Veterinary Analysis from peer-reviewed journal article:
(excerpt, full article downloadable below)
Andrew Butterworth , Philippa Brakes , Courtney S. Vail & Diana Reiss (2013) A Veterinary and Behavioral Analysis of Dolphin Killing Methods Currently Used in the “Drive Hunt” in Taiji, Japan, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16:2, 184-204, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2013.768925
(excerpt, full article downloadable below)
Andrew Butterworth , Philippa Brakes , Courtney S. Vail & Diana Reiss (2013) A Veterinary and Behavioral Analysis of Dolphin Killing Methods Currently Used in the “Drive Hunt” in Taiji, Japan, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 16:2, 184-204, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2013.768925
1. After being driven into a restricted area and confined, the animals are sometimes tethered to boats by their tail flukes and pulled to the killing area. The video shows animals who are unable to swim effectively and who are being repeatedly pushed under the water by the action of dragging and by pressure of other animals tied up alongside the boat. The inability to control the timing of breathing (due to forced submersion) may cause distress, and escape movements are evident in these animals. It is likely that some dolphins will be experiencing aspects of forced asphyxiation due to their inability to control whether they are at the surface or forced underwater. Dolphins do have the capacity to breath hold during planned diving activity and have specific physiolog- ical adaptations: storage of oxygen in blood and muscle, bradycardia (heart slowing), and redistribution of oxygenated blood within organs to conserve use of oxygen (Williams, Haun, & Friedl, 1999).
However, with repeated forced shallow immersion (each submersion of unknown duration and not in the control of the animal) it is unlikely that the dolphins would initiate (or be able to initiate) true deep diving responses, and so it is surmised that treatment of this type (dragging and forced submersion) is likely to be very aversive. The video material available does not allow calculation of the duration of submersion, but it is clear from the behavioral responses that the animals resist this proce- dure and that some are already unconscious with their heads submerged or already dead (assumed drowned or suffocated by the process). This type of treatment would not be tolerated or accepted for commercially farmed animals being prepared for slaughter in the United States or Europe.
2. The dolphins are positioned in close proximity to each other during the killing process and struggling and whistling, which is audible on the video material despite its remote filming origins, occurs throughout the process. Dolphins are highly social mammals who have long-term rela- tionships and live in complex social groups (Connor, 2007). Individuals produce and respond to individually distinctive stereotypic whistles to locate, contact, and identify conspecifics (Janik & Slater, 1998). They show advanced cognition (Herman, 2006; Marino et al., 2007) including complex social awareness as demonstrated by their understanding of the identity and behavior of others (reviewed in Herman, 2006), self- knowledge as demonstrated by an understanding of their own behavior and body parts (reviewed in Herman, 2006), and self-awareness as evidenced by their capacity for mirror self-recognition (Reiss & Marino, 2001). These socially and self-aware mammals undergo a prolonged process involving not only the herding offshore but also confinement, holding, and eventual corralling to the shoreline, followed by killing in close proximity to conspecifics and other members of their social and family groups. The entire process can last many hours or even days.
The AVMA recommendations state, “Euthanasia should be carried out in a manner that avoids animal distress. In some cases, vocalization and release of pheromones occur during induction of unconsciousness. For that reason, other animals should not be present when euthanasia is performed” (AVMA, 2007). The regulations and guidelines governing the humane treatment and slaughter of animals in the United States and the United Kingdom prohibit the killing of an animal in the presence of other animals (Humane Slaughter Act, 2003; Welfare of Animals [Slaughter or Killing] Regulations, 1995). From a scientific, humane, and ethical perspective, the treatment of dolphins in the drive hunts sharply contradicts current animal welfare standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies.
3. The use of termination of movement (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) as the determinant time of death in an animal with a transected spinal cord is not a credible measure of death for a mammal (International Whaling Commission, 2003, 2004). Immobility (termination of movement) will be the natural final consequence of severance of the spinal cord; however, in any mammal (including humans) incomplete severing of the spinal cord does not immediately lead to death, and this is apparent in the continued life of many human and animal patients following spinal injury. Evaluation of death when livestock are slaughtered is based on the cessation of central neurological function and respiratory activity or that the animal has been effectively exsanguinated (bled out; AVMA, 2007; Commission of the European Communities COM, 2006; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] Animal Production and Health, 2004; Humane Slaughter Association, 2001).
