(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting")

Use of the electric lance as a secondary killing method
New Zealand introduced a document which expanded upon previous work. The document stated that the humane aspects of electrical lancing have aroused widespread concern and debate, and that the previous research work of Blackmore, Madie and Barnes on dry whale carcasses had indicated that the current densities in the heart and brain of electrically lanced larger whales are unlikely to reliably render the animal unconscious or stop its heart. The new study presented concerned the flow of electric current through cetacean carcasses partially or totally immersed in seawater. Reasons for the failure of electric current to flow include non-optimal current injection sites, insufficient current injected and presence of sea water. Since the electric lance does not kill or render the animal unconscious in less than five seconds, the document concluded that it cannot be considered a humane killing method.

New Zealand stressed that the key issue is not some abstract and remote statistical argument about the time an animal takes to die at the end of such a lance; it believed that it was an approach that no veterinary scientist would apply in a practical abattoir environment.

Japan, whilst appreciating the work done by Dr Blackmore, commented that the research it had carried out in 1994-1996 indicated that 50% of the whales died within 30 seconds. Additionally, the IWC criteria for time to death may not be the best, and in particular that the time to death could be overestimated.

Japan was already aware of the fact that seawater can reduce the effect of the electric lance. Therefore it tried to make sure that the electrodes were not in seawater. If the whale is immersed in the seawater, the electric lance is usually applied so that the current goes through the brain, not the heart, in order to minimise the attenuating effects on the effectiveness owing to the presence of seawater. Experiments show that the electric current is not reduced because the skin is wet. Dr Barnes was encouraged to expand his studies in order to give advice on the most efficient placement of the electric lance.

When introducing its document, the UK stressed its commitment to animal welfare. It was struck by the development of whale killing methods, and especially the use of the penthrite grenade harpoon and high power rifles. It stated that it is universally accepted that for domestic species, the use of electric killing methods that do not achieve an effective stun is inhumane. For this reason, the European Council Directive on the welfare of animals at slaughter states that for electronarcosis, electrodes must be placed so that they span the brain, enabling the current to pass through it. In electrocution with cardiac arrest, the electrodes must be placed so that they span the brain and the heart and lead to immediate loss of consciousness and cardiac arrest. The use of the electric lance poses special problems when used under conditions likely to be met at sea in the areas of activity of Japan's whaling fleet. Two questions had to be asked.

(1)

Is the electric lance effective? If not, the doubt should benefit the whale.

(2)

Is use of the electric lance humane?

In the UK's view, 20-40 seconds to death is far too long in an animal which may not be insensible. The UK further said that a stun in a slaughterhouse should occur immediately; 30 seconds is inhumane and caused concern. It stressed the immense potential of the rifle as a secondary killing method.

Japan stated that it is unfortunate that the electric lance is described as inhumane. It stressed that the correct use of the electric lance had shortened time to death, and it could therefore not agree that the electric lance is inhumane. Japan was, however, open to discussion of better secondary killing methods.

Norway introduced a document by Prof. Wall, submitted as a response to statements in the New Zealand and UK papers which yet again raised questions that were discussed and answered at the Workshop in Dublin in 1995 or in the Technical Committee last year. It addressed two main questions.

(1)

Does the use of the electric lance - as used in the Japanese hunt - cause a rapid death?

(2)

Does the use of the electric lance lead to immediate loss of consciousness?

The answer to the first is yes, the median time being 40 seconds. To the second question there is no clear answer as yet.

Norway did not always find it completely clear which of these two questions were being discussed by the UK and New Zealand. The Norwegian study of the Japanese use of the electric lance was based on data from 449 whales, and the data have not been disputed. Death is caused by cardiac fibrillation which leads to a rapid death. When whales are injured, but not subject to a secondary killing method, the death occurs in the same way as for other mammals, humans included, as can be seen as the result of war wounds and serious traffic accidents. The hypothetical considerations presented in the New Zealand and UK documents do not in any way invalidate the results presented last year. However, Norway is not a strong advocate of the electric lance; it prefers the use of the rifle.

