International Whaling Commission

1954 International Organization  
Executive summary • In this report, we present data from three sources to examine the welfare aspects of the commercial Canadian seal hunt as it currently operates. These sources are: (i) 17 post mortem examinations of harp seal pups killed in 2007; (ii) videos supplied by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) showing 169 seals killed by over 20 different sealing boats during the hunts in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007; and (iii) an
more » ... Expert Opinion Analysis where 133 experts were sent 30 randomly-selected timelines where each showed the sequence of events extracted from the videos for a single seal kill and asked "How do you rate the overall welfare of this animal during the processes which resulted in its death?". • Both the seal carcasses and the videos were a random sample and the data in this report provide a comprehensive overview of the pattern of sealing undertaken across a broad spectrum of ice conditions and by different sealing boats in the years since two earlier reviews on welfare aspects of the hunt in 2001. • Of the 17 seals examined post mortem, all had been clubbed (one had also been shot). Of these, 47% had been clubbed on the face or neck, and 82% had ocular damage. At the end of the post mortem examination, each animal was given three likelihood scores of 1 to 10 (where 1=good welfare, 10=poor welfare) by the person who undertook that post mortem examination, based on his assessment of whether: the animal was dead at the time of skinning; the animal had been rendered insensible immediately; and the animal had suffered distress following the first insult. Based on these scores, and two other measures (whether blood was present in the stomach and the presence of facial injuries), there were no welfare concerns for 2 of the 17 seals. For the other 15, there were substantial concerns about the way they had been killed. 2 • From the videos, we were able to establish the start sequences for 88% of 169 seals that were killed; of these, 37% were shot first, 63% were clubbed first. Irrespective of whether they were first shot or clubbed, a blinking reflex test and/or cranial palpation was only undertaken in 33% of cases, and these often appeared to be performed in a superficial manner which cast doubts on the adequacy of the way the tests were performed. • Of the seals that were shot, 78% were shot once. Of 51 shots where the point of impact could be established, 41% were in the head region, 55% in other parts of the body, and 4% missed. Most shot seals (66%) subsequently needed to be struck with a hakapik or club, and a further 16% were responding to stimuli after being shot but were not clubbed. Thus 82% of shot seals were not killed by the first shot. The mean duration of time from first shot to contact by the sealer was 48.8±9.4 seconds, indicating a substantial period of potential suffering before the sealers could have ensured that the animals were insensible. • Wounding rates when seals were shot were extremely high, even though at least 8 (57%) of 14 rifles used to shoot seals had telescopic sights (for four it was unclear, two did not have telescopic sights). Sealers did not usually shoot a seal twice, even when it was obviously wounded by the first shot, presumably because the animal had been at least partially immobilised with the first shot, and further shots would reduce the value of the pelt. There are many practical problems when trying to shoot seals from a boat, even in a relatively calm sea (the boat is moving, the ice is moving, and seal may also be moving), and these lead to high levels of wounding. Since it is not possible to address these problems, shooting seals from boats should be viewed as inherently inhumane since it is highly improbable that improvements in current practices could lead to internationally acceptable standards of welfare. • Clubbing appears to be the preferred method of killing seals in the Gulf and is invariably used when ice conditions permit. Yet even this leads to high levels of wounding, and most seals are not checked by the sealers. Of the seals that 3 were clubbed, 39% required two separate series of blows: mean time between series was 23.9±3.2 seconds. The delay was because sealers would chase after escaping seals, striking them in sequence rather than stopping to determine whether each seal was dead before moving on to another. Furthermore, sealers would club seals whilst chasing after them, thereby preventing the accurate placement of blows, and sometimes the hakapik was only held in one hand, thereby reducing the power of the blow that was delivered. After being clubbed, 25% of seals (12% received one series of blows, 13% more than one series of blows) subsequently showed responses to stimuli. • Of the 100 sequences where we could time events from the first insult to last action, the mean duration was 38.9±3.4 seconds (range 1-162 seconds). However, these times should be viewed as minima due to restrictions caused by filming. • Large numbers of seals are killed in a few days, and there is competition