Read the report submitted to DFO by the Coalition

On Saturday Dec 27, 2008 the Canada Gazette published ‘Regulations Amending the Marine Mammal Regulations’ as drafted and submitted by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

At first glance on paper it looks good – the hakapik is banned, seals will have to be bled for one minute before skinned, DFO will increase surveillance of the seal hunt...

But let’s look again, and give it further thought.

Upon reading the actual amendments as published in the Canada Gazette, it becomes apparent that the amendments are simply another ploy by the Canadian government to make the commercial seal hunt appear more humane. The amendments will not in any way make the seal hunt humane – nothing ever could, given the circumstances – but again, at first glance, it would appear to be doing just that.

Before we review the amendments, we must examine the motives of DFO. The issue, as DFO states, is as follows:

"Issue: The method of harvesting seals in the current Regulations are not in line with the recommendations of the International Veterinarians’ Working Group (IVWG) and would fail to meet the derogation criteria presented in the proposed European ban on seal products."

The International Veterinarians’ Working Group (IVWG) met in May 2005 to review videotapes of the Canadian seal hunt and submitted its report in August of that same year, making recommendations regarding animal welfare concerns. For three years DFO ignored the recommendations of the IVWG, insisting the seal hunt was humane and claiming that international veterinarians had given it the stamp of approval. Now, after almost four years, DFO is finally implementing some of the IVWG recommendations. Why now? After ignoring the recommendations and insisting the seal hunt was conducted in a humane and responsible manner and was closely monitored and tightly regulated, why amend the Regulations? Because the European Commission is threatening Canada with a ban on seal products derived from inhumane hunts. DFO is well aware that the Canadian seal hunt is inherently inhumane and consequently Canadian seal products would be banned in the EU.

So what are these amendments?

(2) Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“crushed”, with respect to a skull, means that the cranium has been broken so that it does not present a solid structure on either the right or left half when palpated; (écrasé)

“palpate” means to examine the right and left halves of the cranium by pressing it by hand from the top; (palpation)

The wording of the proposed amendment to Subsection 2(1) indicates that a cranium need only be broken on one side to constitute a crushed skull.

Numerous scientific and veterinarian studies have stipulated that both hemispheres of the brain must be crushed to ensure irreversible unconsciousness. These studies include the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Report Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (2007) and the Independent Veterinary Working Group Report Improving Humane Practice in the Canadian Harp Seal Hunt (2005).

Clearly, the proposed amendment to Subsection 2(1) is not acceptable and should be rewritten to indicate veterinary standards.

28 (1.1) No person shall use a club or hakapik to strike a seal older than one year unless the seal has been shot with a firearm.

This amendment is presumably in response to the recommendation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in its Report Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals - Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare which was submitted to the European Commission and adopted on December 6, 2007. In its report the EFSA stated that clubs and hakapiks are not effective stunning or killing weapons for older animals which have thick skulls.

Firstly, adult seals are not targeted during the commercial seal hunt. The majority of seals killed during the commercial seal hunt are between the ages of 12 days and three months. Many seals are younger than one month of age.

Secondly, what about grey seal pups? Grey seal pups are substantially larger than harp whitecoat pups and hooded blueback pups. The skull of a grey seal pup is much heavier and thicker, with a high bridge across a prominent snout, and a brain case set lower than other species. Obviously, clubs and hakapiks are far less effective stunning or killing weapons for grey seal pups. Yet every year in Nova Scotia, thousands of grey seal pups are beaten to death by fishermen wielding wooden bats.

Thirdly, the location and conditions under which the seal hunt is conducted is not conducive to rendering a seal of any age unconscious quickly and humanely using a hakapik or club. Sealers are on slippery and unstable ice pans, swinging a weapon at a pup who is moving. Exhausted sealers lose their footing while swinging – sometimes using just one hand – and strike the seal on the face or body, causing avoidable pain.

If DFO is contemplating banning the use of clubs and hakapiks on adult seals because of thickness of skull, such a ban should also encompass their use on grey seals of any age. Further, such a ban should be complete, banning the use of those weapons on seals of any age as it is physically impossible due to location and conditions under which the hunt is conducted to use the hakapik or club as an effective and humane method of killing.

28 (2) Every person who strikes a seal with a club or hakapik shall strike the seal on the top of the skull until it has been crushed and shall immediately palpate the cranium to confirm that the skull has been crushed.

    (3) If a firearm is used to fish for a seal, the person who shoots the seal or retrieves it shall palpate the cranium as soon as possible after it is shot to confirm that the skull has been crushed.

