Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:12:57.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating possible indicators of insensibility and death in cetacea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

A Butterwortt ,
L Sadler ,
TG Knowles  and
SC Kestin
A Butterwortt*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Bristol University Veterinary School, Langford, North Somerset BS40 SDU, UK
L Sadler
Affiliation:
RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS, UK
TG Knowles
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Bristol University Veterinary School, Langford, North Somerset BS40 SDU, UK
SC Kestin
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Bristol University Veterinary School, Langford, North Somerset BS40 SDU, UK
*
* Correspondence: andy.butterworth@bris.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) currently uses imprecise indicators of death to evaluate the welfare consequences of whaling. A recent independent meeting of animal welfare scientists proposed a series of tests to determine the states of sensibility/insensibility/death of whales. As a precursor to assessing these tests in the field, conjoint analysis was used to evaluate expert opinion and to identify tests deemed most suitable for establishing insensibility and death. The results of this study indicated that experts considered measurement of breathing rate, cardiac activity, coordinated swimming and ocular temperature to be among the most useful for determining that animals were not dead. Furthermore, experts considered that judgements that an animal was dead should be made only after application of a series of different tests. The tests identified may be valuable for assessing stranded whales or animals taken as part of whaling operations.

Keywords

animal welfarecetaceansensibilitystrandingtime to deathwhaling
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 13 - 17
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 1980 Report of the Workshop on Humane Killing Techniques for Whales. International Whaling Commission Report IWC/33/15Google Scholar
Anon 1994 Study of the humane killing of whales conducted in the Antarctic in the 1992/1993 season in conjunction with the national research program. International2 Whaling2 Commission Report IWC/45/HK8Google Scholar
Anon 1999 A proposal for the study of responses relevant to the dying process in a whale aimed at submission of related data and improvement of the evaluation of killing methods. International Whaling Commission Report IWC/51/WK15Google Scholar
Hair, J, Tatham, R, Anderson, R and Black, W 1998 Multivariate Data Analysis, Edn S. Prentice Hall: NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
Johnson FR and MF Bingham 2001 Evaluating the validity of stated-preference estimates of health values. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 137: 49–63Google Scholar
Johnson, FR, Desvousges, W H, Ruby, MC, Stieb, D and De Civita, P 1998 Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Medical Decision Making 18: 57–67CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestin, SC 1994 Welfare aspects of the commercial slaughter of whales. Animal Welfare 4: 11–28Google Scholar
Kestin, SC 2001 Review of welfare concerns relating to commercial and special permit (scientific) whaling. Veterinary Record 148: 304–307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) 2001 Report of the First International Scientific Workshop on Sentience and Potential Suffering in Hunted Whales. RSPCA: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
SPSS 1997 Conjoint 8.0 Statistical Analysis Manual. SPSS: Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar