The Animal Welfare Implications of Cetacean Deaths in Fisheries
The Animal Welfare Implications of Cetacean Deaths in Fisheries
The Animal Welfare Implications of Cetacean Deaths in Fisheries
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Similarly <strong>in</strong> the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996:-<br />
‘if … any person mutilates, kicks, beats, nails or otherwise impales,<br />
stabs, burns, stones, crushes, drowns, drags or asphyxiates any wild<br />
mammal with <strong>in</strong>tent to <strong>in</strong>flict unnecessary suffer<strong>in</strong>g he shall be guilty <strong>of</strong><br />
an <strong>of</strong>fence.’<br />
Elsewhere with<strong>in</strong> Europe, the Lithuanian Law <strong>of</strong> Wildlife 1997 prohibits 'cruel<br />
behaviour towards wild animals’; this is supplemented by the Law on the Care,<br />
Keep<strong>in</strong>g and Use <strong>of</strong> <strong>Animal</strong>s 1997, which seeks to protect animals from ‘suffer<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
cruel treatment and other negative pressures’. Similarly, Poland's <strong>Animal</strong> Protection<br />
Act 1997 provides that ‘unjustified or <strong>in</strong>humane kill<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> animals and their abuse is<br />
forbidden’. Globally, the majority <strong>of</strong> countries have laws that protect animals aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
pa<strong>in</strong> and suffer<strong>in</strong>g (Gillespie 2003); for example, all US states and the District <strong>of</strong><br />
Columbia have anti-cruelty laws, which generally prohibit the <strong>in</strong>tentional tortur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and kill<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> an animal (Gillespie 2003; Rowen & Rosen 2005).<br />
Across most animal welfare legislation, caus<strong>in</strong>g death or suffer<strong>in</strong>g to wild<br />
animals is prohibited, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> some countries, by drown<strong>in</strong>g. However, it is the<br />
<strong>in</strong>tentional, not <strong>in</strong>cidental, caus<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> suffer<strong>in</strong>g or death that is prohibited, and so the<br />
negative welfare consequences for cetaceans that are bycaught as the <strong>in</strong>cidental<br />
result <strong>of</strong> fish<strong>in</strong>g activities are not covered by current welfare legislation.<br />
However, guidel<strong>in</strong>es to ensure an adequate level <strong>of</strong> animal welfare are welldef<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
for certa<strong>in</strong> sectors; those that are relevant to cetacean bycatch are the<br />
standards for the slaughter <strong>of</strong> livestock and the trapp<strong>in</strong>g standards for kill<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
restra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g traps.<br />
6.4. Farm animal welfare and slaughter standards<br />
Standards for the humane kill<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> farm animals are becom<strong>in</strong>g commonplace with<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational law. <strong>The</strong> emerg<strong>in</strong>g consensus is that where animals are slaughtered<br />
commercially for meat, they must not suffer at the time <strong>of</strong> death, must be rendered<br />
immediately <strong>in</strong>sensible and thus, are required to be stunned or anaesthetised before<br />
kill<strong>in</strong>g (Gregory & Lowe 1999). In a study <strong>of</strong> slaughter<strong>in</strong>g methods, all 27 countries<br />
surveyed required ‘<strong>in</strong>stantaneous’ death and, <strong>in</strong> most cases, this required a stunn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
process which lasted until death (Gregory 1989/90; Gregory & Lowe 1999). Stunn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
is carried out <strong>in</strong> three ways: head concussion, electric current and carbon dioxide<br />
29