“Throughout my career as a veterinarian, I have seen animals die in slaughterhouses, research labs, and animal shelters, and I can assure you that the cruelty existing in the seal hunt would not be tolerated in these institutions.” Dr. Mary Richardson Animal Care Review Board Solicitor-General of Ontario After observing Canada’s 1995 seal hunt Canada’s Commercial Seal Hunt is Not “Acceptably Humane” Current discussions about animal welfare issues associated with post-mortem examination of skulls. In marked contrast, the Canada’s commercial seal hunt essentially revolve around two figure cited from Daoust et al.’s report represents the number reports: of seals clubbed or shot that were brought on board sealing 1) a report of an international veterinary panel, based on ob- vessels while still conscious. That number ignores any and all servations of the 2001 seal hunt, and a review of video animal suffering that occurs between the time animals are footage of sealing activities recorded by the International clubbed or shot until they eventually reach a sealing vessel, Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) from 1998-2000 (here- usually on the end of a hook or gaff. It does not begin to after referred to as Burdon et al.)1, and measure whether or not seals were killed in an “acceptably 2) a report published by five Canadian veterinarians, also humane” manner. The frequently cited figures from both based on observations of the 2001 seal hunt, and a review reports ignore the number of seals that escape into the sea as of video footage obtained by IFAW for the 2001 hunt wounded (struck and lost) animals. (hereafter referred to as Daoust et al.).2 (The Canadian De- A variety of other data presented in the Daoust et al. partment of Fisheries and Oceans constantly claims that report actually provide support for Burdon et al.’s conclusion this report was “issued by the Canadian Veterinary Med- that Canada’s commercial seal hunt results in “considerable ical Association”. In truth, the report carries the caveat (p. and unacceptable suffering.” The available evidence suggests 688) that, “The views expressed in this article are those of that tens of thousands of harp seals – mostly pups under the the authors and do not constitute an official position of the age of three months – die in a manner that is inconsistent with CVMA.) contemporary animal welfare standards. In public discussions, the “results” of these two studies are typically presented as follows: What do the reports actually say? • Opponents of the hunt claim that up to 42% of seal car- casses examined by Burdon et al. were likely conscious Burdon et al. 2001 when skinned and conclude that the hunt is unacceptably Burdon et al. examined 76 seal carcasses left on the ice by inhumane;3 sealers on 27-28 March 2001. The sealers had no prior • In contrast, supporters of the hunt, particularly the Cana- knowledge that veterinarians would examine the carcasses of dian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), cite the seals they killed, and had departed the area by the time the Daoust et al. and claim that 98% of the seals “are killed in veterinarians arrived on the scene. an acceptably humane manner” (Abstract, p. 687).4 What the veterinarians reported was this: In 13 (17%) of the 76 carcasses examined, there were no detectable lesions of People who are concerned about the humaneness of Canada’s the skull, leading to the conclusion that these seals had been commercial seal hunt are either left confused by the seemingly skinned while conscious. An additional 19 (25%) seal contradictory claims of experts, or are forced to choose carcasses exhibited minimal to moderate skull fractures between the two apparently disparate opinions. indicative of “a decreased level of consciousness” but probably A closer examination reveals, however, that confusion not unconsciousness. Combined, these figures are the source arises largely from the different approaches and criteria used in of the claim that up to 42% of the 76 seals examined may well parts of the two studies to determine whether animals were have been skinned while conscious. The remaining 58% of the killed humanely or not. The Burdon et al. evidence cited seals examined exhibited extensive fractures that would have above addresses the question of whether seals were likely been associated with some level of unconsciousness. conscious or unconscious at the time they were skinned, using Burdon et al. also examined video footage obtained by 1 IFAW from the 1998, 1999, and 2000 seal hunts. The IFAW corneal reflex and bleeding animals immediately after video footage was obtained using a Wescam video recorder clubbing. mounted on a helicopter. Using this state-of-the-art Regardless, Daoust et al. observed 167 harp seals struck technology, sealing activities