27.01.95
Mr. Llewellyn,
British Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission
HUMANE KILLING STANDARDS
Dear Mr. Llewellyn,
At the International Whaling Commission, Great Britain has shown considerable
commitment to the animal welfare aspect of whaling.
In repeated declarations from the authorities it has been claimed that existing killing methods are not "humane" and that Great Britain will therefore, under no circumstances, support the allocation of commercial whaling quotas by the IWC.
The High North Alliance represents fishing and hunting communities and organisations from Greenland, Iceland, the Faroes and Norway. We feel that claims of inhumane behaviour constitute an extremely serious accusation and that our society and culture are being branded.
The accusations are, however, difficult to relate to in so far as they do not provide any definition of what standards the term "humane killing" is based on. We would therefore be grateful for an answer to the following questions:
We assume that the standards one applies to whaling are based on generally accepted standards applicable to the hunting of mammals.
We assume that it would be natural for the British authorities to base their assessments on British hunts.
If, contrary to our assumptions, the British authorities do not employ other hunts in comparative analyses, but instead base comparisons on the killing of domestic animals in abattoirs, then we request an answer to the following two questions:
If, despite our assumptions, it is the view of the British authorities that one should set varying standards for humane killing depending on the kind of hunt in question, we would be grateful for an answer to the following two questions:
Greenland (Denmark) and Alaska have been allocated quotas for "aboriginal subsistence whaling". Great Britain was among those who voted for such an allocation of quotas.
We fully realise that these are comprehensive and difficult questions. But all the same, we feel that Great Britain has an obligation to explain and justify its IWC policy - particularly in relation to those communities that are directly impacted by the position taken by Great Britain. We also hope that such a justification will provide a better basis for a fair, comparative, in-depth debate on the ethical issues which should be linked to any kind of human utilisation of animals, whether tame or wild. It is our hope that a fruitful dialogue - based on tolerance and the will to understand - will be developed.
We kindly ask for a reply to our questions in good time before the Humane Killing Workshop at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Dublin.
Yours Sincerely,
On behalf of the High North Alliance
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
Noble House,
17 Smith Square,
London SW1P 3JR
Tel: 071-238 3000
Direct line: 071-238 5936
Fax: ext. 6591 or 5938
From the UK Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission
C I Llewelyn
Mr Jan Odin Olavsen
Chairman The High North Alliance
PO Box 123
N-8390 Reine i Lofoten
Norway
21 March 1995.
HUMANE KILLING STANDARDS
Thank you for your letter of 26 January, in which you ask a number of questions about the United Kingdom's approach to the humane killing of whales.
As you rightly indicate, the United Kingdom has for many years been concerned about the humaneness of methods used to kill whales. The concern was one of the factors that led the United Kingdom to support the introduction of a moratorium on commercial whaling, and we have made it clear that we will not contemplate voting to lift the moratorium until, among other things, methods used to kill whales are shown to be humane.
We accept that it is not easy to define exactly what constitutes humane killing. The aim must, as with the slaughter of terrestrial animals, be to render a whale immediately insensible to pain, and for its subsequent death to occur without avoidable pain, stress, or suffering. It is accepted that this is unlikely to be achievable in 100% of cases, but we would not wish to define as acceptable anything that falls short of this standard. We are, moreover, firmly of the view that current whale killing standards, with, at the most, some 60 % of whales killed instantaneously, is not acceptable.
In our view, whaling is a commercial operation and welfare standards should be broadly comparable to those that are required for the commercial slaughter of terrestrial animals. We do not accept that comparisons with hunting, particularly recreational hunting, are valid. Your idea of a welfare audit of all aspects of an animal's life, including methods used to slaughter it, is an interesting one, but we would not accept the basic premise that seems to underlie it, namely that quality of life before slaughter can compensate for inhumane methods of slaughter.
