TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

nations’ whale killing methods. However, despite Norway’s efforts, the best IDR reported to dateduring Norwegian whaling operations is 80.7 per cent (reported for the 2002 hunt). Consequentlysome 19.3 per cent of whales killed during this hunt clearly did not die instantaneously; indeed onewhale broke free and lived for 1.5 hours and the average time to death (TTD) was two minutes 21seconds (Øen 2003). This IDR statistic of 80.7 per cent is the highest recorded for commercialwhaling since the Commission was established.TTD and IDR statistics should only be considered as ‘best estimates’, rather than reliable data with acalculable margin of error. The current criteria used for determining death in hunted cetaceans (seechapter 11) are considered by many experts to be inadequate (Butterworth et al. 2003, RSPCA 2003)and are likely to underestimate the time to death and may also result in inflated IDRs. This potentialsource of error is further compounded by the fact that the recording of ‘instantaneous death’ duringwhaling activities is likely, in reality, to equate to at least ten seconds (Kestin 1995) after harpoonstrike. This is due to the time taken to assess the behaviour of the whale, according to the currentcriteria, following the harpoon strike. How long, for example, does one wait to assess immobility?Consequently, it is likely that the margin of error in the statistics presented to the IWC by all whalingnations is considerable. These data should, therefore, only be considered as best estimates and theactual times to death for many cetaceans may be significantly longer than current data indicate.Norway’s whaling efforts use the most sophisticated and ‘efficient’ methods that are currentlyavailable. However, Norway still fails to kill around 20 per cent of whales within ten seconds. Thisfalls far short of international expectations for the slaughter of other animals for commercialpurposes, where humane treatment is required, both before and during the slaughter process andwhere the emphasis is placed on ensuring that the animal is rendered immediately insensible, using astunning procedure, in order to avoid pain and suffering (Gregory and Lowe 1999). Furthermore,even in cases where whales are recorded as killed ‘instantaneously’ (according to the IWC criteria),the evaluation of ‘instantaneous death’ may take at least ten seconds, during which time someanimals may still have been alive. In Japan’s hunts for minke whales in Antarctica, the figures are evenless satisfactory. In the 2002/2003 JARPA hunt, for example, 59.8 per cent of whales killed wererecorded as not dying ‘instantaneously’ (Ishikawa 2003).WHALING & WELFARE125Consider further that the main weapon used during both Norwegian and Japanese whalingoperations is the penthrite grenade harpoon, a weapon specifically designed for killing minke whales.This weapon is also used to kill larger species, for which it has not been specifically adapted, such asBryde’s, sei and fin whales (Anon 2003). The same basic technology, with a slight increase inpenthrite charge is also used by Japan for killing sperm whales (IWC 2003a). Sperm whales are notonly much larger than minke whales, but also present a significantly different anatomy. This is likelyto significantly influence the course of projectiles and energy delivered to the brain, and therefore,the efficiency of any killing method applied. In New Zealand, in recognition of the problemsassociated with the humane euthanasia of these very large animals, a specific device has beendeveloped for euthanasing stranded sperm whales at close range (see chapter 10). To date, Japan hasfailed to report any data on the TTD or IDR from the sperm whale hunts that it recommenced in2000.The more ‘traditional’ killing methods used during Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) are lessefficient and therefore often fall short of even the relatively poor standards achieved during