Author: Kristin Stone

Each year, it is estimated that 200,000 seabirds are accidentally snared, entangled and drowned by longline hooks and in trawls, driftnets and gillnets in European waters alone. Seabird bycatch not only poses a significant threat to the survival of many species, but is also an animal welfare problem. Impaled on fishing hooks or suffering from lacerations, broken bones or damaged wings, wounded birds unable to fly will eventually die.

Baited hooks

There are, however, a variety of ways that this suffering and mortality can be prevented. For example, in pelagic longline fisheries, setting lines at night and weighting them to reduce the time that baited hooks are near or on the surface has been found to effectively reduce incidental seabird bycatch. These methods can be used in combination with bird scaring lines, which can also deter seabirds from trying to get food off baited hooks.

In trawl fisheries, seabird mortality tends to be associated with the discharge of waste from vessels. This is because seabirds tend to feed behind the trawlers and collide with cables or get caught up in nets. Research has found that simple measures, such as the onboard retention of waste materials (e.g. offal) can be extremely effective in preventing unnecessary seabird deaths.

Sound—emitting “pingers”

Likewise, in gillnet fisheries, increasing the visibility of nets, adding sound-emitting “pingers” and closing fisheries at certain times has been found to reduce incidental catches of various species. Scientists have estimated that the mortality rate for birds such as divers, grebes, sea ducks, diving ducks, auks and cormorants in gillnet fisheries in the Baltic and North Seas is between 100,000 and 200,000 per annum.

Elsewhere across the globe, seabird bycatch has already been massively and rapidly reduced by the introduction of mandatory mitigation measures. More than a decade ago, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) issued an International Plan of Action for reducing the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries, and has since extended this to cover trawl and gillnet fisheries as well.

Urgent action needed in EU

Although active internationally in the fight to save seabirds as a member of various Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RMFOs), the European Union has thus far been dragging its heels when it comes to developing its own plan of action to mitigate the impact of fisheries on seabird populations in European waters. Urgent action is need within the EU to prevent the unnecessary suffering and death of seabirds on its own doorstep.

HSI therefore welcomes the recent launch by the European Commission of a consultation on the development of a dedicated EU Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. Highlighting the need to protect the welfare of all seabirds—irrespective of whether species are endangered or not—and drawing on our experience with this issue worldwide, HSI has participated in this consultation.

HSI hopes that the EU will take swift action and introduce mandatory measures for EU fisheries to prevent the unnecessary suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds in its waters each year.

Started young

There are no laws in Mexico limiting the age of bullfighters, whereas in Spain, no child younger than 16 is allowed to enter the ring. For this very reason, many young children travel to Mexico to pursue their careers in bullfighting. Bullfighting schools that train children are becoming more and more common in Mexico. According to former matador Francisco Parra, some Mexican bullfighting schools accept kids as young as six [1]. Michel Lagravere Peniche, one of the youngest matadors in Mexico, has been training since the age of three.

Child endangerment

Child bullfighters are faced with real danger of both serious injury and death in the ring. In 2007, a 14-year old Spanish bullfighter almost died while bullfighting in Mexico. The animal pierced his left lung, missing his heart by only an inch. Inaki Negrete of the Mexican Association of Fighting Bull Breeders warns that child bullfighting is very dangerous for the young bullfighters [2]. Some child bullfights end in the death of the animal.

Child bullfighters are seen as a new way to reel in spectators to the arena and are paid large amounts of money by bullfighting promoters.

A note of explanation

Calves are animals under three years of age and young bulls are between three and four years of age. The young bullfighters are called “niños toreros” when they fight calves and “novilleros” when they fight young bulls. These events are called “becerradas” when calves are used and “novilladas” when young bulls are used.

¹Kocherga, Angela.  2008.  Child bullfighters face death in the ring.  http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080219_tnt_kidbullfighters.a5d1337.html.  Accessed July 16, 2008.

²Foxnews.com. 2007.  14-Year-Old Bullfighter Gored in Mexico.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266401,00.html.  Accessed July 14, 2008.

The true economic value of Canada’s commercial seal hunt stands in sharp contrast to the high level of financial and other support it receives from the Canadian government. As the following government statistics show, the commercial seal hunt is an economically marginal activity, and its negligible value could be easily replaced by the federal government. 

