INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC
(AUSTRAL/A v. JAPAN: NEW ZEALAND INTERVENING)
STATEMENT BY DR NICK GALES IN RESPONSE TO THE EXPERT
STATEMENT BY PROFESSOR LARS WALL0E
Chief Scientist, Australian Antarctic Program
31 MAY2013
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. This statement is prepared in response to aspects of the statement of Professor Lars
Wall0e of 9 April 2013. In this present statement I set out my views in response to a
number of specifie issues raised by Professor Wall0e that touch on issues raised in my
original Expert Statement dated 15 April 2013. As such, I do not address every issue
raised by Professor Wall0en this present statement, and absence of comment by me on
a particular assertion of Professor Wal10e should not be talŒn as agreementThis
present statement should be read in conjunction with my original Expert Statement.
1.2. The major issues that I addresse in relation to:
• The feasibility of biopsy sampling Antarctic minlcewhales;
., The utility of JARPA data to improve management procedures; and
• Professor Wal10e'sconcems with non-lethal alternative methods.
12. FEASffiiLITY OF BIOPSY SAMPLING ANTARCTIC MINKE WHALES
2.1. Professor Wall0e asserts ·that genetic research requires lethal sampling because the
non-lethal alternative is infeasible. states "it is only feasible to obtain a sufficiently
large number of genetic samples from minlΠwhales by lethal sampling" (Section 2,
page 11, paragraph 6). His conclusion is based on his view that non-lethal genetic
samples cannot be collected effectively or efficiently from the JARPAJJARPA II fleet
because the shooting distance for biopsies is too shortcompared·with harpoons, and,
consequently, not enough samples could be collected.
2.2. Professor Wall0e is incorrect in his view; direct evidence from Japanese and other
scientists show that biopsy sampling is not only feasible, but it is in fact almost certain
to be more effective and efficient than lethal sampling. In my view, the non-lethal
collection of biopsy samples is capable of obtaining sufficient genetic samples to
analyse stock structure, such that there is no need to kill whales for this purpose.
2.3. Before I discuss this evidence, I believe it is helpful for the Court to better understand
the process by which biopsies are collected. In so doing I rely in large part on Japan's
own experience in this matter by using biopsy collection results from the
IDCR/SOWER voyages. The IDCR (International Decade of Cetacean Research)
and SOWER (Southern Ocean Whales and Ecosystem Research) programs were
multi-national, collaborative research efforts undertalŒnunder the auspices of the IWC.
IDCR ran from 1978 to 1997, and SOWER ran from 1997 to 2010. Japan provided
vessels for these surveys and managed their operation, including the collection of
biopsy samples from most species of Southem Ocean whales.
Biopsy collection technique
2.4. Whale biopsy samples collected as a part of IDCR and SOWER utilised compound
crossbows and two types of rifles (Paxarms and Larsen) (e.g. see Ensor et al. 2006).
The principles of operation of each system are essentially the same; the main difference
being the range of the projectile biopsy dart. As the Larsen gun is the most powerful of
the systems available and was the routine method of biopsy collection in SOWER,
I will describe this method in sorne detail. This modified firearm uses blank
ammunition to provide an explosive force which fires a biopsy dart from the gun's
barrel. The force used to fire the projectile can be varied by venting sorne of the
2 explosion away from the barrel; this allows adjustments to be made to the force
(velocity) of the dart to allow for the distance to the target (the whale). Tguns are
equipped with a "red dot" sight which allows for reasonably accurate frring over its
operating range (see paragraphs 2.7 - 2.11 below). The biopsy dart for each of the
systems is designed to impact the surface of the whale, with a circular cutting tube
penetrating up to a few centimetres into the skin and retaining a sample of skin and
underlying tissue. The dart bourreesoff the whale and floats at the water surface until
retrieved. The force of firing the biopsy dart from a Larsengun precludes the ùse of a
tether.
2.5. The normal routine for the collection of a biopsy is that a whale is selected for biopsy
sampling, the ship closes on the whale until it is within firing range (dependent upon
the system used), a biopsy dart is fired at the whale, and then retrieved by the ship.
This general technique is a standard and widely practiced procedure in whale and
delphin research all around the world (see reviews in Chivers et al. 2000, Noren and
Mock:lin2012). Indeed, the Institute of Cetacean Research in Japan has developed and
successfully tested its own biopsy system. In their paper entitled "Development of
biopsy skin sampling system for fast swimming whales in pelagie waters", Kasamatsu
etal. (1991) describe the development and testing of an air powered system with which
they successfully biopsied four minlΠwhales, and one each of blue, fin, sei and
humpback whales while testing the system on an IWC-SOWERvoyage. They reported
"[t]he effective firing distance was found to be less than 30m at vessel speeds of 12-15
knots and no substantialproblems were encountered".
2.6. The technique of collecting biopsy samples explained in the preceding paragraphs can
and has been used for many whale species, including in the Southern Ocean (as
exhibited in the IDCR and SOWER programs) and for Antarctic minke whales (as
exhibited in feasibility studies under SOWER and in recent work under the Southern
Ocean Research Partnership - see below). The practicability of collecting biopsy
samples in the Southem Ocean is further elaborated in the following subsections, in
which I discussthe shooting distances and collectiontimes for suchworlc.
Slwoting distances for biopsies and lzarpoons
2.7. Professer Wall0e reports harpoon shooting distances for Japanese whalers is a
minimum of 20m and a maximum of 60m. He reports shooting distances for biopsies
3 being restricted to less than 20m. His assessment of harpoon shooting distance is
consistent with our understanding, but he is not correct with regards to the achievable
shot distances for biopsy collection with the widely used biopsy sampling systems
available and already used by Japan and others as a part ofiDCR/SOWER.