can be recorded from a distance with a hakapik or shot during the 2001 hunt. Of these, 9 without individual sealers being aware that their hunting (5.4%) were struck and lost and 3 (1.8%) were still alive and practices are being observed and recorded. While noting the conscious when they arrived on the deck of the sealing vessel. difficulties associated with determining loss of consciousness The number of seals arriving on the deck of a sealing by observation from a distance, the veterinarians emphasized vessel (dead or alive) is not a measure of whether the seals were that any killing method that does not include: 1) stunning, 2) killed in an “acceptably humane manner”. Such determination checking for an absence of voluntary muscle activity using the can only be made at the location of the killing (either by direct corneal (or blinking) reflex, and 3) exsanguination (bleeding), observation, or by post-mortem examination). Only in “has an enormous potential to create suffering and is therefore extreme cases of negligence (such as those apparently observed unacceptable”. on 3 occasions by Daoust et al.) would one expect to find a seal Burdon et al.’s observations from the videos of the 1998- still alive and conscious on the deck of a sealing vessel. Such 2000 hunts may be summarized briefly as follows (p. 9 + seals almost certainly would have been struck with a club, a Appendices 3 -5): hakapik, or some illegal weapon like a boat hook or gaff; hooked while still conscious; dragged across the ice floes for • 179 seals were observed hunted. Ninety-six of these were some distance; hoisted onto the ship (using the hook shot; 56 were shot or clubbed; 19 were clubbed or gaffed imbedded, most likely, in its jaw or eye socket); and thrown [Note: neither gaffs nor boat hooks are legal instruments onto the deck of the ship. Incidents like these characterize for killing seals in Canada], and 8 were killed by unknown some of the worst examples of cruelty associated with the means. Canadian seal hunt. The fact that Daoust et al. observed 3 • In 79% of cases, sealers did not check for a corneal reflex such cases in 167 observations (involving sealers who were indicating that many of these seals potentially could have aware they were being observed) underscores the inherent and been skinned or hooked alive. continuing cruelty of the hunt. • Only 6% were bled immediately after being struck. Burdon et al. observed that a small number of seals were • 72 (40%) seals were shot or clubbed and left to suffer. struck and lost during the 1998-2000 seal hunts. Daoust et al. • At least 30 seals were hooked while still alive. found that 5.4% of seals were shot or clubbed but not • At least 5 were bled alive. recovered. This figure is similar to the 5% figure currently • At least 4 were skinned alive. accepted by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans From their examination of seal carcasses and video evidence, for the Canadian seal hunt.5 Seals that are struck and lost are Burdon et al. (p. 1) concluded, “the hunt is resulting in wounded animals that escape into the sea before being killed. considerable and unacceptable suffering”. As Daoust et al. acknowledge (p. 689), “some of the animals struck may not have received a lethal blow”. An unknown number of these would die subsequently of their injuries. Daoust et al. 2002 Daoust et al. also examined video evidence from the 2001 The abstract of the second veterinary report (Daoust et al.) hunt and compared their observations with those provided by gives a very different impression of Canada’s seal hunt. A IFAW from the same video footage. IFAW’s observations of careful reading of the paper indicates, however, that parts of alleged violations of Canada’s Marine Mammal Regulations the abstract are worded imprecisely. Many of the observations were made by experienced seal hunt observers, curiously and presented in this report actually substantiate rather than refute inaccurately depicted in the Daoust et al. report as “IFAW the evidence provided above from Burdon et al. members”. Daoust et al. were allowed to make direct observations of Daoust et al.’s evaluation of the video footage is reported the 2001 hunt from sealing vessels, an opportunity not in such a way as to maximize the apparent differences between afforded to Burdon et al. But like Burdon et al., they also IFAW’s observations and theirs. Regardless, a number of examined video evidence provided by IFAW. The footage they similarities are obvious. For example, examined, from the 2001 hunt, was not considered in Burdon et al.’s report. • Daoust et al. note that in 87% of the 116 cases examined, Daoust et al.’s direct observations were made under very sealers “failed to palpate the skull or check the corneal re- different conditions than those provided by Burdon et al.