4. Termination of breathing (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) is not (in the short term and certainly in the periods described in the aforementioned translation) an appropriate indicator of death in marine mammals, who have enor- mous capacity for breath holding (Joulia, Lemaitre, Fontanari, Mille, & Barthelemy, 2009), with dives of up to 40 min recorded in some of the dolphin species (Kooyman, Ponganis, & Howard, 1999; Miller, Daniels, Schurch, Schoel, & Orgeig, 2006; Noren & Williams, 2000; Snyder, 1983). The striped dolphin does not usually breath hold for periods of longer than 15 min, and Iwasaki and Kai (2010) claimed that death can be assessed after breathing has stopped for as short a period as 5 (Risso’s dolphin), 8 (spotted dolphin), or 25 (pilot whale) s. These periods are well within the breath-holding capacity of many mammals and a very short breath hold for a marine mammal.
5. The sample size for the control animal (one striped dolphin) described in the paper proposing the method (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) is unlikely to be sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions, particularly in light of the availability of a large number of animals to study for these authors.
6. The method describes the times taken for an animal to die (as defined using termination of movement and breathing) to be as short a period as 5 (Risso’s dolphin), 8 (spotted dolphin), or 25 (pilot whale) s—with average times of 13.7 (Risso’s dolphin), 9 (spotted dolphin), or 25 s (pilot whale). The data derived from the analysis of a striped dolphin killed using the rod (Table 1) indicates that the animal was still moving after 254 s (4 min 14 s). The disparity between the published results (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) and those from this independent observation- based assessment is considerable and calls into question the confidence that can be attributed to the data provided in the Iwasaki and Kai (2010) report.
7. Damage to the vertebral blood vessel and the vascular rete from insertion of the rod will lead to significant hemorrhage, but this alone would not produce a rapid death in a large mammal. After the operative has used the rod to cause tissue damage a wooden peg is inserted into the hole created by the rod (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010). It is likely that this would impede bleeding and so it is also possible that this process prolongs the time for the animal to die (Katsura, Kristian, & Siesjo, 1994). This risk is acknowledged by Iwasaki and Kai (2010), who stated, “The person who developed the spinal cord transection technique has pointed out that prevention of bleeding and internal retention of blood using the wedge risks prolongation of the time to death.” This calls into question the contention that this new killing method results in reduced TTD.
8. Analysis of the video evidence suggest that the operator must make repeated pushes of the rod into the tissues close to the back of the skull. The video shows the animal making vigorous movements during the insertion of the rod and subsequently making powerful muscular move- ments at times after the rod has been withdrawn. This evidence strongly suggests that the method is immediately invasive and distressing and does not bring about immediate insensibility, as the brain itself remains unaffected. Complete and rapid (immediate) cord transection could result in destruction of sensory (pain) pathways, but what is observed in the animals studied is neither immediate nor appears to induce effective and assured cord transection, and so there can be no assurance that pain elimination is achieved. After a period of violent insertion of a rod into sensitive tissues, the animal becomes paraplegic (paralysis of the body) and dies through trauma and gradual blood loss. This method of killing does not conform to the recognized requirement for “immediate insensibility” and would not be tolerated or permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world (AVMA, 2007; Commission of the European Communities COM, 2006; FAO Animal Production and Health, 2004; Humane Slaughter Association, 2001).
9. Rapid exsanguination is usually required after stunning for either hu- mane slaughter or euthanasia. The method described in this paper is not designed primarily for bleed-out—in fact, the use of the wooden plug will, to a degree, reduce the capacity for bleeding from damaged blood vessels. This method appears to be primarily focused on causing gross neural tissue damage to the spinal cord and potentially the brain stem. This will cause, initially, immobilization and eventually death due to lack of coordination of respiratory and motor function. The method described does not conform to any recognized mechanism for bringing about death in accepted humane slaughter or euthanasia practice in large mammals.
