TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

40
A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES
Norway manufactures a penthrite grenade harpoon known as ‘Whalegrenade-99’, which it uses in its
domestic hunts and sells to Iceland, Japan and Greenland. Japan also uses a slightly modified version
of this grenade with a longer trigger cord that delays the explosion until the harpoon is embedded
deeper in the animal (Ishikawa 2002). Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (which oversees Japan’s
whaling operations and scientific research, and also markets the meat), is conducting comparative
tests between the Norwegian grenade and Japan’s own modified version. It is expected, however, that
financial rather than humane considerations will determine the government of Japan’s ultimate choice
of whale killing technology. Despite evidence presented by Japan to the 2003 IWC meeting
demonstrating that the instantaneous death rate for minke whales killed using the Norwegian
grenade was greater than for those killed using the Japanese grenade, Japan conceded that “Financial
concerns may be the most important factor related to the decision whether or not to introduce them [the
Norwegian grenade] to Japan” (Ishikawa and Mogoe 2003, Ishikawa 2003).
Reporting data
The schedule to the ICRW includes a reporting form 12 for the collection of data from all factory
ships and catcher ships 13 . The data collected are considered annually by the Commission’s standing
Working Group on Whaling Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues, and in greater detail
every 3-5 years by its expert Workshop on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues. The
last workshop met in June 2003 just before the 55th Annual Meeting of the IWC. Norway provides
data on whale killing as required under the schedule. However, Japan continues to withhold much of
the data it collects from its whaling operations 14 . For example in 2003, Japan only presented data
(which was itself incomplete) on two of the four species that it hunts in the North Pacific ‘JARPN’
hunt. It also provided some details, for the first time since the hunt began in 2000, of the harpoon it
uses to kill sperm whales, but offered no TTD or IDR data. Nor did it volunteer any substantive
reasons for its choice, for sperm whales, of a 75mm harpoon and a penthrite charge 1.7 times greater
than is used on minke whales (30g) (Anon 2003c).
Evaluation of methods used during commercial whaling
Despite the similarity of methods used by Norway and Japan for killing whales, there are marked
differences in killing efficiency as illustrated by the IDR and the average TTD in each hunt (Table
1). There may be several operational reasons for this difference. Japan often points to the weather
(chapter 8) and the accuracy of new gunners as a causative factor for this difference. Japanese whalers
may aim for the thorax in order to preserve the whales’ ear-plugs for their research. However, the
choice may also be influenced by the larger target offered by the thorax.
Many countries have regulations requiring stunning immediately prior to slaughter of livestock
animals that are killed for food. The objective is to cause instantaneous insensibility to pain through
a loss of consciousness which lasts until death (Gregory and Lowe 1999) (see chapter 12). In order
for this to be achieved in whales, energy must be supplied to nervous tissue to bring about a stunned
state. This can be achieved either via a percussive energy wave, through blast energy induced
neurotrauma, or by electrical energy delivered directly, or close to, the brain.
Whaling techniques compare unfavourably to terrestrial slaughterhouse killing methods in achieving
instantaneous insensibility or death. In 2002, 80.7 per cent of whales were instantaneously killed or
rendered insensible in Norway’s hunts and only 40.2 per cent in Japan’s Antarctic hunt (the rates for
other, larger, species taken by Japan during the JARPN hunts are unlikely to be ‘better’).