    (4) Every person who palpates the cranium of a seal and determines that the skull is not crushed shall immediately strike the seal with a club or hakapik on the top of its skull until the skull has been crushed.

Currently the Marine Mammal Regulations stipulate that anyone striking a seal with a club or hakapik “shall manually check the skull, or administer a blinking reflex test, to confirm that the seal is dead before proceeding to strike another seal”. Why have the words “before proceeding to strike another seal” been removed from the amended section?

It should be specified that the seal must be struck only on the skull and on no other part of the body, ie snout, jaw, eyes, upper or lower body.

Under the proposed amendments, the three-step process (ie stun, check and bleed) does not conform to international veterinary standards for humane killing. The three steps must be completed in quick succession. The wording of the proposed amendments do not reflect this, and this must be rectified.

The current Regulation allows for blink reflex test or skull palpation. Every year we see overwhelming evidence that sealers routinely violate this regulation, conducting neither skull palpation nor eye reflex test before hooking and dragging or leaving the seal to pursue another. Why does DFO believe this amended rule will be followed when the original rule was not followed?

Let's revisit 28(3) again:

28 (3) If a firearm is used to fish for a seal, the person who shoots the seal or retrieves it shall palpate the cranium as soon as possible after it is shot to confirm that the skull has been crushed.

When seal pups are “fished” by sealers using firearms, they are immobilized by a bullet and lay suffering on the ice while the boat makes its way to them. Sometimes ice conditions do not permit sealers to get onto the ice to retrieve the seals. Even when ice conditions do permit, some sealers prefer to remain in the boat. To retrieve pups from the boat, sealers use a gaff (a long pole with large metal hook attached) to stab the wounded pup through the face and haul the pup onboard, where the pup may then be beaten with a hakapik or club, or simply tossed in the pile. Such a scenario raises serious animal welfare concerns, as much avoidable pain and distress has been caused to the animal between the time it is shot and the time it is ascertained to be irreversibly unconscious. The new amendment to the Marine Mammal Regulations does not require palpation of the skull immediately following the pup being shot. It simply states palpation must be executed “as soon as possible after it is shot”.

Furthermore, the EFSA recommended in its Report:

“Unless they are in the water, animals should not be moved, ie gaffed, hauled or moved from the position they have come to rest, until it has been confirmed that they are dead or irreversibly unconscious, or have been bled-out.”

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association echoes this recommendation:

“Notwithstanding the killing method, before the animal is dragged with a hook or is bled, the CVMA insists that the sealer must check by palpation that the skull is crushed to ensure that the animal is dead.”

The EFSA also made the following observation:

“Shooting animals where the likelihood of reaching them quickly is reduced or questionable (e.g. on thin and loose pack ice, open deep water), poses an unknown risk of causing avoidable pain, distress and suffering.”

As stated above, common practice is to gaff and haul conscious seals after first wounding them with a bullet. This practice is inherently inhumane and is contrary to scientific and veterinarian recommendations. The new amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations will not change or improve this serious concern, and the practice of gaffing and hauling conscious pups will be allowed to continue.

It is important to note that the IVWG recommended that seals should not be shot in the water due to the high potential for “struck and lost” events, suffering resulting from the inability to confirm irreversible unconsciousness, and potential for the loss of wounded animals. Shooting seals in open water is also condemned by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, which stated:

“The CVMA opposes the shooting of seals in the water as this can result in an unacceptably high rate of loss of these animals at some times of the year.”

.However, this is not reflected in the amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations. The practice of shooting seals in water will be allowed to continue.

Another important omission from the amendments is a prohibition of herding seals before killing them. Again, the EFSA stated:

Seal hunts that involve herding before slaughter can cause fear and other forms of suffering in addition to any avoidable pain at the time of killing. Seals that are herded but are not targeted to be killed may suffer fear and, if the suckling young are separated from their nursing dams, they may also experience hunger until they are reconnected.

This is precisely how grey seals are killed on islands in Nova Scotia. Whitecoats, nursing dams and moulting pups are herded together and sealers walk among the seals beating the moulted pups with wooden bats. As there is no proposed amendment to ban the inhumane practice of herding seals before killing them, this inhumane practice will be allowed to continue.

The Marine Mammal Regulations were not written with grey seals in mind. The Marine Mammal Regulations were written with the harp seal hunt in mind, which targets a different species and uses different killing methods. Last year DFO amended the Marine Mammal Regulations, removing instances of the words “on the ice” to close a loophole which allowed unlicensed observation of the grey seal hunt, as it occurred on land and not on ice. In truth, what is deemed humane for harp seal pups under the Marine Mammal Regulations is actually inhumane for grey seal pups. DFO is aware of this and yet no proposed amendments exist to rectify this concern.

