WDC Blog - From the Front Line

The study of animal personalities is rapidly become one of the fastest growing areas of research in behavioural biology and ecology. The term ‘personality’, within this context, is used to describe significant behavioural and physiological differences between individuals of the same species, which are consistent over time in different contexts or situations. For field researchers, the personalities of their study subjects may have important implications for their results and thus for conservation efforts. For example, just as we humans may react differently in different situations, other species may exhibit differential responses or vulnerability to certain stressors in their environment or certain social situations.

Does this mean that for some populations we may eventually be able to identify and quantify personality characteristics, such as brave or committed, timid or resourceful? Perhaps. What will this mean for the way in which we define populations or sub-groups within those populations? How might this influence conservation and protection efforts? Only time will tell.

At present we are left watching, often in amazement, at some of the interesting events that unfold in the natural environment; where an individual from one species apparently adopts an individual from another, or comes to their aid. There’s been a variety of such awe inspiring whale and dolphin stories circulating over the last few months. It would be timely to reflect upon some of these tales and consider what personality traits might possibly be in play and how this may highlight the uniqueness of each of these individuals.

Many dolphin species live in complex social groups, some can innovate and then learn from each other. For example, there are some bottlenose dolphins in Western Australia that use sponges as tools to help them forage. Research shows that the female ‘spongers’ (as these tool-using dolphins are known) tend to be more ‘cliquish’ and preferentially associate with other dolphins that ‘sponge' suggesting that, like humans, these female dolphins prefer to associate with those individuals who share their sub-culture (in this case, the use of sponges as tools).

Let’s consider just a few of the recent stories in the media, which help to give us some other rare glimpses into the private lives of dolphins and whales.

Common dolphins come to the aid of another group member
In a compelling account from Korean waters, a group of five common dolphins were recorded using their bodies as a raft to try to keep another stricken dolphin afloat. A full account of the event is available in the journal Marine Mammal Science. There have been a number of recorded incidents of dolphins supporting dead or stillborn calves near the surface using their bodies. This is not unexpected, as air breathing mammals, once a calf is born the mother must ensure the youngster reaches the surface swiftly enough for his or her first gasp of air. However, cases where females have been recorded supporting the bodies of their dead calves, sometimes for many days after the calf has died, also raise speculation about these individuals exhibiting grief.

What is unusual about the story from Korea is the collective and coordinated effort of these dolphins (reported up to 10) to keep their companion afloat. The researchers reported that the dolphins appeared to take on different roles, with some attempting to keep the stricken individual afloat, whilst others circled around, perhaps providing protection. They note that five dolphins at a time lined up to form a raft to support the ailing dolphin, whilst another used their mouth to keep the dolphin’s head (and blowhole) above the water.

Stricken dolphin calmly permits help from a diver
In an equally amazing story an entangled dolphin allowed a scuba-diver to delicately cut away the fishing line from his or her pectoral fin and mouth. This video footage is so compelling that it quickly became international news. Perhaps the most remarkable part of this entire event is the point at which the dolphin leaves the diver to surface for air and then returns so that the diver can continue to cut away and remove the fishing line.

Sperm whales and a dolphin with a deformed spine
Another incredible story, again between species, details how a bottlenose dolphin, born with a severe spinal curvature, was apparently ‘adopted’ (at least in the short-term) by a group of sperm whales. The researchers note that the dolphin was observed for eight days interacting with the whales. It is difficult to determine the motivations on either side for such behaviour, nevertheless this is a fascinating account of unusual inter-species interaction.

Dolphins call each other by name?
And finally, if any reconfirmation of the importance of social bonds between dolphins were needed, the results of some interesting research on dolphin signature whistles, demonstrates that dolphins actually copy the signature whistles of other dolphins when separated from them. This research concludes that: ‘This use of vocal copying is similar to its use in human language, where the maintenance of social bonds appears to be more important than the immediate defence of resources’.

