I was deeply moved as much as the next animal lover by the recent whale beaching in Kommetjie. As a diver, general marine enthusiast and sort of person who frequently daydreams about swimming with dolphins, seeing those graceful giants of the ocean dying in agony in such large numbers is certainly not my idea of fun. But what has saddened me equally as much, is the way their loss has been turned into yet another painful exercise.
The manner in which unfounded emotive rhetoric sweeps through the public was probably best illustrated by a local comedian shortly after the event. The comedian shall remain nameless, as I believe him to be a relatively decent chap, much like most of the people that flocked to the scene of the beaching on Saturday to try and offer some assistance, and this is no personal attack on him. But here the comedian was, quite readily incorporating a joke of the following gist into his routine: If this beaching had happened in the UK the authorities wouldn’t have shot the whales but made some other effort considering how little wildlife is to be found in England these days and thus all animals, including the lowly field mouse with a slight hobble, would be treasured there. As opposed to here in SA where animal life is not valued as highly and our authorities are happy to shoot whales.
Delivered with seasoned comic timing and intonation, the joke was well-received. More importantly though, the message itself was received with a quiet murmur of agreement. Which I found worrying, especially after having just read a remarkably relevant article on the Guardian. In this article, which I need mention was a respectable example of neutral and informative journalism, it was pointed out that the newest policy in the UK is to euthanize all beached whales on site, unless for some reason they could be immediately saved. This policy was developed in close consultation between the Marine Animal Rescue Coalition (which includes the RSPCA) and scientists from the Zoological Society of London, and the reasons as to why this is considered the most humane approach were laid out in the article.
What I found most relevant in the article though was a quote by Adam Grogan of the RSPCA, in which he said that, at the time, “the lack of recent strandings made it a good time to announce the change in policy because emotions tended to run high when the whales were in trouble”. That is exactly what happened on Saturday at Kommetjie and in the ensuing coverage of what happened: emotions ran high. Which is understandable, but not acceptable as an excuse when it translates into fostering unfair and grossly over-generalised attitudes towards the authorities concerned.
Discussion of the tragic event in both the social and media contexts turned quite often towards conjuring up images of merciless state “gunmen” infringing on civil liberties and shamelessly standing in the way of the whales’ right to life. Conflicting interests between law enforcement and concerned volunteers was highlighted in a way that quite clearly made the former out to be some sort of bully. However, the fact that many people decided themselves to be above the law and also ignored official requests such as those by the NSRI requesting them to keep out of the way as they were doing more harm than good, was for the most part ignored.
Healthy criticism of the authorities and their conduct is obviously a good thing when it comes to factual instances such as corruption and unreasonable inefficiency. And anybody worth their salt in the relevant authorities (of which there are many) would agree with that, welcoming healthy criticism that furthers the goal of serving society. If the mechanisms in place for dealing with a disaster are not what they should be, then by all means they should be criticised, and harshly so. But when volunteers allow pure emotion without factual backing to lead them into conflict with authorities who are in the unenviable position of having to make pressured decisions regarding nature conservation and public safety, society as a whole gets hurt.
People insinuating unfairness at police officers wanting to remove volunteers from the water who weren’t wearing wetsuits or just getting in the way lean remarkably towards the side of unfairness themselves. Perhaps a lot more injuries, hypothermia cases and a human death or two would have changed that slant. Or perhaps the authorities would just have been blamed further for that too.
There are more than enough legitimate concerns regarding the authorities in SA on a daily basis which discredit the system as a whole. Adding uneducated mass hysteria and accusations into the mix, thereby further demonising the authorities is completely uncalled for. Allowing themselves to be governed emotionally and have their judgement clouded accordingly is something the authorities are trained not to do, and the public should respect that, even if they’re not always capable of it themselves.
The case of the Kommetjie whales reminded me of the Colin the whale saga which gripped Sydney for a week last year. Colin – who turned out to be Colleen – was an abandoned baby humpback whale that tried to suckle from a yacht. Despite attempts to save her, she was eventually put down – much to the rage of Australian animal lovers. The debates around the issue were similar to the ones raging in this case.
