"As currently practised few people would consider the current methods employed by the whaling industry to be humane," concludes S. C. Kestin in a paper forwarded to the IWC Whale Killing Workshop by the UK. Kestin fails to reveals how "people" define the term "humane", but offers himself a definition of "humane killing" that would brand most hunts and slaughtering, if not all, as inhumane. Humane killing implies that the animal "should feel no pain or distress as it dies", he writes.
He believes that such an ideal is achievable in hunts "if weapons and killing practices are appropriate for the species involved." But in the most humane hunt he can produce documentation of, the Impala hunt in South-Africa, 7 percent of the animals are not killed instantly - and the hunt as such could therefore not be deemed humane by Kestin's own definition.
A paper submitted to the workshop by dr. Egil Ole Ĝen demonstrates that large animals killed in the hunt usually die from loss of blood. Only injuries to the central nervous system or the spine will fell the animal on the spot. Shots fired in ordinary hunting are not usually aimed at the head, but at central targets like the breast or the neck. Even animals shot through the heart can run for quite a distance before collapsing. Most of the scarce statistics available from hunts show a low percentage of animals dying instantaneously (within 10 seconds) and a rather high percentage of wounded animals.
The IWC Definition
Ĝen describes the term humane, in connection with killing, as being more like an
ideal that one will never be able to achieve, but that offers a goal towards which
efforts to improve killing methods can be directed. The IWC definition of the term
is also along these lines. Firstly, it states that "causing death without pain, stress
or distress perceptible to the animal" .... "is the ideal". Then comes the qualifier: "
Any humane killing technique aims first to render the animal insensitive to pain
as swiftly as technically possible, which in practice cannot be instantaneous in the
scientific sense."
The Ballièr's Comprehensive Veterenarian Dictionary describes "humane" as "pertaining to the avoidance of infliction of pain, discomfort and harassment; used especially with regard to animals". Ĝen also refers to a book where David Blackmore, a scientist representing New Zealand in the IWC Workshop on Whale Killing Methodes, is one of two authors (Blackmore/Delaney 1988). This book cites the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of humane as "behaviour towards others that befit man". To this the authors comment that "If, in this context, we consider the word "others" to include animals, then the slaughtering process must befit societies' attitudes. Thus religion or ritual slaughter based on strict religious teaching befits the behaviour of those with such religious convictions, and must be considered humane by such society". New Zealand ships live sheep to the Middle East, where the animals are slaughtered in accordance with muslim practices. In accordance with Blackmore/Delaney's point of view, the slaughter, if not the transport, has to be deemed humane.
Is then the bottom line that the term "humane" is totally relative? Ĝen stresses that from an ethical point of view - where several methods are possible - the one resulting in the most rapid death should be chosen. In his opinion, the guiding principle should be that neither economic, cultural nor religious considerations should be decisive to this choice. A good principle; but in reality other considerations will also influence the choice. Economy is always a limiting factor in the real world. The Blackmore/Delaney book states that "Although the welfare of animals is a key issue in the slaughter of stock, there are other important considerations related to worker safety, the quality of meat and by-products, and overall economic factors. All these issues need to be appreciated by those with an influence on the design and operation of a slaughter system."
So where does this leave us? It seems clear that economical and practical considerations have to be taken into account when the term "humane killing" is to be defined. If not, the term would not be in touch with the real world, and could never serve as a guideline for ethical decisions.
It also seems clear that the word "humane" has to be interpreted within a cultural context. The UK, New Zealand and Norway belong to the western cultural sphere, and share the most basic ethical values. In this respect, these countries at least, should be able to find common ground on which to define the term "humane". But maybe not. The cause of contention between these three countries might well be the status ascribed to various different animal species. The marine mammals have indeed a special status in the UK and New Zealand, yet are seen as being no different from moose or deer in Norway. This might explain why representatives from these countries seem to have difficulties in communicating with each other when discussing what is "humane" in the context of killing a whale. If it had been pigs they were discussing, then they would probably easily have reached agreement.
The term humane was used in at least four papers presented to the Workshop on Whale Killing Methods. Ĝen's paper contended an explicit discussion of the term. Yet even so, the workshop was not interested in elaborating upon this point. Until a better definition is available, all parties might do better in refraining from labelling killing methods as "inhumane" or "humane". If there is a will to get deeper into the subject matter, then it should rather be left to the philosophers. Such a debate is better suited to their field of expertise. Meanwhile, referring to public opinion is not the way to solve the matter.