A giant leap … backwards

It's fair to say that last year was an unusual year in many respects, and despite most of the world moving forward with plans to reduce our impact on the natural world, some countries took a big leap backward. One such leap stood out as particularly out of kilter with the modern worldview: Japan's return to whaling. 

Many coastal and island cultures have strong associations with whaling, and Japan's goes back over 1000 years to the seventh century. Supplementing a poor diet with whale meat is quite low-scale, and has enabled many cultures to survive war, famine, or natural disaster: it's more like 'subsistence farming,' not the big-money commercial whaling of today.

Although whales have been hunted for centuries, more modern, industrial-scale whaling really took-off after WWII. From the late 40s to mid 60s, whale meat was the biggest source of meat in Japan, helping its starving population to recover from the impact of war.

Globally, whaling was banned in 1986, led by the International Whaling Commission, and because of the decimation of the world's whale populations. Many countries had outlawed the practice before this, but the IWC's ban is considered the benchmark.

Some cultures continue to whale in some capacity, some due to culture, some due to geographical reasons. However, none continue to sail fleets across the globe to hunt whales, or maintain factory ships capable of processing hundreds of whales at sea, as Japan does.

Japan has continued whaling under what it describes as ‘scientific purposes,’ arguing that there is insufficient scientific evidence to show that whale populations are in danger from commercial whaling; therefore, it hunts and kills whales to gather data on species’ stocks and health.

Once the ‘science’ is done, however, the whale meat is sold on the open market, and that’s where many believe the issue truly lies. The practice and implementation of ‘scientific’ whaling has, and continues, to artificially generate a market for whale meat among consumers. In Japan, consumption has been falling for years. Most Japanese don’t eat whale meat, seeing this as more a throwback to post-war decades, and preferring meat such as beef: in 2015, average consumption was just 30g per person.

Unsurprisingly, this has caused much debate, discussion, and derision, both in commercial and scientific circles, with Japan now arguing that some whale stocks are large enough to support commercial whaling. Equally understandably, the IWC and the international community as a whole, see this as a ruse to continue the practice, and create a new marketplace for whale meat.

In 2014, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Japan to cease whaling in Antarctica, and declared Japan's programme illegal. The ICJ found that Japan’s Antarctic whaling did not comply with the International Whaling Commission’s definition of scientific permit whaling, and that Japan is in contravention of the moratorium on commercial whaling. It also found it in contravention of the moratorium on factory ship whaling, of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and ordered the country to cease all Antarctic whaling and no further permits to whale in Antarctica.

In December, Japan announced that it was resuming full commercial hunting of whales. The 2017/2018 Antarctic whaling season took 333 Antarctic minke whales, and 134 sei and 43 common minke in the North Pacific summer season. When it resumes commercial whaling in July this year, Japan has said it intends to hunt minke, Bryde’s and sei whales, but it’s unclear how many animals will be killed per season.

You don’t need us to tell you how cruel and damaging whaling is, and how vital it is not to let large-scale commercial whaling resume in any capacity. We can all do our bit, and to find out how you can help, take a look at the Whale & Dolphin Conservation website, see the incredible work they’re doing across the globe … click below

https://uk.whales.org/wdc-in-action/stop-whaling-1

Hunting with dogs: the facts

Thanks to the Hunting Act 2004, the use of dogs to hunt wild mammals has been prohibited in England and Wales. But were you aware that there are a number of different forms of hunting are still practice, one of which is questionable, to say the least.

Three forms of hunting are still carried out: drag hunting, trail hunting, and clean boot hunting. Here's how they differ:

Drag Hunting

Originating in the early 1800s, the objective of drag hunting is to have hounds search for a non-animal-based-scent, without the pursuit or killing of wild animals. These hunts take place in areas where there is unlikely to be any live quarry. The scent is laid up to 20 minutes before the hunt starts, and the huntsmen know exactly where the scent has been laid. There are a specific set of rules created by The Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association (MDBA) that must be adhered to, and the hounds are kept under close control to prevent any accidental chasing or killing of wild animals.

Trail Hunting

Originating in 2005 after the Hunting Act came into effect, the aim is to make the activity look as similar as possible to pre-ban hunting. Trail hunts take place on land that was previously used for pre-ban hunts, with the hounds following animal-based scents. The scent is still laid before the start of a hunt, but there is no predetermined time for this to happen; there are no official written rules for trail hunting. 'Accidental' chasing or killing of wild animals is more likely to happen on a trail hunt, as the hounds are not under such a close watch.

Clean Boot Hunting

Clean boot hunting is very similar to drag hunting, in that it is an alternative to traditional hunting. The main difference between clean boot and drag hunting, however, is that there is no use of an artificial scent. Instead, hounds follow the scent of a human runner. Aside from the scent, drag and clean boot hunting are very much the same in the way in which they are carried out. Clean boot hunting is considered the most humane way of hunting, as there is zero chance of wild animals being chased or killed. 

Trail hunting is an unfamiliar term to most, being the most recent form of hunting developed. As stated above, a main difference between trail hunting and drag hunting is knowing where the scent has been laid. If you don't know where the scent is, how can you prevent a hound from going off-track and chasing or killing an animal?

Trail hunting takes place on land that was previously used for hunts pre-ban, with many of these being National Trust owned. At the end of last year, a motion was raised at the National Trust Annual General Meeting (AGM) to ban trail hunting on its land. Initially, it looked as though those for the ban had won – 28,629 to 27,525. However, some members left their votes to the Chairman of the AGM, and with the National Trust against the motion, these votes would have been used to prevent the ban. The final result saw the motion defeated by a mere 299 votes. 

Since this meeting, the National Trust has revised its stance on trail hunting. The changes are as follows:

• The use of animal-based scents has been banned to reduce the risk of wild mammals being chased
• The presence of terriermen is prohibited, as they have no practical purpose on a trail hunt
• Greater active management of hunts
• Probing the track record of each applicant when they apply for a licence to hunt
• Being more open with its members and the general public, by posting on the National Trust website the days and locations of approved hunts
• Work more closely with the Police's Independent National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU)

Despite the numerous pages on the National Trust website, its wording still seems vague in areas, meaning that loopholes will occur, and these loopholes can be used by those opposed to the hunting ban.

The issue with trail hunting still lies with the fact that wild animals are at risk, and huntsmen can plead ignorance if they are caught. One way to combat this would be to amend the Hunting Act to include a 'recklessness' clause, which would enable offenders to be prosecuted if it can be proven they did not prevent their dogs from hunting wild mammals.

Since the AGM last year, more progress has been made to reinforce the ban as a result of lobbying by the League Against Cruel Sports. Prime Minister Theresa May has announced plans to drop her party's policy of a 'free vote' to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, as well as plans to increase animal cruelty sentences from six months to five years. 

The battle may have been lost, but that in no way means the war is over. You can do your bit to support the ban by assisting charities such as the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, and if you suspect trail hunting on National Trust land is carried out near you, be sure to raise questions with the Trust or the NWCU.