TROUBLED WATERS - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Norway manufactures a penthrite grenade harpoon known as ‘Whalegrenade-99’, which it uses in itsdomestic hunts and sells to Iceland, Japan and Greenland. Japan also uses a slightly modified versionof this grenade with a longer trigger cord that delays the explosion until the harpoon is embeddeddeeper in the animal (Ishikawa 2002). Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research (which oversees Japan’swhaling operations and scientific research, and also markets the meat), is conducting comparativetests between the Norwegian grenade and Japan’s own modified version. It is expected, however, thatfinancial rather than humane considerations will determine the government of Japan’s ultimate choiceof whale killing technology. Despite evidence presented by Japan to the 2003 IWC meetingdemonstrating that the instantaneous death rate for minke whales killed using the Norwegiangrenade was greater than for those killed using the Japanese grenade, Japan conceded that “Financialconcerns may be the most important factor related to the decision whether or not to introduce them [theNorwegian grenade] to Japan” (Ishikawa and Mogoe 2003, Ishikawa 2003).40A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIESReporting dataThe schedule to the ICRW includes a reporting form 12 for the collection of data from all factoryships and catcher ships 13 . The data collected are considered annually by the Commission’s standingWorking Group on Whaling Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues, and in greater detailevery 3-5 years by its expert Workshop on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues. Thelast workshop met in June 2003 just before the 55th Annual Meeting of the IWC. Norway providesdata on whale killing as required under the schedule. However, Japan continues to withhold much ofthe 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 ituses to kill sperm whales, but offered no TTD or IDR data. Nor did it volunteer any substantivereasons for its choice, for sperm whales, of a 75mm harpoon and a penthrite charge 1.7 times greaterthan is used on minke whales (30g) (Anon 2003c).Evaluation of methods used during commercial whalingDespite the similarity of methods used by Norway and Japan for killing whales, there are markeddifferences in killing efficiency as illustrated by the IDR and the average TTD in each hunt (Table1). 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 whalersmay aim for the thorax in order to preserve the whales’ ear-plugs for their research. However, thechoice may also be influenced by the larger target offered by the thorax.Many countries have regulations requiring stunning immediately prior to slaughter of livestockanimals that are killed for food. The objective is to cause instantaneous insensibility to pain througha loss of consciousness which lasts until death (Gregory and Lowe 1999) (see chapter 12). In orderfor this to be achieved in whales, energy must be supplied to nervous tissue to bring about a stunnedstate. This can be achieved either via a percussive energy wave, through blast energy inducedneurotrauma, or by electrical energy delivered directly, or close to, the brain.Whaling techniques compare unfavourably to terrestrial slaughterhouse killing methods in achievinginstantaneous insensibility or death. In 2002, 80.7 per cent of whales were instantaneously killed orrendered insensible in Norway’s hunts and only 40.2 per cent in Japan’s Antarctic hunt (the rates forother, larger, species taken by Japan during the JARPN hunts are unlikely to be ‘better’).