10. The results presented in this article provide strong evidence that the claims regarding the improved killing method described in Iwasaki and Kai (2010) are not substantiated. Also, this killing method cannot be considered humane as it does not fulfill the recognized requirement for immediacy and in fact may result in a prolonged aversive application of a violent and traumatic physical process followed by slow death by spinal paralysis and blood loss. This method would not be recognized or approved as a humane or acceptable method of killing for mammals in any setting.
However, with repeated forced shallow immersion (each submersion of unknown duration and not in the control of the animal) it is unlikely that the dolphins would initiate (or be able to initiate) true deep diving responses, and so it is surmised that treatment of this type (dragging and forced submersion) is likely to be very aversive. The video material available does not allow calculation of the duration of submersion, but it is clear from the behavioral responses that the animals resist this proce- dure and that some are already unconscious with their heads submerged or already dead (assumed drowned or suffocated by the process). This type of treatment would not be tolerated or accepted for commercially farmed animals being prepared for slaughter in the United States or Europe.
2. The dolphins are positioned in close proximity to each other during the killing process and struggling and whistling, which is audible on the video material despite its remote filming origins, occurs throughout the process. Dolphins are highly social mammals who have long-term rela- tionships and live in complex social groups (Connor, 2007). Individuals produce and respond to individually distinctive stereotypic whistles to locate, contact, and identify conspecifics (Janik & Slater, 1998). They show advanced cognition (Herman, 2006; Marino et al., 2007) including complex social awareness as demonstrated by their understanding of the identity and behavior of others (reviewed in Herman, 2006), self- knowledge as demonstrated by an understanding of their own behavior and body parts (reviewed in Herman, 2006), and self-awareness as evidenced by their capacity for mirror self-recognition (Reiss & Marino, 2001). These socially and self-aware mammals undergo a prolonged process involving not only the herding offshore but also confinement, holding, and eventual corralling to the shoreline, followed by killing in close proximity to conspecifics and other members of their social and family groups. The entire process can last many hours or even days.
The AVMA recommendations state, “Euthanasia should be carried out in a manner that avoids animal distress. In some cases, vocalization and release of pheromones occur during induction of unconsciousness. For that reason, other animals should not be present when euthanasia is performed” (AVMA, 2007). The regulations and guidelines governing the humane treatment and slaughter of animals in the United States and the United Kingdom prohibit the killing of an animal in the presence of other animals (Humane Slaughter Act, 2003; Welfare of Animals [Slaughter or Killing] Regulations, 1995). From a scientific, humane, and ethical perspective, the treatment of dolphins in the drive hunts sharply contradicts current animal welfare standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies.
3. The use of termination of movement (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) as the determinant time of death in an animal with a transected spinal cord is not a credible measure of death for a mammal (International Whaling Commission, 2003, 2004). Immobility (termination of movement) will be the natural final consequence of severance of the spinal cord; however, in any mammal (including humans) incomplete severing of the spinal cord does not immediately lead to death, and this is apparent in the continued life of many human and animal patients following spinal injury. Evaluation of death when livestock are slaughtered is based on the cessation of central neurological function and respiratory activity or that the animal has been effectively exsanguinated (bled out; AVMA, 2007; Commission of the European Communities COM, 2006; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] Animal Production and Health, 2004; Humane Slaughter Association, 2001).
4. Termination of breathing (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) is not (in the short term and certainly in the periods described in the aforementioned translation) an appropriate indicator of death in marine mammals, who have enor- mous capacity for breath holding (Joulia, Lemaitre, Fontanari, Mille, & Barthelemy, 2009), with dives of up to 40 min recorded in some of the dolphin species (Kooyman, Ponganis, & Howard, 1999; Miller, Daniels, Schurch, Schoel, & Orgeig, 2006; Noren & Williams, 2000; Snyder, 1983). The striped dolphin does not usually breath hold for periods of longer than 15 min, and Iwasaki and Kai (2010) claimed that death can be assessed after breathing has stopped for as short a period as 5 (Risso’s dolphin), 8 (spotted dolphin), or 25 (pilot whale) s. These periods are well within the breath-holding capacity of many mammals and a very short breath hold for a marine mammal.