The sealers

Sealing is an off-season activity conducted by a few thousand fishermen from Canada’s East Coast, who participate in several commercial fisheries throughout the year. They earn, on average, a very small fraction of their total incomes from sealing—the rest from other fisheries such as crab, shrimp and lobster.

Notably, Newfoundland’s fishing industry has never been wealthier in history, today earning at least $150 million more each year than it did prior to the 1992 cod collapse. Individual fishermen earn an average of 50 percent more than they did in 1991. This wealth is due almost entirely to the shellfish industry, which today accounts for 80 percent of the value of Newfoundland’s fishery. Income from sealing, in contrast, brings in only two percent.

Value of the seal hunt to the economy

Fishermen from Newfoundland kill more than 90 percent of the seals slaughtered each year. But even in Newfoundland, sealing income accounts for less than one tenth of one percent of the Gross Domestic Product. 

The Newfoundland government estimates there are about 400 people engaged in the processing of seal products, on a seasonal, part time basis. But the handful of seal processing plants that operate in Canada are heavily subsidized by the Canadian government, which provides grants and interest free loans for capital costs and employee salaries through at least two federal funding programs: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Human Resources Development Canada.

Value of the seal hunt to individual sealers

The Newfoundland government indicates there are 4000 active sealers, while the Canadian Sealers Association says there are only 2500 (http://www.norden.org/pub/miljo/miljo/sk/2001-580.pdf, page 57). Assuming there are 4000 sealers, out of a population of half a million people, less than one percent of Newfoundlanders participate in the seal hunt.

Government data shows sealers earn on average less than five percent of their total annual incomes from sealing—the rest from commercial fisheries.  This analysis is supported by quotes from sealers in recent media reports (National Geographic, 2003).

Commercial sealing license retirement plan

In the past year, effective consumer action campaigns have been launched targeting Canada’s fishing and tourism industries with the goal of ending the seal hunt. Those campaigns have gained international public and corporate support, causing concern to both industry sectors.

Opinion polling shows public opposition to the commercial seal hunt is escalating, and governments are taking action on behalf of their constituents. Several European countries are currently working to ban the trade in seal products, and governments in the United States, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and other countries have conveyed their concerns to Canada.

It is clear continuing the seal hunt may simply not be worth the risk to other industries and Canada’s international reputation.

The commercial seal hunt provides few economic returns for a limited number of people. Moreover, the work itself is difficult, dangerous and dehumanizing, and often results in costly damage to fishing vessels. These factors make a license retirement scheme an attractive way for the Canadian government to end the commercial seal hunt while offsetting any economic impact associated with the decision.

Successful license retirement programs have been implemented over past decades in Canada, the United States, Britain, Europe, Australia and elsewhere in the wake of fisheries closures and reductions. These programs can take many forms, but generally involve providing federal funds in exchange for fishing licenses.

In comparison to the four billion dollars provided by the Canadian government in recent years for fisheries diversification and license/vessel buy-back programs, the money required for a sealing license retirement program seems entirely reasonable.

Myth: It is illegal to kill baby seals in Canada.

Fact: Baby seals are the primary target of the commercial seal slaughter. In Canada, newborn “whitecoat” harp seals are protected from hunting. But as soon as they begin to shed their white coats—as young as 12 days of age—these baby seals can be legally hunted by sealers. In fact, 97 percent of the seals killed in the commercial seal hunt over the past five years have been less than 3 months old, and most were one month old or less. At the time of slaughter, many of the pups had not yet eaten their first solid meal or taken their first swim. Sealers target the baby seals because their skins are in “prime” condition and fetch the highest prices.

Myth: The seal hunt is humane.

Fact: Veterinarians say the seal hunt is inherently inhumane. In 2007, an international panel of veterinary and zoology experts studied the commercial seal hunt. Their report detailed a widespread disregard for regulations by Canadian sealers, a failure to monitor the seal hunt by Canadian authorities, high wounding rates in seals that were shot or clubbed, wounded seals left to suffer for protracted periods of time, and sealers failing to ensure animals were dead in 66 percent of cases. The report concluded that both clubbing and shooting of seals should be considered unacceptable. In 2001, an independent veterinary panel performed post-mortems on seal carcasses abandoned on the ice floes. The report concluded that in 42 percent of cases, the seals did not show enough evidence of cranial injury to even guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning. These reports are supported by the testimony of independent journalists, parliamentarians and scientists who observe and document the commercial seal hunt each year. Footage from the commercial seal hunt consistently shows conscious pups stabbed with boathooks and dragged across the ice, wounded pups left to choke on their own blood and conscious seal pups cut open.