2.8. During the SOWER voyages the annual cruise plans generally involved the provision
of sorne specified amount of ship time to collect biopsies from different species of
whales. The amount of time to collect a biopsy is taken as the time at which the ship
starts to close on the whale for the purpose of collecting a biopsy, to the time when the
biopsy dart is retrieved. This will vary with the behaviour of the species of whale, the
individual whale itself (which is affected by such things as group size) and other issues
s:uchas weather. Records of biopsy collections from SOWER croises between 2000
and 2008 are presented in the following table:
2
Antarctic Antarctic Fin whales Humpback Southern Killer
2 2
minke blue whales right whales
1 2 2
whales whales whales
Sample size 12 165 45 173 11 10
Time per 24min 65 34 25 40 71
sample
(minutes}
Average 28m (range: 35-40, max
distance of 15 -40} 50-70.*
shot (m}
1
1WC-SOWERcruise report 2000-2001 (Ensor et al. 2001)
2
1WC-SOWERcruise reports 2001-2002 to 2007-2008 (Ensor et al. 2002, Ensor et al. 2003, Ensor et al.
2004, Ensoret al. 2005, Ensor et al2006, Ensor et al. 2007, Ensoret al. 2008)
*P.Ensor, persona! communication (see Appendix 1 to this statement, highlighted passage)
2.9. The distance of the shot to collect a biopsy is not routinely reported for species other
than minke whales as the procedure is considered to be routine and established. Paul
Ensor, the cruise leader for all of the SOWER voyages during this period, reports that
for blue whales the average distance of shots is 35-40m, but that shots as long as 70m
have resulted in a biopsy being collected (see Appendix 1 to this statement, highlighted
passage). As the same system is used to collect biopsies it is reasonable to assume that
4 sirnilar shot distances are used on the other species for which data in the table are
missing.
2.10. Biopsy sarnpling for Antarctic minlŒwhales was not a priority for IDCRJSOWER, but
two trials have been conducted- in the summer of2001-2002 (Ensor et al. 2002) and
2007-2008 (Ensor et al. 2008)- to test the feasibility of collecting biopsy sarnples from
this species. For the 12 biopsy sarnples collected in 2001-2002, the distance of a
successful shot ranged from 15-40m. The authors of the emise report noted that greater
success in collecting biopsy sarnples from minke whales could be achieved by using
two guns (they on1yused a single Larsen gun) and by sarnpling animais that carne in
close to the ship (they did not sarnpletb,ese.animals).
2.11. These experiences from IDCRJSOWER clearly show that collecting biopsy sarnples in
the Southern Ocean, including from Antarctic minke whales, is feasible at distances
that are both practical and comparable to the distances used for harpoon shooting in
JARPA and JARPA II. It follows that Professer Wal10e'sassertions that "the vessel
needs to be much closer to a whale to obtain a biopsy than to fue a harpoon" (page 11,
paragraph 5) and "it is on1yfeasible to obtain a sufficiently large number of genetic
sarnples from minke whales by lethal sarnpling" (page 11, paragraph 6) are simply not
supported by the evidence.
Time needed to collect a biopsy compared to lzarpoon a wlzale
2.12. The time needed to collect a biopsy sample is routinely reported in the IDCRJSOWER
emise reports and varies from 24 -71min, depending on the species. This includes the
time talŒn to close on the whale, shoot and retrieve the biopsy. The minlŒ whales
sarnpled in the 2001-2002 feasibility study had the shortest handling time per biopsy,
which indicates that there is nothing inherently problematic about the biopsy of
Antarctic minlŒwhales. In the 2007-2008 trials a total of 1.83hrs of SOWER ship time
was allocated to further test b~ollec romoAnntarctic min1Œwhales. The emise
report authors noted that conditions at the time were difficult as they on1yencountered
solitary animais (which are harder to approach than animais in a group) and water
clarity was poor (Ensor et al. 2008). Nevertheless, four whales were biopsied during
this period, providing a similar average handling time of about 27min.
52.13. In addition to the demonstrated success of biopsy collection in IDCR/SOWER,
experience gained as a part of two dedicated whale research voyages in the Southern
Ocean Research Partnership, which used small boats launched from a ship, has shawn
that this combinationof two vessels can lead to further efficiencies in biopsy collection
from whales, including Antarctic minke whales (Gales 2010, see also my original
Expert Statement at paragraphs 6.8-6.17).
2.14. Ohsumi (1979) reported the average times required during a Southern Ocean whaling
season to chase, handle and tow a minlce whale to the factory ship as being 59min.
Given that handling times for biopsy sampling a minke whale are half of this, and that
biopsy efficiency can almost certainly be improved with additional guns and
experience, Professor Wall0e's claim that the on1yfeasible manner to collect a large
number of genetic samples is by killing the whale is not supported by the evidence.
Wlzyco/lect the biopsy samples and lww many do you need?
2.15. Professor Wall0e's arguments that focus on the collection of large numbers of genetic
samples derived from killing whales on their feeding grounds are a diversion from the
primary issue of determining the most effective and efficient approach to understanding
Antarctic minlΠwhale population structure. The Japanese JARPA review workshop
(Annex 102, Japan Counter Memorial) and IWC-sponsored JARPA review workshop
(Annexes 113, Japan Counter Memorial) have ail pointed out that understanding the
population structure of Antarctic minlΠwhales requires fmding where the lower
latitude breeding grounds are and to obtaining genetic samples from animais at those
sites. Indeed the IWC workshop concluded:
The workshop recognised that samples from breeding areas (e.g. as could be
obtained through a combination of satellite tracking and biopsy sampling) would
greatly facilitate these analyses, and likely to be required to resolve issues
relevant to stock structure and mixing within the JARPA research area
[emphasis added].
2.16. Despite this clear conclusion, JARPA II does not include any effort to acquire such
samples from the breeding grounds. As samples collected from breeding grounds are
more informative for stock structure analysis than those collected on the feeding
grounds, it is highly likely that fewer samples would be required.
62.17. As such, provided that the appropriate approach to studying stock structure is adopted,
Professor Wall0e's question ofwhether it is possible to collect850 biopsy samples in a
year is not even the correct question to asie.