So far as aboriginal subsistence whaling is concerned, the United Kingdom has always supported the right of aboriginal peoples to continue to hunt whales where this is a traditional subsistence activity, central to their culture, and where whalemeat and blubber meets an important part of their nutritional needs. These considerations do not apply to commercial whaling operations. We would, however, like to see improvements in the killing methods used in aboriginal subsistence whaling (we have, for example, particularly welcomed the introduction of penthrite grenades in the Alaskan bowhead hunt), and we hope that the forthcoming workshop on whale killing methods will contribute to this process.
The Faroese pilot whale drive hunts are not, of course, subject to the moratorium and the regulation of these hunts is a matter for the Faroese authorities. As my Government has made clear to the Faroese Government, the United Kingdom has never attacked the principle of the killing of pilot whales by the Faroese. Rather, our concern has been over the killing methods used in the hunt. We have not been alone among IWC members in expressing concern about certain aspects of the hunt, and, as you know, we are working through the IWC, as the appropriate international organisation, to seek to persuade the Faroese Government to improve matters.
I hope that this letter has given you a better understanding of the United Kingdom's policy towards the humane killing of whales. I have not responded to all the points you raise because they do not all seem to be relevant to the consideration of whale killing methods or to the work of the IWC, which is, after all, responsible for whaling, not for the hunting or slaughter of other animals. Moreover, I am sure that you will agree that, even if it could be demonstrated that methods used to kill other animals were not humane, this would not justify the use of inhumane methods to kill whales.
I agree with you that the best way to make progress on this difficult issue is for all parties to work together constructively. We see the forthcoming workshop on whale killing methods as playing an important part in this process. The United Kingdom plans to participate fully in its work and we very much hope that other countries will do so to; I believe that we have a common interest in ensuring that whale killing methods are improved so that, if the moratorium on commercial whali
ng is lifted, whaling is conducted on a more humane basis than hitherto. Your sincerely
C.I. LLEWELYN
sign.
30.03.95
Dear Mr. Llewelyn,
We are extremely grateful for your reply to our letter of January 26th
outlining the UK approach to the humane killing of whales, and we appreciate
your willingness to take part in an open debate on these issues. We believe an
open exchange of views and information to be the only way to make progress in
international efforts for the improvement of animal welfare.
However, your reply does pose some new questions.
According to your letter, the UK does not accept as valid the comparison between the killing methods employed in commercial whaling and those of other hunts, particularly recreational ones. It is difficult for us to understand the reason for such a view, and we therefore kindly ask that you explain it. This point relates to questions 8 and 9 of our first letter, which still remains unanswered.
We interpret your letter as inferring that the definition you present for commercial slaughter and hunting is not valid for recreational hunting. We would therefore like to know what humane killing criteria you do in fact apply to such hunts. We would be particularly interested to know what characteristics of the recreational hunt justify making different demands on humane killing standards for this type of hunt than for commercial hunts.
It is still our view that it is natural to compare the killing practices used in whaling with those in other hunts. We would therefore be very grateful to receive the information we asked for in questions 4 and 5 of our first letter. We assume that the British authorities are not reluctant to provide information on current practices and legislation concerning UK hunts.
We would also like to know what quantities of meat from the UK deer hunt are sold on the commercial market, how much of it is exported, and what its total market value amounts to. We assume that these figures are readily available.
In your definition of a humane killing standard, you state that animals should not be subject to "avoidable pain, stress or suffering". Then you go on to say that "it is accepted that this is unlikely to be achievable in 100% percent of cases, but we would not wish to define as acceptable anything that falls short of this standard." It is difficult to understand why a kill "without avoidable pain, stress and suffering" ... "is unlikely to be achievable in 100% of cases." This statement seems contradictory, and we can see two possible explanations for this: a) The second part of the statement should have read "is unlikely to be achieved in 100% of cases", or b) one has forgotten about the word "avoidable" in the terms of the sentence. It makes sense to say that killing "without pain, stress and suffering" ... "is unlikely to be achievable in 100% of cases." Please advise us of what you mean here.
The key to a better understanding of your standpoint seems to be the word "avoidable". This word signifies that you are aware that a kill without pain, stress and suffering is not achievable in 100% of cases. But what is avoidable and what is not? Do you accept economic factors as determinant for what is not avoidable? Is human error acceptable as part of what is not avoidable? And is everything that is not avoidable, acceptable?
