- Magnus Sander -
The Namibian Seal Harvest
Namibia is today accountable for a good 10% of the world’s sealing. 40- 50,000 seal are taken on the beaches of Lüderitz and Cape Cross. Many people will be surprised to hear that seals are caught in Africa, and that this harvest is of significance to the areas where it takes place. Next year, South Africa is expected to resume its harvest of seals.
It is the cold Benguela Stream running from the Antarctic and up along the western coast of Africa, that creates suitable living conditions for these animals. In the shallow waters off the coast, the seal are forced up to the surface, into the sunlight, where the nutritional waters give rise to plankton production which in turn attracts a large amount of fish, which again provide the reason for the occurrence of enormous flocks of cape fur seals, Arctosephalus Pussilus. These are not actually true seals, they have external ears and their hind flippers point forwards, they are a kind of sea lion. They congregate in large breeding flocks on the beaches. Their behaviour is a little different to that of the true seals, but not definitively. There are three main reasons why sealing is essential to Namibia. Firstly, the harvest is more or less ordained by the Namibian constitution, which refers to a duty to utilize all of the country’s resources, also living resources, for the good of the Namibian people. Secondly, the need for work and income in a poor, developing country. Any job, any income, both local and export-based, is vital to a country like Namibia. And last but not least, because the seals compete with the commercial fisheries. In actual fact, the seals eat more fish and lobster than is landed by the entire commercial fishing fleet. Sealing is therefore also intended to contribute to a reduction in the size of the stock. In 1984 the stock was estimated at 800,000. The Namibians believe that about half of that number, 400,000, would constitute a sustainable and healthy stock. In spite of disease and undernourishment the stock is at present still very large.
I took part in the harvest for three months in 1994, authorized by the Cape Cross licence. This is the most extensive of Namibia’s two licences, with an allocated quota of 25,000 seals per season. Personally, I took about 2,000 seals, about 1,000 of which were clubbed and 1,000 shot.
Two categories of seal are hunted: young seals between 6 and 10 months of age, and big, old males.
The harvest begins in July-August, varying from year to year. At the start of the season, and up until October, the young seals are taken. They are killed with clubs. Later, the hunters commence dividing the flock up so that they can be caught without them attempting to escape. This is normally successful. The seals are killed with a blow to the head. We use short clubs of about 100 to 120 cm in length. They are thick and are equipped with an iron ferrule at the top. They are very much like the Norwegian hakapik (spiked club), but lack the spike at the end. The older type of clubs, that were thinner and about 180 cm in length, were too inaccurate and did not hit hard enough. The longer clubs were safer for the hunter, but were not efficient enough. Apparently, the seals often had to be hit several times before they were killed. The clubs used now force the hunter closer to the animal, involving the risk of coming in close contact with the seal’s teeth. For the seals, however, they mean a swifter, more certain death. After the blow has been dealt, the seals are stabbed in the heart with a knife.
This method is definitely humane. Not because I say so, but because there are so many independent reports to that effect.
During a hearing on Namibia’s fisheries, a representative of IFAW (the International Fund for Animal Welfare) said that clubbing to death was humane when done properly . The European Council’s Agricultural Committee has said the same thing, and even before the row about seal cub hunting in New Foundland began, independent experts had already taken a look at the issue, arriving at the same conclusion.
As part of my work in Cape Cross I examined the condition of the seals that were killed, measured the layer of blubber, weighed the intestines etc. and examined the skulls for injuries. During a certain period I examined approximately 5% of each day’s catch, and in every single case the skull was clearly damaged. A seal cub’s skull is very thin, and only a minor blow is needed to shatter it. It is difficult to miss with the new clubs, and in the event of the hunter missing, another blow is dealt only seconds later. When we shot the seals, this was done with a .22 calibre rifle with a silencer. Because of the silencer, there was never any unease in the flock. The seals only made for the sea when the hunt was over, and we stood up. The hunters work in pairs, a loader and a marksman. There are thus two men to keep an eye on whether the seal has been hit. The range is 25-30 metres.
During the aforementioned hearing, a scientist said that in his opinion only a few per thousand were hit incorrectly subsequently escaping into the water. In my experience, between 5 and 8 seals per thousand manage to escape. Some of these, although hardly all of them, may be seriously wounded. By this I mean that they do not die instantly, but live for a while after they have been hit. This is obviously a problem, but statistically, it is not a great one.