Why do scientific reports AND anecdotal accounts matter?
Scientific research helps us to understand the complexity of the world around us. Anecdotal reports can give some good clues about which scientific questions we should be asking. Personal, individual accounts, such as some of those described here, enable us to opens our minds about the way in which whales and dolphins may live; how they interact with each other and their environments. Some of these compelling stories inevitably challenge us to consider whales and dolphins as ‘who’ not ‘what’, with individual personalities, capable of experiencing a range of emotions.

In stark contrast, the shocking analysis of the brutal killing method being used to kill dolphins caught in the Japanese drive hunts in Taiji, challenge us to reject these hunts, not only on the basis of the insurmountable animal welfare issues, but also on the basis that these are all unique individuals, each contributing in their own distinctive ways to their complex communities.

Beyond our initial reactions to the horror depicted in the footage from the dolphin hunts in Taiji and elsewhere, it is important to consider the true nature of dolphins to better understand the extent of the atrocities being committed.

I wonder what the unique personality traits of the dolphin killed in this footage might have been, or whether they had a unique name within their social group. One thing is certain, for that individual, we will never know.

If you haven’t done so already, please sign our petition.

One might think it is a scene from a horror movie.  Rather, it is video taken from Taiji, Japan depicting the almost unspeakable acts that occur beneath the tarpaulins from September through April each year in the dolphin drive hunts there. A recently published clinical analysis of the killing methods utilized in these hunts reveals their extreme cruelty.

Anyone familiar with the old Quaker philosophy of ‘bearing witness’ will know that it is often embraced by advocates and other humanitarians working to expose and rectify injustices through personal testimony and presence on the ground where atrocities are occurring.  Fundamental to this philosophy is the cultivation of personal integrity and faith by speaking the truth, even when it is difficult; taking responsibility for one’s actions and consequences; and confronting others who are committing wrong or unjust acts.

Here, bearing witness takes on new meaning as the intimate details of the actual killing procedures utilized by the fishermen have come to light in a recently published clinical analysis of the methods in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (JAAWS) and through the video documentation of the hunts, forcing us all to confront this unnecessary cruelty.  The public is now exposed to a close-up view and detailed understanding of the trauma experienced by the dolphins in their last moments, and having already endured the arduous process of round-up and confinement in the killing cove.

With gratitude to Atlanticblue.de for providing the video footage, and utilizing the expertise of veterinarian Andy Butterworth and dolphin scientist Dr. Diana Reiss, we have been able to challenge the data collected by Japanese researchers that suggests the methods being utilized are humane and result in a swift death.  This analysis and video has pulled back the curtain and given us an unfortunate front-row seat to the killing. The analysis and video provides the world with a better opportunity to see what is happening underneath the tarpaulins in Taiji, and to better understand the extreme suffering that is occurring during these hunts.  These abhorrent procedures were tested on a variety of species, and deployed as the primary method of killing dolphins in the drive hunts. The original data can be found posted on the Taiji fishing Cooperative’s very own website.



I was in Taiji in 2006, alongside Hardy Jones and Ric O’Barry. At that time, the fishermen were just starting to use tarpaulins to shield the view of the shoreline in the killing cove, and would even wait to slaughter the dolphins until we (the witnesses) left town. There have been some changes since then, including this newer slaughter method that was introduced more fully in 2008, as well as new structures along the rocky shoreline to prevent frantic dolphins from bashing themselves against the rocks (as if this is any more horrible than the fate which awaits them), coast guard surveillance of the hunts, and even discussion of a proposed whale farm that might hold whales and dolphins for the public’s amusement and ‘education’ and to line the town’s coffers with yet another form of dolphin exploitation.  Public awareness has also increased, with annual pilgrimages to Taiji being undertaken by citizens from every walk of life, many of whom saw the documentary The Cove and find travel to Taiji where they can bear witness to the hunts is the most tangible thing they might do to confront them. Even more promising, citizens within Japan are also becoming involved by launching peaceful walks and protests against the hunts. Surveillance by Cove Guardians provides daily video feeds of the hunts as they occur in real time and as the season unfolds. And more dolphins are being taken into captivity from the hunts than ever before.

