about it for a moment, I'm sure you would agree that it does not make economic, political, nor ethical sense to make decisions about that which you do not know. Indeed, elected officials make scores of important decisions and cannot be expected to be experts on all the topics for which they implement far-reaching and impactful policies. It is their responsibility, however, to seek counsel from those who have more expertise than they so that those same officals might carry out the job for which he or she was elected: that of implementing informed, responsible decisions.

The Canadian fishing industry has been in crisis since the collapse of the Northern cod populations in the early nineties. A plethora of evidence points to the fact that this is due to overfishing. Wouldn't it then be in the interest of the Canadian government to implement policies that would avoid this plight- a plight which one of its own industries has brought about itself?

The reason the cod population is so low is that the government has been irresponsible in its policies that have not only allowed for, but have encouraged over-fishing of the population. Killing harp seals will not bring this population back. In fact, the opposite is true. The seals prey on a primary predator of the cod.

This is what happens when uninformed people make decisions that threaten impactful negative effects. Scapegoating for irresponsible policies is cowardice. If and when the cod populations come back- which will not happen nor be guaranteed by the subsequent killing of the harp seal population, the government and the fishing industry will face the same problem. A temporary scapegoat will not fix the problem. I'm sure an educated gentleman like yourself can comprehend this.

There are alternative industries, potentially very profitable, that can be engaged in so as to avoid and divert over fishing. I know a number of people with some very good proposals in this way. It would, however, involve government officials supporting participation in alternative, profitable industries that would allow a more sustainable existence with limited natural resources.

I have copied this message to a number of those officials.