The UK did not substantially disagree with Norway on a number of points made. At the Dublin workshop, Prof. Wall tended to agree with Dr Blackmore that the electric lance as used probably did not cause instantaneous insensibility. Prof. Wall confirmed that. However, based upon new evidence that was not available to him last year, he was now not so sure as he had been then.

The Netherlands pointed to some inconsistencies in the data presented. Norway and Japan explained that the reason for this was that the studies were based on data from different years. Prof. Wall's paper was based on data from all 891 whales taken in the Japanese catches from March 1994 to March 1996. The Japanese paper by Dr Ishikawa was based on data from 1996, a year with younger and less experienced crews than the preceding years, which also could explain the differences.

Before introducing its document, Japan made six points.

(1)

The issue is outside the competence of the IWC under the terms of the Convention.

(2)

It had participated in and submitted data to the IWC strictly on a voluntary and cooperative basis and this will remain unchanged. Therefore, Japan does not accept the situation in which it would be obliged to submit data as a requirement. Japan's research is in accordance with Article VIII of the Convention which guarantees a signatory nation's sovereign right to conduct research irrespective of other provisions of the Convention including the Schedule.

(3)

In light of diverse value judgements on humaneness in the world which are rooted in different traditions and cultures, the objective criterion and yardstick must be and has been applied, that is, reduction of the time to death. The development of the penthrite grenade harpoon by Japan for use on minke whales and subsequent improvements reduced the time to death considerably.

(4)

If and when discussing the issue, it seems fair and scientifically justified to investigate the situation of not only Japanese activities but also of other types of whaling, including aboriginal and subsistence whaling.

(5)

With regard to the electric lance as a secondary killing method, the results of the extensive research submitted showed that this is an effective method. No mention of the electric lance was made in the Revised Action Plan which was agreed by consensus in 1995.

(6)

Any attempt to ban the electric lance is unjustified and would frustrate future voluntary cooperation and collaboration on its part.

Considering the Revised Action Plan of Whale Killing Methods which was adopted at the Dublin Workshop, Japan started a discussion on the introduction of the rifle as an additional secondary killing method for minke whaling in order to shorten time to death. An experiment was conducted in its 1996 JARPN (North Pacific) and 1996/97 JARPA (Antarctic) research programmes. The results of the experiments indicate that the time to death was clearly shorter using the rifle as the secondary killing method, mainly because it is easier to prepare for shooting. On the other hand, the time from the application of the secondary killing method to death showed little difference between the rifle and the electric lance. It is recommended that the rifle should be used as the favoured secondary killing method in JARPA and JARPN to shorten time to death as long as it is practicable and feasible. However, the rifle would never totally replace the electric lance.

In response to questions raised by New Zealand, Japan replied that: (1) rifle shots were aimed at the brain or the upper spinal cord; (2) that it was not always possible to kill the whale with only one shot, and that 2-3 shots would be the average; (3) that the intervals between shots would be 10-30 seconds; and (4) that the number of rifles on board could not be augmented because of the lack of marksmen to use them.

In response to questions from the UK, Japan indicated that there was not much choice of ammunition in the market, and that it used a bullet of 250 grains, the largest available in Japan. Bullets that did not penetrate would remain in the muscle. Necropsy studies concluded that hitting the upper (cervical) spinal cord had equivalent results to hitting the brain.

Norway pointed to the fact that large calibre ammunition would not alone ensure a better effect because the gun would be heavier to handle and therefore more difficult to aim rapidly at a small target. When ammunition with different calibres is found sufficient for a rapid kill, the choice of calibre will often be a compromise between calibre size and the weight of the gun. Consequently, there is no single answer to this question.