But what hasn’t changed is the desire of the fishermen to keep the activities in the cove hidden from public view.  If culture and tradition, why such secrecy and shame? Albert Schweitzer, in a call to unveil the cruel activities in the name of tradition everywhere, stated “The thinking (person) must oppose all cruel customs, no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another.” What is deplorable is the disparity between how dolphins and other animals are treated, even within Japan.   The current techniques employed in the drive hunts violate even current animal welfare regulations within Japan where domesticated animals are afforded protection under their equivalent of the Animal Welfare Act. These guidelines intended to minimize pain, suffering, fear, and “agony” are outlined for species such as horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, dogs, and other animals under human care or management.  Dolphins and whales are not protected by this law, nor are they afforded protection under the wildlife protection and hunting laws. Instead, dolphins and whales fall under the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Agency under the Department of Agriculture, which affords them little protection.  This is in sharp contrast to the protection for dolphins and whales in legislation in other parts of the world where the slaughter of whales and dolphin is strictly prohibited and even their harassment incurs penalties.

Even Japan’s stranding guidelines, issued by the very same agency (Japan Fisheries Agency) responsible for issuing quotas for the dolphin hunts across Japan, cite the necessity of involving a veterinarian in the humane euthanasia or slaughter of a stranded dolphin, and only under extreme circumstances where the individual animal is not likely to survive.  Here, the stranding manual suggests that the spinal incision method, similar to killing method in the drive hunts (without the utilization of the wooden plug), ‘gives psychological damage to observers’ and that spectators should be eliminated from the site, and drugs used instead to “execute” small cetaceans such as dolphins.  In the drive hunts, dozens are killed at a time, dragged to the shoreline by their tailstocks after an exhausting round up at sea.  Under many commercial slaughter regulations, and even compassionate euthanasia standards, it is required that animals should not be in close proximity when killed to avoid the distress associated with the sight, sounds, and smells of slaughter. For example, in the US and UK, the regulations and guidelines governing the humane treatment and slaughter of animals prohibit the killing of an animal in the presence of other animals. From a scientific, humane, and ethical perspective, the treatment of dolphins in these drive hunts sharply contradict current animal welfare standards employed in most modern and technologically advanced societies.



And who is complicit in supporting this horrible slaughter?  Beyond the whaling politics of Japan, we are faced with a harsh reality that implicates many in the cycle of violence at Taiji. The airlines that continue to carry dolphins from the drive hunts within Japan and to international destinations around the globe support a deadly international trade in dolphins that fuels these devastating hunts. The captive facilities that continue to acquire dolphins from the drive hunts sustain this cruel practice.  So, too, the patrons who vi sit captive facilities that either acquire dolphins directly from the hunts, or whose programs support the continuation of captivity worldwide, are ultimately complicit. And any of us that continue to remain silent in the face of such horror and yet choose not to act or deny the obligation that comes with bearing witness to a wrong that needs to be made right.

“Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight”--Albert Schweitzer. WDC continues its call for an end to the drive hunts on welfare grounds alone.  In the end, it is not just about the metal rod and dowel, it is about the entire process of the hunts which is inhumane and that involves extreme suffering.  The stress and acute trauma that is experienced by the dolphins as they are rounded-up at sea, driven miles by speedboat into a tiny cove, and the panic that ensues as they are then dragged to shore, is all part of the killing process. The bottom line is that these hunts are both unethical, and unnecessary.

Find out how you can help our campaign to end these hunts.

We are making progress, but we have only 5 days left. If you haven't already then please SIGN and SHARE the petition.

5 days left to save habitat critical to these Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins.

The largest animal on the planet, the blue whale, deserves our protection after all we've put it through.

The area up for exploitation is on the south east coast of the state of South Australia.

A close up of the area proposed for oil and gas exploration and ... exploitation.

Your signature can help these majestic animals to continue flourishing in this pristine habitat.

In Bangkok, Thailand a joint Russian and US proposal to protect polar bears from international trade has failed.

In no short measure this is thanks to the EU failing to vote in favour. