TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

knowledge of external landmarks for identifying target areas for the species taken, are also extremely important factors. Prevailing weather conditions, including sea state and visibility may, in addition, be significant (chapter 8). Sea state influences both the stability of the platform from which the killing method is applied and the relative movements of the target animal. Adverse weather conditions are frequently cited by the government of Japan as being a cause for the poor instantaneous death rate in their Antarctic hunt for minke whales 2 . Even during the euthanasia of cetaceans stranded on the beach, where euthanasia occurs at close proximity, weather conditions can affect the safe and efficient use of firearms. On the beach, high seas and driving winds can cause stranded cetaceans to be moving constantly, making the effective placement of the bullet in the brain difficult. In New Zealand for example, it is not considered safe to euthanase a stranded sperm whale with the SWED until the animal is no longer surrounded by water. This is to avoid any movements of the whale, caused by immersion in water, which might deflect the course of the bullet and to ensure that the SWED operator has a firm footing before discharging the firearm. In addition there are a number of characteristics that vary between cetacean species and between individual animals that will influence the accuracy of any killing method. There are considerable anatomical variations among cetacean species to which the same or similar killing methods are applied during whaling operations (Anon 2003). These differences may affect the course of projectiles through the body, as they travel through different depths of blubber and muscle and encounter bone and vital organs at specific locations. Such factors may also apply to individuals of the same species, who vary in size according to, age and sex and vary in blubber thickness according to season 3 . During whaling operations, where the potential for accuracy is often poor, these specific characteristics may greatly increase the margin for error, and therefore, influence the time to death and associated suffering. During the 2003 IWC Workshop on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues, the United Kingdom presented a paper evaluating the methods that are currently used to kill whales during whaling operations and how these methods are specifically adapted for the species taken (Anon 2003). It concluded that, in general, the killing methods used during whaling operations are not well adapted for the specific anatomical requirements of the different species taken. Concern was expressed that this may be a major contributory factor in protracted times to death and may, in particular, be a cause for concern where larger species, such as fin and sperm whales, are killed using methods developed for the much smaller minke species. It was concluded that during whaling operations there is a tendency for killing methods to be transferred from one species to another, without due consideration for the specific killing requirements between species. During the 2003 Workshop, the Austrian delegation noted the dependence on secondary killing methods, such as the rifle, during whaling operations (Stachowitsch and Brakes 2003). This reflects the inefficiency of some of the primary killing methods used. The efficiency of secondary killing methods is also dependant on many variables, and it is important that all secondary killing methods seek to render an already wounded animal dead as swiftly as possible. Therefore, all secondary killing methods should be sufficiently powerful, and adequate calibre and bullet design should be selected in order to achieve this. Norway, for example, recommends that a minimum calibre of 9.3mm (.365) (generating at least 5500 joules energy) with round nose full-jacketed bullets should be used for EUTHANASIA OF CETACEANS 81
82 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES whales the size of minke whales (Øen and Knudsen 2003) 4 . In addition, good marksmanship is also imperative for efficiency, as is accurate anatomical knowledge of the species targeted. Despite recommendations of a minimum calibre choice of 9.3mm (.365), lower powered and less effective cartridges continue to be used as both primary and secondary killing methods during some whaling operations (see chapter 6). The Russian Federation for example, continues to use 7.62mm calibre firearms for killing gray and bowhead whales. Greenland also continues to use 7.62mm calibre weapons during some minke hunts. The use of underpowered and low calibre cartridges, in combination with low calibre weapons corresponds directly with the number of bullets that are required per animal and the resultant times to death. During the 1999 Chukotkan hunt, for example, 180 bullets were required to kill one whale, the average time to death was one hour and the maximum time to death recorded was three hours 40 minutes (Kuraev 2000). Conclusion The meticulous nature of the methods developed for the euthanasia of stranded cetaceans and the conditions under which these methods are applied, contrast significantly with the often inferior circumstances and substandard methods used during whaling operations. Whalers attempting to achieve a fatal shot, either with a harpoon or a rifle, often must do so at considerable range, and need to overcome a number of significant factors which hinder the accurate placement of the harpoon or bullet to the target site. The significance of these variables and the inadequacies of the methods used are reflected in the poor instantaneous death rate and the average times to death during all whaling operations. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the staff from the Department of Conservation and Project Jonah in New Zealand and the Marine Animal Rescue Coalition (MARC) in the United Kingdom, for their tireless efforts in relation to the rescue of stranded cetaceans, in often adverse conditions. References Anon 1999. A proposal for the study of responses relevant to the dying process in a whale aimed at submission of related data and improvement of the evaluation of killing methods. Submitted to the 1999 IWC Workshop on Whale Killing Methods. IWC/51/WK15. Anon 2003. Evaluation of current methods used to kill whales in relation to species taken. Submitted by the UK to the IWC Workshop on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues, Berlin, Germany, June 7-9, 2003. IWC/55/WK20. Baker, A. N. 1983. Whales and Dolphins of New Zealand and Australia. Victoria University Press, Wellington. Donoghue, M., Bamber, C. and Suisted, R. 2003. Euthanasia of Stranded Cetaceans in New Zealand. Submitted by New Zealand to the IWC Workshop on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues. IWC/55/WK5. Hanks, P. (ed.) 1988. The Collins Concise Dictionary of the English Language. Collins, London and Glasgow. Hine, R.S. (ed.) 1988. Concise Veterinary Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Ishikawa, H. 2001. Report on Whale Killing Methods in the 2000/2001 JARPA. Submitted by Japan to the 2001 IWC Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues. IWC/53/WKM&AWI7.
Page 1 and 2:
TROUBLED WATERS A REVIEW OF THE WEL
Page 3 and 4:
II A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 5 and 6:
IV A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 7 and 8:
2 A REVIEW REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IM
Page 9 and 10:
4 A REVIEW REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IM
Page 11 and 12:
6 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATI
Page 13 and 14:
8 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATI
Page 15 and 16:
10 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: 30 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 85: 80 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICAT
Page 105 and 106: 100 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICA
Page 137 and 138:
132 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICA
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Appendix II Colour plates ©Mark Vo
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Figure 13. Processing minke whales
show all

TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?