News story here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24222924-29277,00.html
Beachings of pilot whales and other species are common in Australia, especially Tasmania – there have been several cases this year. Most of them died, sadly.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5202H520090302
Because these strandings usually take place on such remote beaches, interference from those wanting to help is not a problem. It would be interesting to know what causes these mass strandings and whether they are becoming more common.
These whales could have been sold to the Japanese for their “research”. This may then have saved some other whales out there. Just a thought.
Please be aware of this paragraph in the Guardian
“The policy would apply to deep-sea creatures such as beaked and sperm whales but not to dolphins or porpoises, which are also sometimes found stranded on UK shores”
The new policy does indeed apply only to Sperm whales and deep diving beaked species of whale.
Our findings for these species so far stranding on uk shores have shown that, it would indeed be cruel, to allow these animals to suffer further by trying to refloat after a given time.
However all other species of whale will be treated on an individual basis, dependant on condition of animal, at time of stranding, and suitability to refloat.
Articles that have featured comments from Nan Rice, are indeed the correct method to which to deal with these kind of stranding’s.
It was extremely unfortunate that well meaning people, on site, let emotions, get in the way, although understandable, they undoubtedly through their actions, caused these whales to die.
This species are very family orientated, they need placed upright, allowed to recover from the stranding, given time to recover, kept damp and comfortable in situ, then all released together. All animals should be held until their equilibrium, is returned in the water.
Unfortunately what happened in this incident, meant that the animals being shoved out were not ready, and returned because their pod mates were still stranded.
Hopefully lessons will be learned.
The drama makes me question the decision-makers’ competence, now and in the future. Why had the animals to be dragged out of the water onto the beach, increasing the pressure on the lungs and organs of the animals. This pressure was later cited to justify the decision to euthanise the animals. Why were no straps and blankets provided? Why not give the animals a last chance during the upcoming high tide? Have cetaceans ever been euthanised before a full tidal cycle had completed? Did Mike Meyer single-handedly shoot the animals himself? What are his and other decision makers’ scientific credentials? Why were journalists not allowed access? Why not inform the public appropriately? (I consider the public as key conservation advocates). Fernanda “Nan” Rice of the Dolphin Action and Protection Group, one of the decision makers, labeled the public’s reaction as ‘disgusting’(ref*). In fact, following their decisions, authorities advise trauma counseling.
Two more thoughts to follow…
ref*: http://www.news24.com/Content/Africa/News/965/e55a642fcc8843d69a7ba3c3973df76e//Killing_whales_best_option
http://multimedia.thetimes.co.za/photos/2009/05/whales-beached-in-ct/
Some relevant links:
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-090602-1.html
and
http://www.news24.com/Content/Africa/News/965/e55a642fcc8843d69a7ba3c3973df76e//Killing_whales_best_option
The nuttiness of animal rights activists grates me. I was a fan of Sea Shepherd – now I am not so sure. Why should South African conservation policy be held to ransom by animal rights organisations? The decision whether or not to cull in the Kruger Park, which should surely be based above all on science as well as concern for animal welfare, is effectively being made by the British office workers who donate to Ifaw.
Two more thoughts to add about the authorities deciding to ‘euthanise’ the whales and the way the public was treated…
1) Humane euthanasia may have been for the mammals the least painful way to terminate the operation (the euthanasia was not a solution or rescue-method), but is our role to manage for pain? Are we managing to lessen the pain of beached animals (whether due to natural or human-made causes), or are we managing to protect or conserve populations and species and try rescue until truly all options are exhausted?
2) And even if another try during the upcoming high tide would not have saved another animal because these were already too exhausted, at least people would have tried and been able to psychologically process the natural sequence of events. They wouldn’t have lost confidence in the authorities and would have remained their advocates.