Summary
2.18. In his statement Professor Wal10easserts that the findings in JARPA on minlcewhale
stock structure are "significant" and "important" (page 7) and required lethal sampling
(page 11). The reality is that:
• Knowledge of a likely division between two minlcepopulations from the Pacifie
. and Indian Oceans existed prior to JARPA (Wada and Numachi, 1979).
• A study that focused on fmding and sampling Antarctic minke whales on their
breeding grounds- using non-lethal techniques ofbiopsy sampling and satellite
tagging - would have provided better information on stock structure. As I noted
in my original Expert Statement (at paragraph 4.8), this bas been recognised by
the Scientific Committee, as weil as the Japanese and IWC-sponsored review
workshops of JARPA.
e The genetic samples collected in JARPA and JARPA II could have been readily
collected non-lethally with biopsy technology already used by Japan, and in all
likelihood with less effort and less cost (a factory ship would not be needed)
than that used to kill and sample whales (see paragraph 2.1- 2.14 above).
3. UTILITY OF JARPA DATA TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
3.1. Professor Wal10eargues that data from JARPA II may be useful in improving the RMP
in a number of ways. He argues that the RMP delivers "relatively low catch lirnits
because of uncertainties about productivity levels of whale stocks" (page 12,
paragraph 1). He further argues that the data on age (from ear plugs, also called
"catch-at-age" data) (page 12, paragraph 2), and sorne parameters on reproduction
which are only available lethally (page 12, paragraph 4), are required for population
modelling relevant to the RMP.
3.2. I do not agree with Professor Wal10ethat the lethal data acquired through JARPA and
JARPA II have, or are likely to, provide suffi.ciently reliable data to lead to
improvements in our estimates of minke whale productivity or to whale management
7 tbrough the RMP. Indeed, as I explain below under the following sub-headings
("MSYR and catch limits", and "Age data and population modelling'), the approach in
JARPA and JARPA II has been shown to be flawed, and thus I do not believe there to
be any scientific justification for killing whales on the basis of a non-specifie objective
of improving management procedures.
MSYR and catch limits
3.3. The key issue here is that there is an obvious relationship between how "productive"
whale populations are (i.e. how fast a population can grow on the basis of how many
new whales there are each year after aU the births and deaths have been talcen into
account) and the number of whales that might be killed in whaling in a "sustainable"
manner.
3.4. The IWC has shown that attempting to manage individual whale populations on the
basis of biological data to estimate this "productivity" does not worlc(as demonstrated
with the failure of the NMP), so the RMP instead uses a range of plausible
"productivity rates" (what we call Maximum Sustainable Yield Rates; MSYR) for a
generic baleen whale (representing ali baleen whales that may be subject to commercial
whaling). This range of MSYR estimates is 1% - 7% (in other words, the range
assumes that you could sustainably catch somewhere between one and seven per cent of
a whale population each year). This range is used in the simulations runs of the RMP
(called the Implementation Simulation Trials) which is one of the steps that talees
explicit account of the imperfect nature of our lcnowledge(e.g. the uncertainty around
particular MSYR estimates).
3.5. Professor Wall0e suggests (page 12, paragraph 1)that "if, for a specifie stock, research
results malŒit possible to raise this lower bound [i.e. the lower bound of the agreed
range of plausible MSYR estimates for baleen whales], this would allow for larger
catches without any perceived risleto the resource." He is wrong in this assertion. If a
new single estimate of MSYR (in this case from Antarctic minlΠwhales) could be
estimated and proved to be reliable, it could either lie within the existing agreed range
(and thus not change it) or sit outside the range and thus lead to an increase in the range
(i.e. a lowering of the lower bound, or an increase in the upper bound). To raise the
lower bound above 1% it would be necessary to demonstrate, through a formai review
process, that it is implausibly low for baleen whales in general, not specifically for the
8 Antarctic minke whale. As noted above,the plausible range ofMSYR used in the RMP
covers all baleen whales, notjust AntarcticminlŒwhales.
3.6. The Scienti:ficCommittee are in the process of such a review and are considering if the
current range of MSYR estimates is indeed appropriate for the RMP. A range of data
from several species is being considered in this review. The review process is not yet
complete, but it has already been agreedthatdata from JARPA or JARPA ITwill not
be used as they have been found to be of low reliability for a range of reasons that
remain unresolved (IWC 2010a). The relevant Scienti:fic Committee workshop
reported:
Catch-at-age data [from JARPA and JARPA II] formed a key basis for estimates of
MSYR for two stocks (minke whales in the Indian and Pacifie Oceans); both ofthese
estimates were assigned 'low' reliability.
And further that:
The Workshop agreed that the changes in biological parameters [from JARPA and
JARPA II] could not be used to defme the range of values ofMSYR for use in RMP
simulation trials.
3.7. Thus, after more than 25 years of the collection ofthese data in JARPA and JARPA II,
they have been found to be uninformative in relation to the Scienti:ficCommittee's
review of the range of estimates of MSYR. Indeed, the data that have been used to
inform this review have come from long-term, non-lethal research programs that track
trends in a range of whale populations as weil as the reproductive performance of
individuals overtime.
3.8. The assertions ofProfessor Wal10e,and the JARPA II proposai itself, fail here on two
key points. Firstly, they failo establish a plausible case for how biological data from
JARPA II - which the Scienti:ficCommittee has already determined to be of low
reliability in relation to MSYR considerations - can lead to "improvements" in the
RMP. Indeed, the evidence suggests that such data will not lead to improvements.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, they fail to demonstrate what in the RMP requires
review and improvement, and subsequently, what data or models might be required to
achieve such improvements. The result is that biological data, including age, continues
to be collected under JARPA II without any basis to show that the RMP requires
improvement, or that the data collected will actually lead to that speci:fied
improvement.
9 Age data and population models
3.9. In addition to looking at productivity, Professor Wal10e also asserts that population
models, based on age and other lethal data from JARPA and JARPA II, are useful for
looking at long-tenn changes in minke whale abundance (page 12, paragraph 2), how
age structure in minke whales has changed over time (page 12, paragraph 3), and what
this might tell us about environmental change (page 12, paragraph 3). I disagree with
Professor Wall0e's assertion for the reasons outlined below.
