(from "Whaling for the Twenty-First Century", ICR, 1996)

Yoshihiro Hayashi
Professor, The University of Tokyo

The current estimation of the Antarctic minke whale population is 760,000. This is unexpectedly high compared to the prediction on the population assessment of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales made by scientists before the commercial whaling moratorium (60,000 by the European/American scientists; 400,000 by the Japanese scientists). It is justifiable to say that, under proper scientific management which designates appropriate catch quota, whaling does not endanger the population of minke whales. Unless we are based upon this recognition, our discussion on humane killing of whales will lose its bearings. Our purpose here is not to start an indefinite exchange of world-views or value judgments on humane killing issues in general, but to discuss the best applicable measures to Antarctic minke whaling which now has all the scientifically sound rationale for resumption.

2. Sustainable Wildlife Utilisation

- The Twenty-first Century: An Age for Sustainable Wildlife Utilisation -

I would first like to touch upon the premises on which the issue of the humane killing of whales will be discussed later on in this paper. It is noteworthy that over the past ten years, there is worldwide recognition and understanding for a 'sustainable utilisation of wildlife' along with the growing demand for environmental conservation. The concept of 'sustainable utilisation of wildlife' does not only remove the boundary between livestock and wild animals, but supports the cases where utilisation of the wild animal is more beneficial to conservation than that of the former. I will briefly touch upon these cases in the following paragraphs.

In the African nations where a number of bovine species inhabit, understanding towards sustainable use of wild animals has begun to prevail through its implementation. In fact, a conference on 'Wildlife Research for Sustainable Development' was held in Kenya in 1990 with the participation of seven African nations. The conference acknowledged the fundamentally indispensable role of various wild animals, especially the indigenous animals in Africa, in the maintenance of local ecosystem, and recognised their higher reliability, in productivity and adaptability, to the environment over livestock; therefore, the conference concluded that sustainable use of wildlife should be encouraged.

The following points were mainly raised in support of this conclusion:
1) When a new region is designated for cattle raising, stamping out of tsetse flies by insecticide sprays, etc., over the area is required (causing environmental pollution by drug sprays).
2) Bush and forests have to be cleared for cattle grazing (causing deforestation).
3) Cattle raising requires repetition of measures such as anti-mite sprays, cattle dipping, and vaccination for their management.
4) Feeding habit of the cattle (eating the grass roots below the growing points) endangers the grass tunic (causing desertification).
If cattle were to be replaced by wild animals, the following advantages can be taken:
5) In the course of evolution, the wild animals have become immune to the pathogenic organisms. Hence, there is no need, in principle, of insecticide for tsetse flies and vaccination.
6) The diverse differentiation of wild animal species makes them segregate by different feeds, such as forest, bush and grass; in effect, most effectively utilising the local vegetation. Therefore, a total biomass of wild animals is larger than that of single or combined species of livestock.

As the majority of the participating nations at the conference supported the above points, Kenya, which had totally banned hunting and trade in wildlife products in 1977 and tenaciously maintained the prohibition of wildlife utilisation except for the purpose of tourism, was perceived as being singled out. Consequently, Mr. R.E. Leakey, Director, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya, had to refute by saying that Kenya will consider these points for reference, but that they would not immediately adopt the wildlife utilisation policy, and that they would like to establish some measures with regards to wildlife utilisation in the future.

- Sustainable Utilisation of Wild Animals Can Co-exist with Environmental Conservation -

The new trend in Africa for wildlife is not unique to the concept of sustainable utilisation of wild animals: it is also relevant to the future of whaling. Firstly, the image of Africa as "national parks," in a sense, is based on the egoistic coercion by the developed nations, and not on the fulfillment of the local needs. It may not be in the interest of the tourists from developed nations to see utilisation of the animals which they view for entertainment. This feeling may be shared by Kenya in which tourism has become the largest source of income; however it should not be imposed on all of the African nations.