Myth: The seal hunt is sustainable.

Fact: Scientists say today’s seal kill levels are not sustainable. A recent study by Professor Stephen Harris, from Bristol University, asserts that the Canadian management regime for harp seals does not apply a precautionary principle and threatens the survival of seal populations. Because seals only reach breeding age at six years of age, the impacts of these high hunting levels are only starting to be felt. Under its current management plan, by the time the Canadian government decides to take action to save the population, it may well be too late to intervene. Notably, today’s kill levels meet and even exceed those of the 1950s and 1960s, when over-hunting quickly reduced the harp seal population by nearly two thirds.

Myth: The seal population is “exploding” and a cull is necessary.

Fact: The harp seal population is recovering from record low levels. In an attempt to defend the seal hunt, sealing advocates often say that the harp seal population has “tripled” over the past three decades. But they conveniently neglect to mention that over-hunting in the 1950s and ’60s had reduced the population by nearly two thirds. A dramatic decline in hunting levels in the 1980s allowed the population to rebuild, but today’s kill levels now meet and even exceed those of a half century ago. Harp seals have many natural predators, including sharks, whales and polar bears—and now the seals have a new threat to contend with—climate change. As the sea ice cover harp seals rely on to give birth and nurse their pups disappears, the seal population faces devastating mortalities. In recent years, the Canadian government has estimated up to 100 percent mortality in key whelping areas when the ice melted before the pups were old enough to survive in open water.

Myth: The seal hunt is a vital economic activity.

Fact: The seal hunt is an economically marginal activity and could easily be phased out. The Canadian government estimates between 5000 and 6000 Canadians derive some income from sealing. Notably, sealers are commercial fishermen who earn, on average, less than 5 percent of their annual incomes from killing seals—the remainder comes from fisheries. Even in Newfoundland, where most sealers live, income from the seal hunt accounts for less than one percent of the province’s economy.

Myth: Seals are preventing recovery of fish stocks.

Fact: Human overfishing and other fishing practices are preventing recovery of fish stocks. According to Canadian government scientists, it was human overfishing—not seal predation—that caused the collapse of groundfish stocks. Not surprisingly, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that killing seals will bring back fish stocks. Seals are a convenient scapegoat for the fishing industry, providing a distraction from the destructive commercial fishing practices that continue today. In reality, seals, like all marine mammals, are a vital part of the ecosystem of the northwest Atlantic, and help all fish populations to thrive. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans states clearly that there is no evidence killing seals will help bring fish stocks back.

Myth: The Canadian government does not subsidize the commercial seal hunt.

Fact: Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is used to subsidize the sealing industry. A 2001 report by the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment (CIBE) found over $20 million in government subsidies provided to the sealing industry over the seven year period 1995-2001. In recent years, the Canadian government has continued to subsidize the slaughter, providing millions of taxpeyers’ dollars to the sealing industry in the form of Coast Guard support for sealing vessels, government lobbying trips on behalf of the sealing industry, grants to processing companies and marketing associations, and a host of other hidden subsidies. 

Myth: Canadians support the seal hunt.

Fact: National polling shows the overwhelming majority of Canadians oppose the commercial seal hunt. Nearly 70 percent of Canadians holding an opinion are opposed to the commercial seal hunt, and even higher numbers oppose specific aspects of it, such as killing seal pups (Environics Research, 2005). Fully 66 percent of Canadians holding an opinion support foreign nations banning seal product trade, and 67 percent oppose their government spending public money to lobby foreign governments on behalf of the sealing industry (Pollara, 2007).

1. I should attend a bullfight if I want to experience the country’s true culture.

Spain, Mexico and other Latin American nations are all beautiful countries, rich in history, art and culture. There are so many other ways to enjoy and experience a country’s traditions that do not involve harming animals. 

Even if bullfighting has been used as entertainment in the past, that is no argument for continuing this cruel and outdated practice. Other traditions of cruelty as entertainment, such as Roman gladiatorial games, have been relegated to history, as bullfighting should be.

In countries that still allow bullfighting, only a small and declining percent of the local population participates. According to a 2006 Investiga (formerly Gallup) survey titled “Interés por las corridas de toros” [Interest in bullfights], 72.1 percent of Spaniards have no interest in bullfighting and Investiga expects interest to continue declining in the years ahead. [1]

Many spectators at bullfights are tourists, not members of the local culture. For example, more than 90 percent of bullfight spectators in Cancun, Mexico are from the United States or Canada.