3.10. Here, Professor Wall0e is referring primarily to the work of Butterworth, Punt and
Polacheck who are - to put the point simply - attempting to compare: (i) Antarctic
minke whale age structure during the era of commercial whaling (using ear plugs
collected at that time); with (ii) current age structure (using samples collected more
recently in JARPA and JARPA II). In addition to a wide range oftechnical issues to do
with the accuracy of reading ear plugs and assumptions in the population models
themselves, this analysis suffers afondamental flaw due to the manner in which whales
were selected by the commercial whalers. Their catches are known to be deliberately
biased towards bigger (and thus more valuable) animais. As a result the commercial
era "sample" cannot be said to represent the whale population at that time, and only
commercial age data are available.
3.11. In order to overcome the missing data, the analysts are forced to malΠa range of
assumptions in order to use the biased commercial sample to estimate what the true age
structure of the population might have been. As there is no .way in which these
assumptions can be tested, the outcomes of the models are fundamentally uncertain. As
Professor Wall0e himself states, to give use:ful results the hunted sample must be a
random sample (page 12, paragraph 5), and this simply is not achieved. Additional
problems are also encountered as a result of JARPA and JARPA II catches themselves
not being able to achieve random and thus representative sampling across the real age
classes.
3.12. As a direct result of these problems, and despite many years of analysis and
development of population models (since 1996), there are yet to be any agreed findings
from the age related population models, and if such frndings do eventuate, it is not clear
that they would lead to reliable conclusions given their multiple analytical problems.
103.13. An additional important point here is that the lesson on the unreliability of the use of
age data in estimating biological parameters should already have been learned from the
failureof the NMP and JARPA. A key objective in JARPA was to determine
age-specifie mortality rates - a parameter that relies on the use of age data in a
population model. This objectiveproved impossible and so Japan changed its objective
to measure average mortality rates (which also relies on the use of age data in a
population model). The JARPA review concluded that "the estimates of natural
mortality estimated from the JARPA data alone spanned such a wide range that the
parameter remains effectivelyunlmownat present."
3.14. Professor Wall0e's assertion that population models based on lethal data from JARPA
and JARPA II might provide useful information on how whale populations have
changed over time sits in complete contrast to the absence of any evidence of practical
outcomes. The statistical issues that lead to the unreliability of the conclusions are
largely unresolvable and thus any outcome is highly unlilŒlyto have practical utility
for management purposes. Again, it follows that there is no demonstrated n:eedto kill
whales for thisurpose.
4. PROFESSOR WALL0E'S FURTHER CRITICISMS OF NON-LETHAL
ALTERNATIVES
4.1. In section 4 (page 14)Professor Wall0e defends the utility of a range oflethal methods,
over non-lethal alternatives. I will respond specifically to Professor Wall0e's
comments regarding: (i) satellite tagging; (ii) feeding studies based on stomach
contents; and (iii) studying the roleof whales in the ecosystem based on blubber
thiclmess. However, I will begin with sorne general observations regarding
assumptions that information :fi.·ocertain lethal techniques is required in the first
place.
Assumptions of utility
4.2. When Professor Wal10easks whether lethal techniques adopted by Japan have feasible,
non-lethal alternatives (page 14, paragraph 2), he by-passes an important, initial
question of whether that lethal technique is providing information that is actually
required for anything. I will userofessor Wall0e's reference to studying pollutants in
whales as an example.
114.3. Sampling techniques (lethal or otherwise)that measure such things aspollutant loads in
body tissues can o:nlybe defended if there is a clear rationale for the need for the
information against a particular question.As Professor Mangel states, there needs to be
a defined and achievable objective, and study of pollutant loads must be shawn to be
the appropriate means of achieving that objective. The scientific case for measuring
pollutant loads·in minke whale body tissues has never been made. Why are minke
whales a good madel for studies of pollutant loads andpathology? What is the question
that is being addressed with such analyses? Without such a case, there is no reason to
talee any kind of sample to measure pollutants, whether by lethal or non-lethal
techniques. In this context, the question of whether lethal or non-lethal techniques are
the best apptoach simply does not arise. Professor Wal10e'sstatement completely fails
to address these core issues.
Satellite tagging
4.4. Professor Wal10estates that satellite tagging has not been successful for mi:nlŒwhales,
citing low success rates in attaching tags and attached tags not lasting long due to
"strong drag on equipment attached to a fast swimming whale" (page 14, paragraph 2).
I have already demonstrated in my original Expert Statement that satellite tagging of
Antarctic minke whales is both achievable and yields powerful results (see my original
Expert Statement, at paragraph 6.14-6.17). My earlier statement made reference (at
paragraph 6.15) to video footage, which shows tagging of Antarctic minke whales
taking place in the Southem Ocean. The video footage is available at:
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2013/significant-advances-in-no…
research-on-antarctic-minlŒ-whales (a copy of the transcript of this video is at
Appendix 2 to this statement). These results from modest research effort clearly show
that Professor Wal10e'scriticisms are misplaced and that satellite tagging of Antarctic
minke whales is a viable technique for studying a range of issues including animal
movement, behaviour and habitat preference.
Feeding studies
4.5. In JARPA and JARPA II, Japan uses a variety of lethal techniques, including
measuring stomach contents of dead whales, in an attempt to estimate prey
consumption of Antarctic minke whales. Professor Wal10e argues that the use of
non-lethal techniques to estimate prey consumption is "at best a hopeful guess of what
12 might be possible in the future" (page 14, paragraph 3). It is important to be clear here
that ail currently available methods - lethal and non-lethal - can only take
measurements from which broad estimates of daily food consum.ption can be made. It
is not possible to measure this parameter directly and accurately.
4.6. What Professor Wall0e fails to do in his assertion is to firstly show why estimates of
daily food consum.ption are relevant, and secondly, demonstrate that the estimates
derived from lethal studies (measuring stomach contents) provide more accurate and/or
precise estimates than those which use established non-lethal techniques.