In spite of the fact that 70% of the livestock of the world are raised in the developing nations, this covers only a 30% share of the total production worldwide, and a mere one-fifth of productivity in the developed nations. This is due to the fact that, in addition to the damage caused by the diseases from viruses and parasites, the productivity of indigenous livestock in the developing nations is yet to be improved, in spite of their strength in relation to disease resistance and environmental adaptability. Even if selected breeds were to be brought from developed nations for improved productivity, the result would not be expected to be the same, because these animals would be vulnerable to numerous kinds of locally infested diseases. Hence, benefits from promoting the sustainable use of wild animals, instead of livestock, are obvious.

From the macroscopic viewpoint, there is a balance between the supply and demand in the global food situation today. This balance is maintained by increasing the yield through technological advancement in the developed nations, as well as the expansion of the arable land through destruction of forests in the developing nations. From the point of view of global conservation, it is necessary to prevent further cultivation of arable land. But in reality, although it may be possible to control the population in developing countries, it would be difficult to constrain the desire of the people in these countries to consume a greater value of animal protein for a better living standard. In fact, during the past ten years, the rate of annual increase in consumption of major grains is only 0.1% for wheat and 0.5% for rice, as opposed to a notably higher growth of 1.5% for feed grains. If this trend continues in the future, we will have to expect further deterioration of the forests worldwide.

Utilisation of wild animals, including whales, is a way to conserve the global environment while utilising the surplus from the earth. It maximises the efficiency of renewable systems of natural resources on the earth. And it is hardly wrong to state that the denial of wildlife utilisation goes against the global trend in support of conservation.

3. Humane Killing of Whales

- Animals are Friends of Mankind -

Utilisation of wild animals is significant, yet, in no way excuses our torturing them to death or inflicting unnecessary pain on them. As Charles R. Darwin once said, animals may be regarded as our brothers in feeling pain, sickness, death, suffering and starvation. Indeed, anyone would abhor a farmer who violently hit his horse which collapsed from fatigue. Fortunately, such cruelty is rare in our modern age.

Humans are sympathetic to animals trapped in a cruel or hopeless situation because of our recognition that, from an evolutionary point of view, animals are closely related to us. It is also a fact, that more people recognise and feel stronger revulsion against pain and suffering. Violence causes pain and sufferings, and it is only natural for those who seek peace and comfort to feel strongly against cruelty which causes such feelings.

Are animals capable of perceiving pain? Although it is not clear if animals discern pain in exactly the same way as humans, it is certainly reasonable to believe that animals in possession of highly developed neurosystems, such as mammals, are fully capable of perceiving pain. Actually, some animal protectionists hold the opinion that killing stray animals in shelters is necessary evil, because mercy killing would relieve the animals from undue mental and physical anguish.

Can we simply sneer at such sympathy with animals as being too sentimental? The answer is "no." James Tuner states in his "Reckoning with the Beast" that concern for animal welfare dates back to the Victorian Era and that this Victorian sympathy for animals eventually contributed to a movement to help mistreated children and the mentally handicapped out of their plights. Turner also noted that abhorrence of pain and suffering has been a driving force for the development of welfare states at home and international relief efforts overseas.

The aim here is not to deny sustainable utilisation or any animal utilisation for sentimental reasons, but rather, to reflect such sentiments and incorporate them, objectively and scientifically, in the implementation of sustainable utilisation. This is precisely why we should explore humane methods of killing whales.

- Is Whaling Inhumane? -

To those who object to whaling on the grounds that it is inhumane, I would ask what the basis for that assertion would be. Answers often given are: (1) wild animals are exempt from killing, because they are different from livestock (2) it takes too long to kill a whale (3) it is cruel. I would like to discuss these three arguments in the following paragraphs. Discussion will be constructive only when it is based on the utilisation of whale resources, not on the animal protectionism which rejects any utilisation of whales.

(1) Are Wild Animals Exempt from Killing?
Are whales exempt from killing because they are wild and not domesticated? If it were an endangered species, it would be necessary to take special measures. Although it is permissible for us to eradicate viruses, bacteria, and parasites - e.g., the smallpox virus - which inflict serious damage on mankind, we do not have the right to extinguish diverse species living on this earth.