More about the ‘humanely euthanising’…
I tend to think of two approaches: either we let nature take its course and let the whales be – even if the beaching was caused by human causes.
Or, we interfere and manage – which is what we tend to do. Then I see the questions: what will we manage for? For minimizing pain in the animals, or for trying to rescue individual animals as best we can for the sake of maintaining populations and species – even if the animals may be in pain for longer?
I’m not sure what the population status is for False Killer Whales, but I here assume that it warrants great efforts for trying to save as many as possible individuals. Should our notion of pain in the animals then really have terminated the huge rescue operation? (And do we really know how much it is in pain? If we do, should we start shooting someone who just lost its arm?)
Many volunteers and bystanders describe the rescue-operation as chaotic and mismanaged (see other posts in this blog, also see the Cape Times June 2, 2009, page 8 ). The authorities asked the rhetorical question: “Would you not want to end an animal’s suffering?”. It does sound ‘logic and the best option’ to do so; who would say ‘no’?
…continued in my next post
…preceded by my previous post…
Does ‘humanely euthanasing’ (or ’shooting in the brain’) justify ending the rescue operation? What about focusing on the rescue solution, such as waiting for high tide, providing straps, more blankets and coaching? Preventing pain in animals doesn’t seem to be a pure argument for ending what we tend to manage for: saving populations and species.
Unless perhaps there are enough False Killer Whales anyway, and so only their comfort is what counts to us. In that case, why have considered rescueing beached animals in the first place?
Please see my full account and share your viewpoints on my blog: http://beachedwhalesshotkommetjiecapetown.wordpress.com/
I really didn’t want to get into further discussion, and not being in SA, I cannot say why or how, or whom was involved in the decision making
But Deirdre, I felt, this may be helpful, for you, it is indeed the policy, adopted in UK, by rescuers, the method of doing things, and the reasons for doing them.
This has been brought about by many years of pm results, and other findings, from stranding’s not only in our own country but from around the world, I hope you find it helpful
I can’t speak for SA, although I presume it will be similar to uk?
Animals stranded here, are given first aid, they are vet checked, animals that have been stranded “too long” (this is often determined by substrate they strand on, longer on sand than rock for example)
Animals that are obviously ill, or maternally dependant, with no sign of the mother, would be euthanased.
Healthy animals, of good weight and condition. Would be stabilised and refloated. We use a pontoon system in the UK, for ease of movement of stranded animals
Once we get them into the water, we rock them to restore their equilibrium, they are then released.(this can take several hours) If an animal was then to restrand at this stage, it would be rechecked, if found to have deteriorated, it would be euthanased, if all still ok it would be taken out one more time, if restranded a third time it would be euthanased. The restranding, puts greater pressure on the animal, and causes damage beyond any kind of self reversal.
As said before, in cases of mass strandings, it is important, for these animals to be released as one, there is also an important way they need to be placed in the water.
Experienced, people would be able to tell from the pattern they stranded, which animals were potential lead animals. Dead animals or, any possible lead animals that could not be saved, or needed to be euthanased, should be either removed from, or hidden on the beach, to prevent the pod restranding.
As to sending these animals out at high tide, experience of vets, and indeed most experienced rescuers(but always with a vet in attendance) will know whether an animal has a chance or not, to simply push an animal out to have a protracted death, just to make the rescuer feel better, simply does not wash with animal welfare.
You have to do what is best for the whale, not what makes you feel good about what you do for the whale…..a hard
lesson, but for the animals sake one all rescuers must learn
Hi Nerak, thanks very much for these details. That sounds like a good strategy that makes sense. I don’t have any problem with euthanising the whales as long as there is a clear strategy and as long as there are trained people and vets around who have the competence to say: it’s the best thing to do now. However, I question whether these were really around.
A volunteer’s account:
The Whipping Boy – Ben Trovato: How not to have a whale of a time
The Times, Published:Jun 06, 2009
http://www.thetimes.co.za/Careers/Article.aspx?id=1012696