TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

criteria is likely to be problematic, due to the practical aspects of whaling operations and
furthermore, it is feared these criteria may be inadequate, and may be responsible for underestimating
time to death during whaling operations (chapter 11). For example, using these criteria it may be
possible to judge a live whale, that is suffering from paralysis due to injury, as dead. Furthermore,
Kestin (1995) argues that in practice, there will be a time lag between striking the whale and making
an assessment. ‘Instantaneous death’ during commercial whaling operations, is likely to equate to a
whale that, according to the IWC criteria, shows no signs of life some 10 seconds after the harpoon
has been fired.
Welfare potential of whaling operations
A killing method that is truly painless and causes minimum distress to the animal can be classified as
humane slaughter and therefore a process with the potential for high welfare. The basic principles
that must be addressed to protect the welfare of livestock animals at slaughter provide a useful
framework with which to compare the welfare potential of current whale killing methods. From the
analysis above, it is clear that there are a number of factors inherent in current whale killing methods
which limit the potential for high welfare. These include the initial pursuit, and the difficulties
involved in hitting a distant, largely submerged, moving target from a moving platform at sea. The
killing methods themselves are often not well adapted for the species taken, or the variability of size
between individuals of the same species according to age, sex and season. The significance of these
variables and the inadequacies of the methods used are reflected in the poor instantaneous death
rates, the average times to death and the need for secondary killing methods during all types of
whaling operation.
Discussion
The often poor instantaneous death rate and mean and maximum times to death (see chapter 6)
reflect the lack of welfare management and enforcement in the whaling industry. The only provisions
relating to welfare that currently exist in the schedule to the ICRW 1946 are provided in Table 1.
Note also that the schedule refers only to the killing of whales for aboriginal subsistence need in
relation to mean sustainable yield of the stock (article III, paragraph 13a) and no provisions are
made, within the schedule, to specifically address the welfare issues associated with this particular
category of whaling. Even the IWC definition of ‘humane killing’ is ambiguous 7 . This definition,
although suggested as an ideal, does not require any compliance, nor is it followed with any
regularity.
The extent and quality of legislation currently enacted in many states for the protection of animals at
the time of slaughter, contrasts with the almost complete lack of regulation on the methods used
during whaling operations. Historically attempts have been made within the IWC to address this
issue and a number of resolutions and recommendations have been adopted by the IWC (chapter 5).
Despite these resolutions and recommendations, the quantity and quality of data presented at the
Working Groups and Workshops on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues remains
poor. St Vincent and the Grenadines, for example, failed to submit any data on humpback kills at
the 2003 workshop and Japan has consistently failed to submit any data on the slaughter of sperm
whales in the North Pacific.
The meagre requirements in the schedule for data collection represent the only guidelines to which
A COMPARISON BETWEEN SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND METHODS USED DURING WHALING
99