I have visited many areas in Southeast Asia where domestication of wild animals has taken place, and studied the relationships between domesticated animals and their wild forms. In these studies, it has become clear that the two are not separate strains but are continuously related. Furthermore, there has been no evidence found in many areas of the world, including Japan and Western nations, that the nerve systems of domesticated animals are less developed than those of wild forms. It was once reported that the brain of a pig is morphologically less developed than that of a wild boar. That evidence, however, simply suggested the neoteny of pigs. If the argument that it is permissible to kill neotenic animals holds true on these grounds, it would be concluded that it is permissible to kill wild animals provided they are sucklings. Such bizarre logic, when stretched to the extreme, could lead to a dreadful doctrine of discrimination in the human society, where a healthy person holds the right to survive whereas an invalid would not.

No philosophy or religion in the Orient follows a belief that wild animals are different from those which are domesticated. I believe that this view of treating the two strains of a species as one is more scientific than that of separating the two. We find it unavoidable, under some circumstances, to control the stock size of wild animals which suffer from overpopulation. We also consider it necessary, from the standpoint of preserving genetic resources, to protect the species of domesticated animals whose stocks have dwindled.

I stated these views in the paper I presented at the IWC-sponsored symposium on "Ethics of Killing Whales" held at the Smithsonian Institute in 1980.

(2) Does It Take Too Long to Kill a Whale?
To cherish life is a self evident rationale. It is the essence of humane killing, to shorten the time to death, by the minute, or even seconds to relieve pain. In our utmost effort to contribute to more humane methods of whaling, Japan developed a penthrite grenade in the 1980s. It was praised highly at the 35th IWC meeting in 1983. By the use of penthrite explosives, we have obtained the average time of 2 minutes and 24 seconds taken to death of a minke whale in the Antarctic, and 1 minute and 14 seconds in the coastal operation.

These averages can be favourably compared with the time to death of other wild animals. I can refer to the cases of large mammals hunted in Japan such as wild boar and deer. Data taken from my experiences of hunting for pest control, the time-to-death, taken from the first shot to death, on the average, well exceeds 10 minutes. Within a forest where visibility is poor, the time to death is longer. Even in an area like savanna, where visibility is good, an average time-to-death is, at best, 5 minutes.

I have not been aware of any criticisms on the time to death either in Japan or in other countries, except for certain circumstances. This is because most people appreciate that hunters are doing the best they could to minimise the time to death of the animals according to the given habitat. On the other hand, it is right to condemn exceptional cases, such as some game hunting where animals are tortured to death.

Killing whales and slaughtering livestock cannot be compared in a simple equation. Certainly, the time-to-death in whaling may be longer than that of a slaughter house when the most advanced techniques are applied there. However, whereas livestock is captivated from their birth to death, whales are kept wild and free until the very moment of their death. Livestock, when raised in poor condition, is prone to experience physical and mental pain, to say the least of their journey to the slaughterhouse. But, we do not demand prohibition of raising livestock. We only ask for a more humane environment and an improvement for animal transportation.

Being one of the members of the team that developed the penthrite explosive harpoon, I feel proud of the achievement made by my colleagues toward improved methods of whaling, and sincerely hope that efforts will continue to further enhance the system. Whaling using the penthrite explosive harpoon, developed in Japan, is not 'perfect,' since there is no technology in this world that is 'perfect.' All techniques are subject to improvement, and we must continue our efforts to near perfection. However, what is necessary now, to shorten the time to death of minke whales, is the improvement of the skill of the harpooner, rather than the improvement of the explosive harpoon itself. Unfortunately, under the current moratorium, there is only a limited opportunity for training the skills of harpooners.

(3) Is it Cruel?
Recently, in the IWC, an allegation has been made that whaling is cruel because of its use of an electric lance. Is it really 'cruel' to kill whale by electric lance?

It is justifiable to condemn cruel treatment of animals. It comes from respect for life and humanity. Before discussing the electric lance, we should re-examine what cruelty really is first.