Another issue is training. The Analysis Statement published on the Canada Gazette website mentions training being an important component:

Training will be an important component. A two-year apprenticeship is already in place and would remain a key component to the training program. Federal and provincial representatives as well as representatives of training and certification bodies are partnering with sealers, veterinarians and others to develop training standards and a training program for 2009 and beyond.

It is unclear, however, whether that training will be mandatory. Currently, training is not mandatory but rather "encouraged". All that is needed is a two-year apprenticeship period under an untrained sealer. Bearing in mind the speed at which the seal hunt is conducted, that apprenticeship could last a mere few days.

DFO set up information sessions regarding the new so-called "three-step process" it introduced prior to the 2008 seal hunt. Sealers did not bother to attend these sessions.

And who exactly will do the training? The Canadian and Nova Scotia governments claimed that the grey seal hunt on Hay Island in February of 2008 was the epitome of a humane and responsible harvest. However, killing practices used were condemned by EFSA in its report to the European Commission.

According to DFO’s Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement published in the Canada Gazette, “voluntary compliance is critical”. What exactly does this mean? If DFO plans to "closely monitor and tightly regulate" the seal hunt, spending billions of our tax dollars on new monitoring equipment and updating existing equipment, why are they stating that they are relying on sealers to voluntarily comply with the rules? It seems ludicrous to me – the Marine Mammal Regulations are not simply guidelines, of which the compliance is voluntary. The Marine Mammal Regulations are not to be implemented by the “Honour System”. They are laws to be enforced and followed under threat of prosecution.

DFO states that when sealers were presented with the proposed amendments - supposedly designed to make the seal hunt humane - one of their two concerns was that the amendments would slow the seal hunt down and render it less profitable. Clearly, profits are more important than animal welfare to the sealing industry. This is a valid point. What is the motivation for sealers to follow the new Regulations, which involves slowing down to ensure so-called "humane harvesting", resulting in less seals killed, less pelts taken and consequently less money earned? Repeated studies of the commercial seal hunt over the years conclude that an unacceptably large proportion of sealers do not currently adhere to the Marine Mammal Regulations and that DFO is incapable of enforcing those Regulations. Does the Canadian government expect us to believe that this will change? In truth, given the mindset of the sealing industry (profit over animal welfare) and the physical impossibility of effective monitoring of all sealing activity in the southern Gulf, northern Gulf and the Front, nothing will change.

After researching numerous reports written by veterinarians and experts studying the Canadian commercial seal hunt, I find it interesting that DFO has chosen to implement some recommendations whilst ignoring others. For example, DFO is implementing the recommendation to prohibit the use of hakapiks on adult animals. However, DFO is ignoring recommendations crucial to ensuring animal welfare, such as prohibiting the moving of seals by gaffing, hauling or dragging until it has been confirmed that they are dead or irreversibly unconscious and have been bled-out, prohibiting the shooting of seals in thin and loose pack ice and open deep water, prohibiting the use of hakapiks on all thick-skulled species of seals regardless of age, and prohibiting the practice of herding seals before slaughter. For any amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations to be meaningful from an animal welfare point of view, all past and present recommendations of veterinarians must be implemented.

The inconsistency is not surprising when one examines DFO’s motives in proposing these amendments. Veterinarians and experts have been studying the seal hunt, expressing concerns from an animal welfare standpoint and making recommendations to resolve those concerns or many years. In the past, DFO ignored those recommendations, continuing to insist the seal hunt was humane and even claiming that those veterinarian studies gave the commercial seal hunt a stamp of approval. It is only now when the Canadian government is faced with a European Union-wide ban on seal products is it acting on some of those recommendations. The key word is “some”. If DFO wishes to convince anyone that it is making changes to the Marine Mammal Regulations out of a sincere desire to improve animal welfare, it would strive to be consistent with those changes, implementing all recommendations of veterinarians, such as the ones I have detailed in this letter. Finally

While the proposed amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations appear quite good at first glance, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that they will not in actual fact improve animal welfare, or guarantee compliance of sealers to so-called humane harvesting techniques. Not only must we consider the amendments that are being proposed, but we must also consider the amendments that are conspicuously absent. Given the above, and the motives of DFO in finally getting around to adopting some of the IFWG recommendations made in 2005 (while still ignoring some very important recommendations made in the same Report and other scientific studies), it is obvious that the new proposed amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations is the latest attempt of the Canadian government to make the inhumane seal hunt appear humane and to fool the European Commission that Canada’s commercial seal hunt is conducted in a humane manner and is closely monitored – when nothing could be further from the truth.