4.7. In the case of the lethal technique used in JARPA and JARPA II, the approach taken by
Japan is to kill a large num.ber of whales and then identify and weigh the amount of
food in their stomachs. In arder to estimate daily food intalŒit is necessary to make a
determination of how the food found in a whale's stomach relates to what it has eaten
over a whole 24 hour period. There are a num.ber of difficulties in determining total
daily food intalΠbased on the amount of food found in the stomach at the time the
whale was killed. Whales are only "sampled" during the day, although feeding is not
constrained to particular times. A range of assum.ptions, including the rate at which
food passes through the stomach and feeding qehaviour over a 24 hour period, are then
necessary to calculate total daily food intalŒ. Variables such as stomach emptying rate,
meal size and feeding frequency change and interact with each other in relation to how
their prey (Antarctic krill) are behaving and how motivated the whale is to feed. Thus,
although the contents of a whale's stomach can be weighed, by the time that
measurement is used to estimate total daily food intalΠa great deal of uncertainty has
been introduced, and the final estimate may in itselfbe little better than a guess.
4.8. The simplest non-lethal alternative is to use a general equation based upon a
mathematical relationship between the size of an animal and the amount of energy
(food) that it requires to live (allometry). This too is an imprecise method and requires
an estimate of animal size and the energy content of its food. Contrary to Professor
Wal10e's assertion that whale size cannat be measured non-lethally at sea, it is a
standard practice to use photograrnmetry to measure whale length (e.g. Gordon 1990,
Gilpatrick and Perryman 2008). Energy content of prey can be measured directly from
laill caught with trawl nets.
134.9. Thus, both lethal and non-lethal methods include uncertainty and are imprecise, but the
main point is that no advantage is gained by killing the whale. The issues associated
with these estimates were discussed at the JARPA review workshop (Annex 113, Japan
Counter-Memorial) and later at the 2007 meeting of the Scientific Committee who
reported (IWC 2008):
Further discussion on the estimates of mean daily prey consumption by Antarctic
minke whales in the Southern Ocean (SC/59/IA8; Tamura and Konishi (2006))
highlighted that estimates [from stomach content analysis] are particularly sensitive
to assumptions about digestion rates for which data are not available. This, and
other uncertainties associated with diurnal feeding behaviour resulted in feeding
rates derived from the very large JARPA data set falling in a wide range which
covers what might be considered the plausible range of values from other sources,
including allometric comparisons of energy requirements. The Committee
summarised the three issues that would need to be resolved before progress can be
made: (1) the length of feeding season; (2) to what ex:tenfconsumption rate is
sensitive to digestion rate (which is largely unknown); and (3) the ex:tentof feeding
·atnight. The Committee agrees thatwhile these questions are being investigated
it would be difficult to move beyond only broad estimates and that although its
important to look at temporal trends, there is still further work needed to
determine whether the current trends suggested in the data are real, or an
artefactof sampling or analysis [emphasisadded].
4.10. As can be seen, measuring stomach contents from nearly 7000 dead whales in JARPA
has not improved the estimates of daily food consumption that were already available
on the basis of the alternative, non-lethal method of allometry. Further, the Scientific
Committee recommended future work that would be needed in order to malŒprogress.
Recommendations 1 (the length of the feeding season) and 3 (the extent of feeding at
night) depend on the behaviour of whales and therefore are best answered with
non-lethal tools such as satellite tags and dive recorders. Behaviour can only be studied
non-lethally. Recent research referred to in my original Expert Statement (at
paragraphs 6.14 - 6.17) has demonstrated the practical efficacy of these non-lethal
approaches. Recommendation 2 (issues of digestion rate) is lilŒly to be beyond the
scope of any practical experiment (lethal or non-lethal) and will thus remain unknown.
Importantly, the Scientific Committee concluded that while these uncertainties
remained, it would be difficult to interpret any suggested trend in stomach content
analyses. The JARPA II program has not addressed any of these uncertainties, but
instead has simply continued to collect stomach contents.
14 Blubber thickness
4.11. Professor Wall0ebrings to the attention of the Courthis view that a putative thinning of
blubber thickness during the JARPA program re:flects changes in the Antarctic
ecosystem (page 7, paragraph 4). The study he refers to, of which he is an author, was
published in Polar Biology (Konishi et al.008) and claimedthat blubber thinned at an
estimated rateof about 0.2mm per year during the JARPA period. However, since it
was published the IWC Scientific Committee has concluded that the paper used
inappropriate statisticalmethods andthat the reported trend in blubber thiclmessmay or
may not be real (IWC 2012, IWC 2013). Since that time sorne reanalyses of the data
have been underway, but the matter remains unresolved.
4.12. As a result, the purported observed trends in blubber thickness raised by
Professor Wal10e, and the conclusions he therefore draws about the Antarctic
ecosystem, have not been shownto be statistically reliable, norhave proven relevant for
interpreting broader ecological change. Unless the statistical issues can be
appropriately addressed,the data collected lethally under JARPA and JARPA II will be
of no use for drawing any conclusions about the role of whales in the Antarctic
ecosystem.
4.13. Japan and Professor Wall0e have made regular reference to data fi:om JARPA and
JARPA II to infer changes in the east Antarctic ecosystems, including these purported
trends in blubber thiclmess. At this stage no trends in these biological parameters have
been agreed by the Scientific Committee. Additionally, a case has not been made to
suggest that studying lethally derived parameters, such as blubber thiclmess, are an
informative means of exploring changes in the Antarctic ecosystem. Indeed, without
measuring other key environmental variables such as prey availability, it is very
difficult for Professor Wall0e or Japan to show any linkage between parameters suchas
blubber thiclmess and broader environmental changes. As a consequence, the
suggestionthat the Iethallyderived data will provide anythinguseful in this regard is
more than mere assertion.