My personal best was 54 bull seals in 40 minutes using 55 bullets. The one that escaped was hit but not killed. A second shot killed the animal less than 10 seconds later. The reason I missed was that factory manufactured ammunition can be slightly inaccurate. One bullet among a thousand will not have been loaded correctly. I believe it was one of these I had the misfortune to use.
These killing methods actually appear to be among the most humane and efficient ones possible. Generally better than those that can be achieved even in a modern abattoir, when the entire process, including the transportation of the animals to the abattoir, is taken into account.
As far as I can see, there is no question of an ethical or moral problem with the type of sealing carried out in Namibia, but rather an aesthetic problem. Killing animals with clubs, or shooting them in the head so that their brains are blown out through their noses, is not a pretty sight. Far from it. But it is swift, painless and involves little fear on the part of the seals. Both methods are immensely rapid and cannot be deemed anything but humane. But they look awful.
It must be emphasised that the harvest is most definitely sustainable. There is nothing to indicate that the two Namibian licences result in too many seals being caught. Quotas are allocated for one year at a time, based on scientific reports on the size and reproductive ability of the stock.
Everything from the animals is put to use. Some of the meat is dried for human consumption and some is used as meat and as bone meal for cattle feed. Plans have been made for a food factory in order that more of the meat may used for human consumption. The meat is probably just as wholesome as any other marine mammal meat. Seal oil is used as a supplement to cattle feed and as a raw material in the pharmaceutic industry. The skins are used partly as furs and partly as leather. The bulls’ penises, a few thousand a year, are exported to the Far East where they are dried and used as a potency agent in traditional oriental medicine. The effect is more likely based on belief than on actual medicinal characteristics.
In short, everything is utilized, and it is quite wrong to say that the animals are killed solely for penis export to the Far East. This aspect is indeed economically important, particularly with a view to obtaining foreign currency, but generally speaking this limited product is not of vital importance to the profitability of sealing.
IFAW has attempted to put a stop to the Namibian harvest, but the campaign did not receive any local support worth mentioning. Nor does there appear to be any basis for strong protests in South Africa either. And indeed it must be difficult when your own organisation has deemed the harvesting methods humane in a court of law.
IFAW is now reported to have planned the introduction of a campaign in Europe, in the hope of targeting another important source of income for Namibia, tourism. This campaign is hardly likely to succeed either, if it is based on the facts about Namibian sealing.
It is the cold Benguela Stream running from the Antarctic and up along the western coast of Africa, that creates suitable living conditions for these animals. In the shallow waters off the coast, the seal are forced up to the surface, into the sunlight, where the nutritional waters give rise to plankton production which in turn attracts a large amount of fish, which again provide the reason for the occurrence of enormous flocks of cape fur seals, Arctosephalus Pussilus. These are not actually true seals, they have external ears and their hind flippers point forwards, they are a kind of sea lion. They congregate in large breeding flocks on the beaches. Their behaviour is a little different to that of the true seals, but not definitively. There are three main reasons why sealing is essential to Namibia. Firstly, the harvest is more or less ordained by the Namibian constitution, which refers to a duty to utilize all of the country’s resources, also living resources, for the good of the Namibian people. Secondly, the need for work and income in a poor, developing country. Any job, any income, both local and export-based, is vital to a country like Namibia. And last but not least, because the seals compete with the commercial fisheries. In actual fact, the seals eat more fish and lobster than is landed by the entire commercial fishing fleet. Sealing is therefore also intended to contribute to a reduction in the size of the stock. In 1984 the stock was estimated at 800,000. The Namibians believe that about half of that number, 400,000, would constitute a sustainable and healthy stock. In spite of disease and undernourishment the stock is at present still very large.
I took part in the harvest for three months in 1994, authorized by the Cape Cross licence. This is the most extensive of Namibia’s two licences, with an allocated quota of 25,000 seals per season. Personally, I took about 2,000 seals, about 1,000 of which were clubbed and 1,000 shot.
Two categories of seal are hunted: young seals between 6 and 10 months of age, and big, old males.