Norway reported that its use of the rifle had started in the late 1970s. From 1982, a calibre of minimum 9mm was permitted. Studies of different types of ammunition are under way, but no precise data are yet available. A study from the present summer, which has not yet been concluded, and where three different calibres (9.3mm, 0.375 and 0.458) and projectiles with full metal jacket were used, showed that all three calibres penetrated the skull and went through the brain. It is, however, unrealistic to expect that a single shot will always be sufficient. In the hunting of big game, and in whale hunting, some shots may fail to hit the target accurately enough to kill the animals instantaneously, and the animals have to be reshot. Norway has obtained good results by using rifles, but the training programme for whalers will continue as the success of shooting is dependant on the skill of the shooter.

Sweden wanted to find the most efficient killing methods and in that respect had asked for comparative studies including data for other hunting activities. It welcomed the Japanese report as being very relevant to the questions raised. Finally, it suggested that Japan discuss the use of the explosive grenade as a secondary killing method.

Norway referred to the Swedish request for information on the hunting of other animals, noting that it had submitted data on game hunting to the Dublin Workshop. Sweden and the UK have similar data which they repeatedly have been asked to submit.

South Africa was keen to see the most humane killing methods used and associated itself with the comments made by Sweden. It asked whether there were any legal obstacles for using larger ammunition.

Japan replied that it had not considered the use of the explosive grenade as a secondary killing method as it is not regarded as a viable option. It would destroy or spin out the first harpoon embedded in the whale body and damage the whale body enormously. Japan also noted that there were legal problems for increasing the size of the bullets used.

In the general discussion that followed, the USA pointed to the new research presented by New Zealand, and it suspected that the effect of the electric lance was reduced even more in a real-life situation. It had been struck by the UK presentation that stressed that the whale should have the benefit of the doubt, which it thought was the essence of the precautionary approach. This view was shared by several delegations. The USA welcomed the Japanese paper, and was impressed by the results presented. It encouraged further development and urged that Japan consider adoption of the rifle as the secondary killing method.

Australia stated that it did not share the Japanese view regarding the killing of whales. In its view there is no need to kill whales for research purposes. When looking into the techniques, science demanded the highest standards. It said that killing methods could not be partially humane; it was like being pregnant or not. It stated that no killing method was humane, but efficiency could be improved. Norway commented on this particular statement, and said that even in abattoirs there were failures.

Brazil had concerns as to whether any methods could be considered humane. For the time being this was more a philosophical than a scientific question.

Antigua and Barbuda stressed its concern over such discussions because the issue of hunting methods for whales could have serious implications for global fishing activities. Basically, fishing was also a hunting activity and could eventually be regarded as inhumane. Consequently, this debate and subsequent decisions of the IWC on this issue could present a threat to fisheries, especially for developing countries. It stated that one would have to differentiate between the hunting of animals in the wild and the killing of domestic animals in order to arrive at a more balanced and realistic perspective on this issue.

St Lucia pointed to the fact that Japan was hunting whales under Special Permits. The need to kill for scientific reasons was demonstrated. To be consistent one should not only talk of inhumaneness in connection with whaling. One should globalise the issue and make comparisons of inhumaneness in the way other animals and human beings are killed. Attention was also drawn to cultural differences, as in some countries it was not difficult to obtain the most destructive weapons, but in the case of Japan the use of rifles was not permitted as a matter of course. St Lucia recommended that the issue of humane killing should therefore be deleted from the IWC Agenda. This was supported by Antigua and Barbuda and Japan. Antigua and Barbuda suggested that a more appropriate topic could be 'gear and methods for whaling activities'. This would also include methods employed for whalewatching. The Chairman informed the Working Group that the topic had been on the IWC Agenda for decades, and the UK stated that the topic would not disappear if deleted from the Agenda.

Spain welcomed the exchange of views on technical questions and the Japanese contribution. It did not, however, share the Japanese view that rifles would never totally replace the electric lance. It recommended that further research be undertaken on how further to improve the efficiency of the rifle in terms of time to death and of rendering the animal immediately unconscious.