4.14. More importantly, if there is a genuine scientific desire to undertake research that
investigates particular questions around changes in the Antarctic ecosystems,
particularly in relationo whales, other predators and their prey, investigations would
logically focus on the recommendationsmade in the joint IWC-CCAMLRworkshop to
15review input data for Antarctic marine ecosystem models (IWC 2010b) that focused on
just this type of question. For example, that workshop recommended research focus on
sorne existing key uncertainties such as fin whale abundance. In relation to issues of
habitat utilisation by whales, the workshop highlighted the need for data on how whales
use the whole water column (i.e. data derived from satellite tagging and dive recorders).
None of the workshop recommendations could be used to argue that diffi.cult to
measure biological parameters from Antarctic minke whales are a defendable approach
to such questions.
165. REFERENCES CITED IN THE STATEMENT
Chivers, S.J., Danil, K. and Dizon, A.E. 2000. 'Projectile biopsy sampling of cetacean
species'. Paper SC/52/022 presented to the 2000 Scientific Committee Meeting
(unpublished).
Ensor, P., Matsuoka, K., Marques, F., Miura, T., Murase, H., Pitman, R., Sakai, K. and Van
Waerebeek, K. 2001. '2000-2001 International Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale
and Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER) Cruise'. Paper SC/53/IA5 presented to the 2002
Scientific Committee Meeting (Unpublished).
Ensor, P., Sekiguchi, K., Cotton, J., Hucke-Gaete, R., Kariya, T., Komiya, H., Ljungblad, D.,
Narita, H., Oison, P. and Rankin, S. 2002. '2001-2002 International Whaling Commission
Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER) Cruise'. Paper SC/54/IA2
presented to the 2002 Scientific Committee Meeting (Unpublished).
Ensor, P., Matsuoka, K., Hirosi, K., Ljungblad, D., Minami, K., Oison, P., Rankin, S.,
Stevick, P., Tsunekawa, M. and Ugarte, F. 2003. '2002-2003 International Whaling
Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER) Cruise'. Paper
SC/55/IA1 presented to the 2003 Scientific Committee Meeting (Unpublished).
Ensor, P., Matsuoka, K., Komiya, H., Ljungblad, D., Miuar, T., Morse, L., Oison, P.,
Olavarria, C., Mori, C. and Seldguchi, K.2004. '2003-2004 International Whaling
Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER) Cruise'. Paper
SC/56/IA13 presented to the 2004 Scientific Committee Meeting (Unpublished).
Ensor, P., Findiay, K., Friedrichsen, G., Hirose, K., Komiya, H., Morse, L., Oison, P.,
Seldguchi, K., Van Waerebeek, K. and Yoshimura, I.2005. '2004-2005 International
Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER)
Cruise'. Paper SC/57/IA1 presented to the 2005 Scientific Committee Meeting
(Unpublished).
Ensor, P., Komiya, H., Oison, P., Seldguchi, K. and Stafford, K. 2006. '2005-2006
International Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC
SOWER) Cruise'. Paper SC/58/IA1 presented to the 2006 Scienti:ficCommittee Meeting
(available from: http://iwc.int/sc58docs).
17Ensor, P., Komiya, H., Beasley, I., Fulrutome, K, Oison, P. and Tsuda, Y. 2007. '2006-2007
International Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC
SOWER) Cruise'. Paper SC/59/IA1 presented to the 2007 Scientific Committee Meeting
(available from: http://iwc.int/sc59docs).
Ensor, P., Minami, K., Morse, L., Oison, P. and Sekiguchi, K. 2008. '2007-2008 International
Whaling Commission-Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem Research (IWC-SOWER)
Cruise'. Paper SC/60/IA1 presentedto the 2008 Scientific Committee Meeting (available
from: http://iwc.int/sc60docs).
Gales, N. 2010. 'Antarctic whale expedition: Preliminary science field report and summary'.
Paper SC/62/012 presented to the 2010 Scientific Committee Meeting (available from:
Gilpatrick, J.W. and Pen-yman, W. 2008. 'Geographie variation in external morphology of
North Pacifie and Southern Hemisphere blue whales (}3alaenopteramusculus)'. J Cetacean
Res. Manage. 10:9-21.
Gordon, J. 1990. 'A simple photographie technique for measuring the length ofwhales from
boats at sea'.Rep. int. Whal. Comm 40:581-588.
IWC. 2008. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 10:45.
IWC. 2010a. 'Report of the Scientific Committee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 11:493-508.
IWC. 2010b. 'Report of the joint CCAMLR-IWC workshop to review input data for
Antarctic marine ecosystem models'. Paper SC/61/Rep2 presented to the 2010 Scientific
Committee Meeting (available from: http://iwc.int/sc61docs).
IWC. 2012. 'Report of the Scientific Cornmittee'. Journal ofCetacean Research and
Management 13:256-262.
IWC. 2013. 'Report of the Scientific Cornmittee, 2012'. Paper IWC/64/Rep1revl. (available
from: http://iwc.int/scientific-committee-reports).
18Kasamatsu, F., Iwata, S. and Nisbiwaki, S. 1991. 'Development of a biopsy skin sampling
system for fast swimming whales in pelagie waters'. Rep. !nt. Whal. Commn. 41:555-557.
Konisbi, K., Tamura, T., Zenitani, R., Bando, T., Kato, H. and Wall0e, L. 2008. 'Decline in
energy storage in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southem
Ocean'. Polar Biol. 31:1509-1520.
Noren, D.P. and Mocldin, J.A. 2012. 'Review ofcetacean biopsytechniques; Factors
contributing to successful sample collection and physiology and behavioural impacts'.ar.
Mamm. Sei. 28:154-199.
Ohsumi, S. 1979. 'Population assessment of the Antarctic minke whale'. Rep. int. Whal.
Commn 29:407-420.
Wada, S. and Numachi, K. 1979. 'Extemal and biochemical characters as an approach to
stock identification for Antarctic minke whales'.ep. int. Whal. Comm 29:421-432.