5. The sample size for the control animal (one striped dolphin) described in the paper proposing the method (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) is unlikely to be sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions, particularly in light of the availability of a large number of animals to study for these authors.
6. The method describes the times taken for an animal to die (as defined using termination of movement and breathing) to be as short a period as 5 (Risso’s dolphin), 8 (spotted dolphin), or 25 (pilot whale) s—with average times of 13.7 (Risso’s dolphin), 9 (spotted dolphin), or 25 s (pilot whale). The data derived from the analysis of a striped dolphin killed using the rod (Table 1) indicates that the animal was still moving after 254 s (4 min 14 s). The disparity between the published results (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010) and those from this independent observation- based assessment is considerable and calls into question the confidence that can be attributed to the data provided in the Iwasaki and Kai (2010) report.
7. Damage to the vertebral blood vessel and the vascular rete from insertion of the rod will lead to significant hemorrhage, but this alone would not produce a rapid death in a large mammal. After the operative has used the rod to cause tissue damage a wooden peg is inserted into the hole created by the rod (Iwasaki & Kai, 2010). It is likely that this would impede bleeding and so it is also possible that this process prolongs the time for the animal to die (Katsura, Kristian, & Siesjo, 1994). This risk is acknowledged by Iwasaki and Kai (2010), who stated, “The person who developed the spinal cord transection technique has pointed out that prevention of bleeding and internal retention of blood using the wedge risks prolongation of the time to death.” This calls into question the contention that this new killing method results in reduced TTD.
8. Analysis of the video evidence suggest that the operator must make repeated pushes of the rod into the tissues close to the back of the skull. The video shows the animal making vigorous movements during the insertion of the rod and subsequently making powerful muscular move- ments at times after the rod has been withdrawn. This evidence strongly suggests that the method is immediately invasive and distressing and does not bring about immediate insensibility, as the brain itself remains unaffected. Complete and rapid (immediate) cord transection could result in destruction of sensory (pain) pathways, but what is observed in the animals studied is neither immediate nor appears to induce effective and assured cord transection, and so there can be no assurance that pain elimination is achieved. After a period of violent insertion of a rod into sensitive tissues, the animal becomes paraplegic (paralysis of the body) and dies through trauma and gradual blood loss. This method of killing does not conform to the recognized requirement for “immediate insensibility” and would not be tolerated or permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world (AVMA, 2007; Commission of the European Communities COM, 2006; FAO Animal Production and Health, 2004; Humane Slaughter Association, 2001).
9. Rapid exsanguination is usually required after stunning for either hu- mane slaughter or euthanasia. The method described in this paper is not designed primarily for bleed-out—in fact, the use of the wooden plug will, to a degree, reduce the capacity for bleeding from damaged blood vessels. This method appears to be primarily focused on causing gross neural tissue damage to the spinal cord and potentially the brain stem. This will cause, initially, immobilization and eventually death due to lack of coordination of respiratory and motor function. The method described does not conform to any recognized mechanism for bringing about death in accepted humane slaughter or euthanasia practice in large mammals.
10. The results presented in this article provide strong evidence that the claims regarding the improved killing method described in Iwasaki and Kai (2010) are not substantiated. Also, this killing method cannot be considered humane as it does not fulfill the recognized requirement for immediacy and in fact may result in a prolonged aversive application of a violent and traumatic physical process followed by slow death by spinal paralysis and blood loss. This method would not be recognized or approved as a humane or acceptable method of killing for mammals in any setting.
veterinary-and-behavioral-analysis-of-dolphin-killing-methods-currently-used-in-the-drive-hunt-in-taiji-japan.pdf | |
File Size: | 336 kb |
File Type: |