16. HUMANE KILLING

(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting")



The Secretary introduced a compilation of the replies received from Denmark, Norway, Oman, Switzerland and the UK to the request for details of national laws relating to the catching of animals. As with the national laws previously provided by Japan, Iceland and Canada, these generally called for animals to be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible, causing the minimum of suffering.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee received summaries of the methods of killing used in aboriginal subsistence whaling operations. Denmark indicated that fin, humpback and some minke whales are taken by fishing vessels equipped with harpoon cannons using non-exploding harpoons; other minke whales are taken under collective hunting in which the whales are secured by the use of hand harpoons and float bladders and are killed by high-powered rifles. The USA stated that exploding projectiles are used in the Alaskan bowhead hunt, and the USSR indicated that gray whales are taken using exploding harpoons exclusively.

The sub-committee recommended that the Technical Committee Working Group on Humane Killing be directed to prepare, in association with affected aboriginal people, a report on killing methods used in aboriginal subsistence whaling operations to be considered at the next Annual Meeting, following a review by the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee. The Technical Committee agreed to this recommendation which was then endorsed by the Commission.

The UK spoke of its concern with respect to the Faroese pilot whale fishery, a species which in its view fell within the scope of the Convention, and was included in the definition section of the Schedule. There appears to have been an increased scale in the hunt in recent years and the killing methods were a cause for concern. It suggested adding the consideration of the methods employed in this fishery to the work of the Humane Killing Group. Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands associated themselves with this position.

Denmark stated that it understood these concerns but pointed out that this pilot whale fishery had a centuries-long tradition, the first laws associated with it date from 1198 and catch statistics are available from 1584. It objected to allegations that more whales are caught than are needed by the local community, since the fishery is closed when sufficient meat has been taken. There is a well established long term cycle of abundance of these whales. Animal protection laws require the animals to be killed as quickly and as painlessly as possible. It stated that the IWC does not have competence to regulate the taking inside national fishery zones of species not listed in the Nomenclature Annex to the Final Act of the Convention, but it is not opposed to an examination of these issues by the Humane Killing Working Group.

The Commission adopted the recommendation from the Technical Committee that this matter should be referred to the Humane Killing Working Group.

The USSR once again stressed its position towards the humane killing issue. It believes that this problem falls outside the scope of IWC competence. Non-scientific deliberations on this issue do not contribute to the fulfilment of the IWC's main tasks, considerably complicate the work of the Commission and impose on it and its members an additional financial burden.

Norway referred to the recent withdrawal of its objection to the use of the cold grenade harpoon in its minke whale fishery (Schedule paragraph 6). A programme of alternative methods for killing had begun in 1981. The government had funded development of a safe and practical alternative, but a great deal was owed to the cooperation of the whalers.

Many governments commended Norway on the withdrawal of its objection, and expressed the hope that the other objecting nations would follow suit.

St. Lucia introduced a draft Resolution, under Any Other Business, urging a reduction in cruelty and waste from whaling. This was seconded by New Zealand, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Antigua and Barbuda.

In the ensuing discussion it was made clear that the Resolution referred to aboriginal subsistence whaling, but the USSR opposed the proposal. Various drafting modifications were suggested by Ireland and the Philippines, and the amended version (shown in Appendix 3) submitted later was adopted by the Commission, the USSR continuing to record its opposition.

_