19 Appendixl
Persona! communication with Paul Ensor regarding biopsy sampling during SOWER
voyages
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 13 May 2013 2:23PM
To: Nick Gales; Virginia Andrews-Goff
Subject: Fw: biopsy from SOWER-typevesse! [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi again Nick,
Realised 1made a silly error in regard to fin whales; sarry
should read -Fin whale: Average duration for biopsy sampling of fin whales was 0.57 hrs per animal
sampled (45 animais sampled 2005/2006 to 2007/2008).
Cheers, Paul
---- Original Message ----
:i=(o'moai üierïsoùtz~ .x t.r.a:ëa ,·. ~nz·::
fô:ï\JickGales ··
Cc: Virginia Andrews-Goff
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 9:02 PM
Subject: Fw: biopsy from SOWER-type vessel
Nick,1forgot to mention for the minke feasibility trials in 2000/2001 there was only one Larsen gun
available on each vessel. Because of this, we didn't try on that cruise to sample more than one animal
from each group, however, with multiple guns it should be possible. (ln 2007/2008 when there were
two guns available, most groups were solitary animais).
Cheers Paul
----- Original Message ---
;F,rÇm;·"Païiiêïiiû:lr@Xtr à.ëë··.z·
To: Nick Gales
Cc:Virginia Andrews-Goff
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 8:16PM
Subject: biopsy from SOWER-type vessel
DearNick,
Following is a summary of the efficacy of biopsy sampling of several species during recent
IWC/SOWER croises; included for Antarctic minke whales are extracts from the 2000/2001
and 2007/2008 croise reports, outlining feasibility trials for this species. Ali of the following
is basedon the effort times provided in croise reports 2001/2002 to 2007/2008; however if
you wish ta quote me I am happy with that also.
Regards, Paul
Antarctic blue whale:
For the IWC vessels the Average duration for biopsy sampling of Antarctic blue whales was
1.08 hrs per animal biopsy sampled (from a subset of 165 animais sampled 2001/2002 to
2007/2008, this includes the total duration of ali biopsy chases, dart pick up and retreival, and
includes all chases eg with misses and no chance for shooting). On SOWER the average
20range is probably 35-40m and max usually SOm(though I have witnessed a max that we
estimated as a ship length; 70m).
Fin whale: Average duration for biopsy sarnpling of fm whales was 0.44 hrs per animal
sarnpled (subset of 66 animais sarnpled 2005/2006 to 2007/2008).
Humpback whale: Average duration for biopsy sarnpling ofhumpback whales was 0.42 hrs
per animal sarnpled (subset of 173 animais 2005/2006 to 2007/2008).
Southem right whale: Average duration for biopsy sarnpling of Southem right whales was
0.67 hrs per animal sarnpled (subset of 11 animais 2005/2006 to 2007/2008).
Killer whale: Average duration for biopsy sampling of Southem right whales was 1.19 hrs
per animal sarnpled (subset of 10 animais 2005/2006 to 2007/2008).
Antarctic minke whale:
Following is an extract from the 2000/2001 IWC-SOWER cruise report (Included in the
Attachment is Table 8 from the 2000-2001 cruise report [table is reproduced below]- referred
to in the following paragraph)
'Minke WlzaleBiopsy Sampling
Due to good weather and being ahead of schedule for much of the cruise, we were able to
successfully conduct a feasibility study ofbiopsy sampling on minke whales this year. A total
of 18 groups of minke whales were approached for sarnpling using the Larsen guns; the
results are given in Table8. Most trials were conducted later in the cruise and mainly from
theShonan Maru No. 2, due to the mechanical problems with the propeller on the Shonan
Maru.
From the 18trials, 8 resulted in a sarnple from a single shot frred; 1 resulted in a sample from
two shots frred; 5 were misses; 3 were hitsn the animal but no sarnple retained in the cutting
head (one of the samples was apparently removed and eaten by a bird), and 1trial resulted in
no shots frred. One trial from the Shonan Mant was on a solitary animal which approached
the vessel while drifting off-effort. The average time per trial (excluding Trialwhich was
conducted from drifting vessel) was 20.0 minutes, ranging from 7 to 33 min (includes dart
retrieval time). It should be kept in mind though that thaim was not to obtain minlΠwhale
biopsy samples randomly, but to test the range and efficiency of the Larsen gun. For that
reason, we deliberately chose groups with 2 or more animais present because in our
experience groups tend to be more approachable and easier to track when they run; solitary
animais are often very difficult to approach. During Trial 12, for exarnple, there were several
opportunities with animais very close to the bow that we did not talee, and then once the
animais started running we could not stay with them because of rough seas. We successfully
took sarnples in wind speeds up to 20 lets (while chasing animais with the wind, and down
swell). After high wind and seas, low light conditions posed the biggest constraint: during
early moming/late evening hrs or under heavy overcast sldes, it was very difficult to detect
the animais just prior to their surfacing and this negatively impacted our sampling.
Our maximum successful range was estimated at 40 rn, however it may be possible to collect
samples from minlΠwhales from greater ranges. Although minke whales often surfaced well
within the range of the compound crossbow (and within the range of the Paxarms gun)
surfacings were usually very rapid with often very littlef the animal exposed. We feel that
21the high velocity of the dart from Larsen gun results in greater accuracy and effective range
under such circumstances, thus making it a more effective tool than any of the other systems
currently available.
In the future, sampling success could be increased and sampling time decreased if 1) 2 Larsen
guns are used at the same time, 2) animais that come in close to the boat are sampled, and 3)
sample retention in the cutting heads is improved.'
Table 8. From 2000-2001 IWC-SOWER emise report Results of the minke whale biopsy sampling trials.