between sealers to collect as many skins as possible before the hunt is closed. Effectively, it is a 'gold rush'. Bearing in mind that guidelines on how to kill seals have been issued by the Canadian authorities, and that the conditions under which the sealers operate are difficult, it is concluded that the commercial and practical pressures that the sealers are under make clubbing of seals inherently inhumane. We do not believe that it would be possible to improve practices such that this method of killing would reach internationally acceptable standards. • A blinking reflex test or cranial palpation was only performed on 21% of the seals that were observed to be gaffed; 44% of gaffed seals showed responses to stimuli after being gaffed. • Skinning or cutting with a knife was only observed in 18 seals; the majority of these (14) were in 2003. Skinning was rarely filmed in other years (one in 2004, two in 2005, none in 2006, one in 2007) because there was a longer 4 delay between shooting/clubbing and skinning. Of the skinned seals, only 4 (22%) were checked prior to the onset of skinning, whereas 15 (83%) responded to stimuli after cutting had begun. In 33% of cases, the sealers stopped cutting to club the seal again. These figures may not be typical of all years; in years where skinning is delayed, these figures are likely to be lower. • Welfare concerns are consistent between years, indicating that they are not associated with particular ice conditions. The data from this study are in remarkable agreement with two studies conducted by other investigators in 2001. This shows that there have been no improvements in welfare standards over the last six years, despite these problems having been highlighted in the past and despite recommendations from the Independent Veterinarian's Welfare Group, which was established by the federal government to improve welfare standards. • There was a widespread disregard for the Marine Mammal Regulations and non-statutory regulations from the sealers' professional bodies. A maximum of only 15% of seals we observed on the videos were killed in a manner that conformed to the Marine Mammal Regulations; because we did not have continuous sequences for all seals, this is a maximum figure since violations could have occurred during the period when events were not being recorded. • The failure to improve standards over the last six years shows a lack of willingness and/or ability to address welfare concerns, and the low level of adherence to the Marine Mammal Regulations shows a widespread failure by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to monitor the hunt effectively and/or enforce the Marine Mammal Regulations. Since this is the largest marine mammal hunt in the world, with around 300,000 seals killed each year, this is a significant welfare issue. • Fifty-three international experts took part in an expert opinion analysis; they were sent 30 randomly-selected timelines showing a summary of the events that occurred for the 100 seals for which we had video data showing the entire 5 sequence of events. Of 1503 submitted scores, 33.7% indicated good welfare, whereas 44.6% indicated bad welfare. The most significant factor that explained variation in scores was the duration of the timeline; the experts generally considered that good welfare occurred when all events occurred within 15 seconds. This was less than half the average duration of the timelines, which were in any case biased towards shorter events; only 30% of timelines were ≤15 seconds long. • However, some short time sequences also had high (i.e. bad) welfare scores, indicating that the experts also considered other factors to be important. Gaffing before death and cutting/skinning before death both significantly increased (i.e. worsened) the welfare scores. Whilst checking that the animal was insensible or dead improved the welfare scores, the significance of this variable was lower than for other variables because checking was often inadequate and the seal was subsequently gaffed or cut/skinned whilst still sensible. • There was a striking similarity between the mean welfare scores given by the three experts who examined the seal pups post mortem (5.2±0.6, scale 0-10) and the mean welfare scores for the timelines examined by the panel of international experts (56.1±1.0, scale 0-100); higher scores indicated bad welfare. Thus using different approaches and different groups of experts to assess the welfare of the commercial Canadian seal hunt led to very similar outcomes, and we believe that the conclusions presented here are robust and reflect the views of a wider scientific community. • We compare the welfare standards of the seal hunt with the expectations in commercial slaughterhouses in both the EU and Canada. The likelihood of a single effective shot or strike in despatching seal pups is well below the corresponding standards achieved for animals in slaughterhouses. Since the number of affected animals is large, and the levels of wounding are high, the hunting method should be considered unacceptable. 6
doi:10.1017/s0020818300022359 fatcat:4hsxc6ajgzan7it3m6yxgxs3ha