Monaco stated that the term 'humane killing' was unfortunate because its subjective elements evoked different echoes in various cultures. Some scientific controversy remained over the question of the efficacy of the electric lance in rendering whales rapidly unconscious. On the other hand, a consensus on the superiority of the rifle as a secondary killing method was emerging. It therefore encouraged Japan to explore means to use rifles as the only secondary killing method.

Switzerland's legislation demanded killing methods that made the killing as quick and painless as possible, and that these principles were valid not only for slaughterhouses but also for the hunting situation. It hoped that in due time Japan would replace the use of the electric lance by more effective means.

The UK stressed that in its view, the key question was whether one applied the same principles to whales as to other mammals, domestic or wild. However, while it might not be possible to reach agreement on all scientific issues involved, this need not prevent practical steps forward being taken.

Japan thought it was logical to compare killing methods for whales with the hunting of other wild animals, not with killing in slaughterhouses. It accepted that rifles should be used more in the Japanese catch, and said that the rifle would be used as a main secondary killing method except in cases where difficulties arose in the use of the rifle or the availability/ability of a gunner. The electric lance would, however, never be totally abolished, and it could not accept as the conclusion of the debate that the Working Group recommended the prohibition of the electric lance. The most reasonable conclusion was that the work must continue. Japan believed that the positions of governments were not that far apart, and indicated that it was prepared to work further to find common ground.

New Zealand also stated that it found much common ground in the discussion: rifles were the most effective secondary killing technique, the electric lance was regarded as less effective and the rifle could be an alternative. New Zealand was also prepared to talk to reach a common stance.

Japan explained that it could not accept a consensus based on the conclusions suggested by New Zealand. It was willing to promote the use of the rifle, but would do so without judging that the rifle was more effective. Nevertheless, it welcomed the chance to work further to find a consensus.

The Chairman then summarised the discussion as follows:

(1)

that there was a consensus in the Working Group that the rifle appeared to be more efficient than the electric lance as a secondary killing technique;

(2)

that a number of delegations felt that the evidence regarding the superiority of the rifle was clear and compelling, while some delegations felt that further research was needed to clarify the matter;

(3)

that the Working Group noted that Japan had said it would use the rifle as the main secondary killing technique, except if difficulties arise with a rifle or a hunter, even though Japan still felt that the electric lance was effective;

(4)

that some delegations felt strongly that the use of the electric lance was inhumane and had urged Japan to use only the rifle as a secondary killing technique, whereas others had felt that more research or training would be prudent before abandoning the lance completely.

A contact group was established to develop a way forward on how to resolve amicably in the Commission the question of the electric lance. Members of the group would be representatives from New Zealand, UK, South Africa and Japan.

The Chairman noted that some delegations had recommended deleting humane killing from the IWC Agenda or, at the very least, changing the name of the Working Group.

Other business
Four items, given below, were discussed.

(1) MAKAH WHALING
The USA presented a document describing how traditional Makah whaling equipment and techniques have been studied to develop modifications necessary to maximise safety, efficacy and humaneness without sacrificing the overall structure and cultural value of the hunt. The major modifications to the hunt are the adoption of the toggle-point harpoon to attach floats and the use of the .50BMG rifle for humane killing. This rifle has demonstrated an overwhelming ability to damage the central nervous system sufficiently to kill the animal instantaneously.

Responding to questions from Sweden, the USA said that the there were problems adapting the Eskimo harpoon for use with the smaller gray whale, and that the Makah did not want to use it for cultural reasons. The Makah wanted to use techniques that are as close to their traditional methods as possible.

The UK remarked that the proposed rifle was very heavy for use in a canoe, to which the USA replied that the Makah had fired it from the shoulder, and were able to use it even in a canoe.

Switzerland expressed concern about the use of rifles as a primary killing method and strongly urged the Working Group to evaluate the rifle in this capacity, as the discussion so far in the group had focused on it as a secondary killing method.