Cruelty can be defined as the intentional infliction of unnecessary pain. Whipping a horse that has collapsed from exhaustion is a merciless action, but whipping a horse during horseback riding is a necessary gesture for communication. Whipping, in case of the former example, is cruel, because the intention is to mercilessly force further labour without any consideration to the condition of the animal. On the other hand, the latter action is commonly accepted as natural and necessary to make a horse move forward. In the case of exhausted horse, the whipping is particularly cruel; the horse is too exhausted to make a move, even if it wishes to follow the command. In the case of horseback riding, the horse anticipates the whip as a form of communication from its rider. Whether an action is cruel or not, depends on individual objectives and circumstances.

- At Present, the Electric Lance is One of the Most Humane Secondary Whale Killing Methods -

Now, let us examine whether or not the use of the electric lance as a secondary method is truly cruel. The primary killing instrument employed in whaling today is an explosive harpoon armed with a penthrite grenade.

Despite the efficiency developed by the use of penthrite, however, there are unfortunate cases in which the whale does not die instantly by the strike of the first harpoon. In these instances, use of an effective secondary killing method is justified for humane reasons. The following assumptions are made prior to using secondary means: 1) stricken whales are killed within the minimum duration possible; 2) pain prior to death is kept minimum; 3) safety of crew members is guaranteed.

A 1995 report submitted by the Japanese Government to the IWC, clearly states that harpoon should be used, as secondary means, in the following two cases: 1) the first harpoon has the potential to fall off the stricken whale; or 2) it is dangerous to target the electric lance on the appropriate body part of the whale, when it is pulled towards the ship's side, due to submersion of the major part of the animal's body in water. This especially refers to a case where the first harpoon strikes the whale in the tail. But in cases, other than these exceptional ones, the electric lance, rather than a secondary harpoon, is more effective in reducing the time-to-death. The electric lance also provides a greater degree of safety for the operators.

The electric lance is not 'perfect' in a sense that it does not guarantee instantaneous death of a whale which is not killed by the first harpoon. Obviously, this leaves room for improvement in the future. Nevertheless, a blanket ban on the use of the electric lance would hinder the necessary scientific and technological advancement. Every technology is liable to future improvement. The electric lance must be evaluated in the light of the fact that it is the most effective and humane method currently available.

- How to Improve the Electric Lance -

There are two points of consideration for the improvement of the electric lance. The first point is the location of the animal's body to which the electrode should point. The 1995 Report pointed out the fact that there was no specific relation observed between the intensity of the applied electrical current and the time-to-death. This implies that some whales died quickly from the use of low voltage whereas others took longer time to death from the use of higher voltage.

This data can be potentially attributed to the following two factors. First of all, the degree of damage from the first harpoon could have varied and over-shadowed the impact of the secondary damage by the electric lance. Thus the effect of the electric lance could not be measured as an isolated instance. Second of all, the inconsistency in the target for the electrode on the animal body could have consequently masked the difference in the degree of electric currency. If the second factor had contributed to the inconsistency in the captured data, further research is required to determine the best location on the animal's body to target the electrode.

The second point demanding investigation is the state of the whale's consciousness under the effect of the electricity of the lance. If they are actually conscious, what degree of pain do they experience? Unfortunately, there are no method nor criteria available that could be readily applied to measuring such pain. However, there is hope for the future. Last year, Hajime Ishikawa and other researchers of the Institute of Cetacean Research commenced a biochemical study of blood serum constituents that may lead to a better understanding of physiology and state of consciousness of whales.

4. Significance of Humane Killing

Whether the killing is 'humane' or 'inhumane' can be only judged on the grounds of the effort made in a given circumstance, and not by a standard set of criteria. Being 'humane' is also a state where one endeavours toward improvement; not to maintain a status quo.

Who can condemn the people of the stone age for using the stone axe and stone spear to kill their prey taking a long time? Or who could tell the people in the developing nations where the CO2 anesthesia is not available to stop cattle slaughter at once? Likewise, what can be considered as 'humane' in the given conditions for whales in the absence of large slaughter house in the Antarctic?

Finally, I need to stress that the 'humane' whaling is a concept applied to both minke whales, and human beings who are engaged in whaling. It should also secure 'safety' for consumers of whale meat. The laws and other statutory guidelines, on the treatment of animals and management of abattoirs, are based on comprehensive understanding of animal welfare. Whaling does not isolate itself from other animal welfare, thus regards highly these ethics.

_