2. Bulls are violent and aggressive animals by nature.

On the contrary, bulls are generally calm, peaceful animals who tend to behave violently only when defending themselves or their territory. According to zoologist Jordi Casamitjana, bulls are “very peaceful animals that spend most of their live[s] eating grass, sleeping and playing with each other… ” [2] The breeders of bulls used in bullfights admit that these bulls are purposely bred to be aggressive,  fierce, and to attack, not defend. 

3. Bullfighting is a fair sport—the bull and the matador have an equal chance of injuring the other and winning the fight.

If this were the case, there would be an equal number of matadors and bulls that die in the ring. According to ex-matador D. Alvaro Múnera, “Los toreros muertos son muy pocos, es un índice insignificante al lado de los toros que se matan cada día en las corridas [The dead bullfighters are very few; it is an insignificant number next to the bulls that are killed every day in the bullfights].” [3] The matador, unlike the bull, can use planned tactics and previous training to deceive and have advantage over the bull.  Furthermore, the bull is subjected to significant stress, exhaustion, and injury before the matador even begins his “fight.”

4. Bulls do not suffer during the bullfight.

Contrary to claims that bulls do not suffer at any stage of the bullfight,  numerous scientific studies have proven that bulls do suffer in the ring. Veterinarians, zoologists and bullfighters themselves all agree that bulls undergo both physical pain and psychological stress during these bloody events. According to Dr. Susana Munoz of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, “Durante todo el tiempo que dura esta tortura psicológica el toro esta sufriendo un intenso estrés . . . El toro sufre muchísimo [During the whole time that this psychological torture lasts, the bull is suffering an intense stress… The bull suffers a great deal]. [4]

1. Investiga. 2006. RANKING DE TOREROS MÁS VALORADOS E INTERES POR LAS CORRIDAS DE TOROS.  http://www.ig-investiga.com/encu/toros06/intro.asp. Accessed August 6, 2008.

2. Casamitjana, Jordi. “‘Suffering’ in bullfighting bulls; An ethologist’s perspective.”  http://www.ffw.ch/files/Corrida%202008/eng_jordi_casamitjana.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2008.

3. Fraile, Julio Ortega. OtroMadrid.org. Entrevista a D. Alvaro Múnera, de Torero a Luchador Contra la Tortura.  http://www.otromadrid.org/articulo/5837/entrevista-alvaro-munera-torero/. Accessed July 16, 2008.

4. Muñoz Lasa, Susana. Porqué pienso que el toro sufre un dolor inmenso. http://www.equanimal.org/articulos/porque-pienso-que-el-toro-sufre-un-dolor-inmenso.html/. Accessed July 7, 2008.

The Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman’s Protective Act allows the U.S. Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior to determine and certify to the President when foreign nationals are conducting activities that diminish the effectiveness of an international fisheries conservation program or engaging in trade or taking that diminishes the effectiveness of an international program for endangered or threatened species.

Should the Secretaries choose to certify a country under the Pelly Amendment, the U.S. President has 60 days to decide whether to impose trade sanctions on the offender.

Sending a signal

Despite continued defiance of the international ban on commercial whaling by a small group of countries, the United States has never issued trade sanctions, even though whaling nations have been certified under Pelly multiple times for undermining the International Whaling Commission.

HSI and The HSUS have also called on the U.S. to certify Iceland for its international trade in whale meat and other products that undermine trade bans imposed by CITES. On February 6, 2014, The Department of the Interior did so, in a long-awaited demonstration of the United States’ firm opposition to trade in whale products. We hope that the government will take the next step by imposing trade sanctions against Iceland.

Iceland: A timeline

In 1986, the moratorium on commercial whaling imposed by the IWC went into effect. Although Iceland did not formally object to this moratorium, it chose to leave the IWC in 1992.

In 2002, it rejoined the IWC with a reservation to the moratorium. At this time, Iceland began taking whales under special permit for scientific research and in 2004 the Secretary of Commerce at the time certified the country under Pelly, but opted not to pursue trade sanctions in the hope that the threat alone would influence Iceland’s behavior.

Instead, in 2006 Iceland decided to resume commercial whaling under its reservation to the IWC moratorium. Rather than taking action under the Pelly Amendment, the U.S. decided to try for a diplomatic solution.