Even though keeping animals in captivity, killing them and finally eating them falls within the boundaries of the dominant ethical standards of our culture , there are still ethical limits on how we can allow ourselves to treat animals before they end up on our dinner table. In a situation where you on the one hand eat meat, but on the other hand want to cause a minimum of suffering and deprivation, we feel that it is right to take into consideration not only the quality of of the animal's death, but also that of its life. This should not be interpreted, as do you, as inferring that "the quality of life before slaughter can compensate for inhumane methods of slaughter."
You are right in assuming that we do not believe that the occurrence of inhumane killing practices for other animals would justifiy the inhumane killing of whales, but we still believe that judgements on what is humane or inhumane must be made on the basis of a set of general standards universally applicable to all species.
As you will have noticed, copies of our last letter were sent to a large number of people. This was done because we believe that the content of the letter would be of interest to everybody engaged in discussions on the humane killing of whales. We would like to distribute your reply, and this letter, in the same manner. If you have any objections to this, please contact us as soon as possible.
We look forward to your reply.
Yours Sincerely,
Jan Odin Olavsen Georg Blichfeldt (Chairman) (Secretary)
High North Alliance,B
N-8390 Reine, The Lofoten Islands
Norway
07.05.95
Dear Mr. Llewelyn,
I would like to remind you of our letter from 30.03.95.
The IWC meeting is starting to get close. The information we requested in our last letter is important to our preparation for the meeting, where we anticipate the Humane Killing Issue - (on the initiative of the UK) - will be in focus.
We would like to know whether you are intending to compile the information we asked for on British hunts, legislation and regulations, statistics on time to death and statistics on trade in meat. If this request is too comprehenisve within the framework of the time available to your staff, we would be grateful for any part of the information. If that is the case, we would also be grateful if you could assist us by pointing at the institutions that might possess the information which you cannot provide.
We would also appreciate clarifications on some of the points in your letter of March 21, as detailed in our reply letter.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest possible convenience,
Yours sincerely
Georg Blichfeldt (secretary)
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Noble House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3 JR
Tel: 071-238 3000 Direct line: 071-238 5936
Fax:ezt. 6591 or 5938
From the UK Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission
C.I. Llewelyn
Mr Jan Odin Olavsen
Chairman
The High North Alliance
PO Box 123
N-8390 Reine i Lofoten
Norway
9 May 1995.
I am sorry that I have not replied sooner to your letter of 30 March. There is, however, little that I can add to my earlier letter, which sets out the United Kingdom's views on the humane killing of whales.
You question the UK view that welfare standards for whaling should be broadly comparable to those required for the commercial slaughter of terrestrial animals. Animals are, of course, killed by man for a number of reasons: for example, for food, for recreation and for pest control purposes. In an ideal world, common standards would apply wherever animals were killed by man; in practice, matters are more difficult. This does not, however, alter our view that whaling is a commercial operation, intended to slaughter animals on a substantial scale in order to meet market demand for whalemeat and other products, and that it should be required to follow broadly comparable standards to those that are required for the commercial slaughter of terrestrial animals.
I do not completely follow your difficulties over my third paragraph, and note that you only refer to part of what I said. For killing methods to be regarded as humane they must, in our view, render a whale immediately insensible to pain and its subsequent death must occur without avoidable pain, stress or suffering. The point that I was making was simply that it was unlikely that it would ever be possible to achieve this in all cases where commercial whaling was concerned. Nevertheless, this should remain the target.
I hope that this helps clarify the UK's views. I have not attempted to provide all the information you are seeking because, as I said in my previous letter, I do not consider that it is relevant to the consideration of whale killing methods and, as your question covers areas outside my own responsibility, I do not have the information readily available. However, this should be available from other sources; I am sure, for example, that the Home Office would be happy to provide you with details of UK animal welfare legislation.
Yours sincerely
C.I. LLEWELYN
SIGN.