The harvest begins in July-August, varying from year to year. At the start of the season, and up until October, the young seals are taken. They are killed with clubs. Later, the hunters commence dividing the flock up so that they can be caught without them attempting to escape. This is normally successful. The seals are killed with a blow to the head. We use short clubs of about 100 to 120 cm in length. They are thick and are equipped with an iron ferrule at the top. They are very much like the Norwegian hakapik (spiked club), but lack the spike at the end. The older type of clubs, that were thinner and about 180 cm in length, were too inaccurate and did not hit hard enough. The longer clubs were safer for the hunter, but were not efficient enough. Apparently, the seals often had to be hit several times before they were killed. The clubs used now force the hunter closer to the animal, involving the risk of coming in close contact with the seal’s teeth. For the seals, however, they mean a swifter, more certain death. After the blow has been dealt, the seals are stabbed in the heart with a knife.
This method is definitely humane. Not because I say so, but because there are so many independent reports to that effect.
During a hearing on Namibia’s fisheries, a representative of IFAW (the International Fund for Animal Welfare) said that clubbing to death was humane when done properly . The European Council’s Agricultural Committee has said the same thing, and even before the row about seal cub hunting in New Foundland began, independent experts had already taken a look at the issue, arriving at the same conclusion.
As part of my work in Cape Cross I examined the condition of the seals that were killed, measured the layer of blubber, weighed the intestines etc. and examined the skulls for injuries. During a certain period I examined approximately 5% of each day’s catch, and in every single case the skull was clearly damaged. A seal cub’s skull is very thin, and only a minor blow is needed to shatter it. It is difficult to miss with the new clubs, and in the event of the hunter missing, another blow is dealt only seconds later. When we shot the seals, this was done with a .22 calibre rifle with a silencer. Because of the silencer, there was never any unease in the flock. The seals only made for the sea when the hunt was over, and we stood up. The hunters work in pairs, a loader and a marksman. There are thus two men to keep an eye on whether the seal has been hit. The range is 25-30 metres.
During the aforementioned hearing, a scientist said that in his opinion only a few per thousand were hit incorrectly subsequently escaping into the water. In my experience, between 5 and 8 seals per thousand manage to escape. Some of these, although hardly all of them, may be seriously wounded. By this I mean that they do not die instantly, but live for a while after they have been hit. This is obviously a problem, but statistically, it is not a great one.
My personal best was 54 bull seals in 40 minutes using 55 bullets. The one that escaped was hit but not killed. A second shot killed the animal less than 10 seconds later. The reason I missed was that factory manufactured ammunition can be slightly inaccurate. One bullet among a thousand will not have been loaded correctly. I believe it was one of these I had the misfortune to use.
These killing methods actually appear to be among the most humane and efficient ones possible. Generally better than those that can be achieved even in a modern abattoir, when the entire process, including the transportation of the animals to the abattoir, is taken into account.
As far as I can see, there is no question of an ethical or moral problem with the type of sealing carried out in Namibia, but rather an aesthetic problem. Killing animals with clubs, or shooting them in the head so that their brains are blown out through their noses, is not a pretty sight. Far from it. But it is swift, painless and involves little fear on the part of the seals. Both methods are immensely rapid and cannot be deemed anything but humane. But they look awful.
It must be emphasised that the harvest is most definitely sustainable. There is nothing to indicate that the two Namibian licences result in too many seals being caught. Quotas are allocated for one year at a time, based on scientific reports on the size and reproductive ability of the stock.
Everything from the animals is put to use. Some of the meat is dried for human consumption and some is used as meat and as bone meal for cattle feed. Plans have been made for a food factory in order that more of the meat may used for human consumption. The meat is probably just as wholesome as any other marine mammal meat. Seal oil is used as a supplement to cattle feed and as a raw material in the pharmaceutic industry. The skins are used partly as furs and partly as leather. The bulls’ penises, a few thousand a year, are exported to the Far East where they are dried and used as a potency agent in traditional oriental medicine. The effect is more likely based on belief than on actual medicinal characteristics.
In short, everything is utilized, and it is quite wrong to say that the animals are killed solely for penis export to the Far East. This aspect is indeed economically important, particularly with a view to obtaining foreign currency, but generally speaking this limited product is not of vital importance to the profitability of sealing.
IFAW has attempted to put a stop to the Namibian harvest, but the campaign did not receive any local support worth mentioning. Nor does there appear to be any basis for strong protests in South Africa either. And indeed it must be difficult when your own organisation has deemed the harvesting methods humane in a court of law.
IFAW is now reported to have planned the introduction of a campaign in Europe, in the hope of targeting another important source of income for Namibia, tourism. This campaign is hardly likely to succeed either, if it is based on the facts about Namibian sealing.
No comments:
Post a Comment