Trial No. Group Size Experiment Shots Distance Results
duration
Shonan MarztNo.2
1 5 20min 1 20m Miss
2 5 26min 1 25m Sample
3 5 24min 1 20m Sample
4 6 23 min 1 35m Sample
5 5 7min 1 25m Sample
6 4 22min 1 30m Hit- No Sample
7 4 21 min 1 35m Hit -No Sample
8 2 9min 1 25m Miss
9 7 26min 1 35m Miss
10 5 37min 1 33 rn Sample
11 8 20min 1 40m Sample
12 17 33 min 0 NA No Shots Fired
13 6 24min 1 27m Sample
14 19 20min 1 15m Sample
15 18 12min 1 55m Miss
16 9 16min 1 28m Miss
Shonan Mant
17 2 25min 2 30m Sample
18 1 1 Omin* 2 20m 2 Hits- No samples
* sohtary ammal approached vessel whlle droff~effort.
Following is an extract from the 2007/2008 IWC-SOWER cruise report (Included in the
Attachment is Table 10 from the 2007-2008 cruise report [table is reproduced below]
referred to in the following paragraph)
'MINKE WHALE BIOPSY AND PHOTO-IDENTIFICATION STUDIES
A total of 14 groups of minlŒwhales (comprising 16 animais) were approached for biopsy
sampling and collection of photographs for individual identification during 2.45 hours of
research time. Included in this is a total of 0.62 hours allocated to approaches to 4 solitary
minke whales for photo-id without biopsy being attempted (close approaches to these groups
for biopsy was not attempted because of the presence oftoo much ice).
A total of 6 biopsy samples were collected from 4 solitary Antarctic minlΠwhales. The
average time talŒnto sample an individual whale was 0.46 hours.
Photographs were obtained of 15 individual minke whales from 11 groups, including all the
biopsied individuals (Tables 10 and 11). There was no opportunity to obtain photographs of
the other 3 groups of minlŒwhales approached for biopsy and photo-identification studies.
22Conditions were difficult for biopsy sampling and photo-identification studies of minlŒ
whales during this cruise as most detections were of solitary animais. Tracking whales
underwater was problematic due to poor water transparency and severa! of the groups were
encountered near the pack ice where scattered ice often posed a further difficulty for
approach.
Examination of digital images of the 15 individual minlŒwhales photographed revealed no
re-sightings.
MINKE WHALE TELEMETRY TRIAL APPROACH
There were few opportunities for telemetry trial approaches to minlŒwhales on this cruise
because there were few occasions when minlŒwhale sightings coincided with reasonably
good water clarity for tracking the whales underwater. One telemetry trial approach to a
group comprising 3 Antarctic minlcewhales was conducted during 0.55 hours ofresearch
time on 9 February. The trial was judged as unsuccessful; although the whales were seen ·
underwater very close to the bow they did not surface within 0.1 n.miles of the ship. Video
was recorded of this approach for a total of 27min 31sec. During the trial approaches the
video was recorded from the Top Barrel, instead of as instructed from the bow. This
modification was made as it was thought it would provide better perspective and scale for the
reviewer. Video was also recorded from the Top barrel for 3 approaches to minlŒwhales
during biopsy sampling attempts.'
Table 1O.Results ofbiopsy sampling during SOWER 2008-09. Ali samples were collected with the
Larsen system.
lndividual
Species & Sight Group
date no. size whale Sample number Blubber Comments
number
Minke
26 January 054 001 01 09041001 Yes
26 January 058 001 01 09041002 Yes double hit: 2 skin samples,
1 blubber sample
26 January 062 001 01 09041003 Yes double hit: 2 skin samples,
1 blubber sample
09 February 042 001 01 09041025 No small sample
Total no. of
whales 4
sam pied
End
23 Appendix2
Transcript of video, referenced in paragraph 4.4:
(Originalvideo isavailable at: http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2013/significant
advances-in-non-lethal-research-on-antarctic-minl<e-whales)
Video transcript
Australian Antarctic Division Chief Scientist- Dr NickGales
This was a combined voyage with the United States Antarctic Program and its actually focusing on
both humpbacks and minl<ewhales. The idea isto work in a place in Antarctica where bath animais
are feeding and have a look at how they feed differently.
Went dawn to a place calied the Gerlache Strait, which isa beautifully protected stretch of water in
among the islands off the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula and worked inthe Baysthere. lt's
really productive, it'san area where a lot of Antarctic krillmove through the whole area. Sort of size
of prey/patches at different depth and we have no idea what those are. So this was actually for
minl<ewhales, our first real insight into the differences between these two key species.
So we are using a whole range of different tags that are giving us different information and at the
same time we have tags on we have boats going round looking at the prey, the depths at it and
what's intheir environment.
So we go from the very short term tags, and we have to get these ones back, so you put a tag on the
back of an animal, it's held on bysuction cups and it willstay on the re for hours to perhaps one day.
And then it willjust fali off naturally, the suction cups willgive up and it willfloat to the surface and
we willretrieve it. And it measures everything. So we can tell the number oftail fluke strokes on the
way dawn to the prey, pitch and role and turning through the prey and everything, so we get
incredibly dense information and at the same time we measure with echo sounds from a separate
boat where the krillare.
And then another type that we stick on the animal that have to stay longer. So these are fired
through the skin of the animal and thenthey just embed inthe blubber and the underlying tissue
just below the hlubber and they stay on, weil we hope, for months. They just give us location, but
they give us the middle to large scale movements ofthe whales. So where they go from those
summer feeding grounds, how they move arouhd those summer feeding grounds and we hope they
last long enough to tell us where they go for the irwinter breeding.
We had no idea how minke whales were going to act around the small boat. They are a much
smaller whale than the type of whales that we have a lot of experience intagging and they are much
faster.Sothe boat driver sits alongside a group of minke whales and slowly cornes in on the boat
until we are just part of a school of whales and then they are surfacing around us. Then it'sa matter
of me on the bow, selecting a whale and then when that animal surfaces inthe right range and the
right distance from the boat shooting a tag onto the back of that whale. So it'squite tense, but it's
really exciting when we successfully deploy the tags.
This summer isthe very first time ever that these type oftags have been put on Antarctic minke
whales, infact any type oftag. So it's really exciting we are going to combine the data and really
bring forward brand new information about this species.
24
Statement of Mr. Nick Gales (expert called by Australia) in response to the statement submitted by Mr. Lars Walløe (expert called by Japan)