Norway commended the USA for setting up a proper development programme. It felt, however, that it was a strange situation in the IWC that the most efficient method was excluded because it had a taste of commerciality attached to it (i.e. hunting gray whales from a boat of a sufficient size to have a harpoon gun mounted in the bow). It underlined that all killing methods had been developed for commercial use. If the grenade harpoon was not to be used, it felt that the method described was the best way ahead. The main concern is the shooting of whales with a gun from a canoe which gives a low platform, as the whale will dive and try to avoid the boat when it has been hit. More than one shot will have to be used in some cases. It might be considered whether it would be better to shoot the whale from the chaser boat that would be following the operation for safety reasons.

Japan appreciated the Makah research. It stressed that humaneness is not measured only by time to death. One also has to take into account the welfare of the hunters.

The USA responded to the comments by saying that the rifles are designed for hunting and they were specially modified for this purpose. The canoe platform is a fundamental feature of the Makah hunt. The chase boat will pursue the whale if the whale is not immobilised by the first shot. The chase boat also has a rifle on board. There will be no prolonged chase.

(2) ALASKA BOWHEAD WHALING
The USA presented a document on the efficiency in the Alaskan bowhead hunt and stated that the use of the new penthrite bomb was very successful. Many technical issues were now resolved. The security for the hunters was taken care of, and there was less damage done to the meat. The USA also reported that so far in 1997, 59 strikes had been used to land 44 bowheads, giving an efficiency of 75%. A detailed report on these matters would be presented to the meeting next year.

Dr E.O. リen was credited for his help during the development of this weapon.

(3) NORWEGIAN HUNT
At the request of the UK, Norway provided information on its 1996 hunting season. This was preliminary information as Norway intended to report on these questions to the next Whale Killing Workshop where specialists would participate. It held this opinion because it did not feel it right to discuss such information in a group of mainly bureaucrats and politicians. The UK was grateful for the information and asked if it could be provided on an annual basis.

(4) NEXT WORKSHOP
The question of whether and when to convene the next Workshop on Whale Killing Methods was referred to the contact group.

8.2 Proposed Schedule amendment
In the Commission, Japan reiterated its position on the issue of the electric lance as set out in the report of the Humane Killing Working Group. Although Japan maintained its view that the electric lance is still an effective secondary killing method, it stated that it intended to use, from next season, rifles as the principle secondary killing method except in cases where difficulties arise in their use or in the availability/ability of gunners. It also stated that it would continue to submit information relevant to the issue to an appropriate forum of the Commission, to the extent practicable and strictly on a voluntary basis.

New Zealand and the UK welcomed this statement, noting the influence of South Africa, and hoped for the total removal of the electric lance. Because of the progress made on a cooperative basis they therefore no longer sought a Schedule amendment to ban the electric lance. Australia, Spain, Mexico, Chile, Netherlands, Switzerland and Monaco also commended Japan and all the parties involved, recognising that the rifle is superior to the lance.

8.3 Action arising
The UK reported that discussions in the contact group suggested that because of the short time before the next meeting in Oman, a Workshop should be held at the same time as the Scientific Committee before the 1999 Annual Meeting, and to retain the annual meetings of the Working Group.

France, supported by Mexico and Monaco, suggested changing the name of the Working Group to hunting methods. Antigua and Barbuda felt the name was a particular worry, preferring gear and methods for whaling activities. On South Africa's suggestion, it was agreed to leave this issue to the Working Group to decide.

A Resolution was proposed by Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and the USA on improving the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling.

The UK pointed out that there was no implication that aboriginal subsistence whalers were not concerned over this issue, but it urged further progress and cooperation. The USA was pleased to cosponsor this Resolution and it was doing everything possible in this area. Japan believed it was outside the scope of the Convention but would not block a consensus. Antigua and Barbuda noted the use of the term humane killing and must therefore abstain. The Russian Federation stated it was also committed to further improvement.

The Resolution given in Appendix 1 was then adopted by consensus.

_