Unfortunately, these efforts failed and Iceland continues to undermine both the IWC and CITES, which prohibits the commercial trade in whale products. In fact, it has drastically increased its self-allotted quotas and annually exports tons of whale meat, blubber and oil.

Time for action

Decades of rampant commercial whaling and international trade by a small group of countries has depleted great whale populations. Iceland must stop thumbing its nose at two international agreements trying to protect the great whales from unnecessary slaughter and greed.

Worldwide, approximately 67.5 billion land animals are raised and slaughtered for meat, eggs, and milk every year. Hundreds of millions of these animals are raised on industrialized farms resembling factories. On these factory farms, animals suffer immensely, many confined for the entirety of their lives in small cages, unable to perform the most basic natural behaviors. You can help decrease the suffering of these animals by adopting a more humane diet.

Reduce: If you eat meat, eggs, our dairy, consider reducing your consumption of these products. Reserve one day out of the week to eat only vegetarian meals. When you feel comfortable with this change, explore other ways of further reducing your consumption of animal products. Plant-based foods are healthy, more environmentally friendly, and can be very delicious!

Refine: Learn the origin of meat, eggs, and dairy products in your diet. Say no to battery-cage eggs and avoid other animal products produced by animals confined in cages and crates. Choose certified organic or free-range eggs and pork. While these “cage-free” products are not necessarily “cruelty-free”, cage-free farm animals have significantly more space to move around and express their natural behaviors, and they experience a higher quality of life than caged farm animals.

As a conscientious consumer, you have the power to change the way animals are treated in the food industry. Speak with managers of supermarkets, restaurants, and other establishments that you frequent. Ask them to offer more vegetarian options and to end their procurement of eggs and meat from factory farms that confine hens in battery cages, or pigs in gestation crates.

Need help getting started?

Check out our Guide to Meat-Free Meals for more information on how you can help animals when you eat, including delicious recipes, tips on incorporating more animal-free meals into your diet, and much more.

Watch videos on these topics

• Battery-Cage Eggs
• Confinement by Crate
• Foie Gras
• Fast Growth
• Electric Stunning
• Traumatic Catching

Climate change and food

Learn more about the connection [PDF]

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), signed in Washington, D.C., on December 2, 1946. The Convention was intended to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and the regulation of commercial and aboriginal whaling. Yet, in its early attempts to regulate whaling, the IWC did nothing more than sanction whaling, even when the numbers of whales killed were clearly jeopardizing populations.

For decades following the establishment of the IWC, hundreds of thousands of whales were slaughtered, seriously depleting all whale stocks. Underreporting of kills was common during that time, and scientists lacked—and in fact still lack—adequate methods to estimate whale population size. After a worldwide outcry against the killing of whales and after intense efforts by The HSUS and others, the IWC voted to ban commercial whaling in1982, a ban that became effective in 1986. That ban remains in place today for two reasons: whale populations have not yet recovered, and there is no effective mechanism in place to safely or humanely regulate the killing of these magnificent marine mammals.

Despite the ban, Japan, Iceland and Norway continue to kill whales. The ban on commercial whaling also does not affect aboriginal subsistence whaling, which is permitted by Denmark, the Russian Federation, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States. Nor does this ban cover small cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), as Japan and a handful of other nations refuse to accept the IWC’s jurisdiction over small cetaceans.

A majority of IWC member countries, along with animal protection and environmental organizations, believe that the treaty has evolved into a conservation agreement that allows for greater protection for whales from environmental, commercial, and other types of threats. In contrast, Japan, Norway, Iceland and other whaling nations maintain that the sole purpose of the IWC is to promote the orderly development of the whaling industry.

In fact, the main duty of the IWC is to keep under review—and revise as necessary—the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention, which govern conservation and whaling throughout the world. These measures, among other things, provide for the complete protection of certain species; allow the designation of specified areas as whale sanctuaries; set limits on the number and size of whales that may be taken; prescribe open and closed seasons and areas for whaling; and prohibit the taking of suckling calves and females accompanied by calves.

The IWC is a political body, and political and financial pressures influence the direction of its policies and mission. A singular lack of reporting and enforcement has plagued the IWC from the start, and unfortunately, scientists who most actively make recommendations concerning the stability of whale stocks to the IWC are often far from unbiased—scientists often have political agendas, just like other people do. Their findings seem to do more to protect their political appointments than to protect whales.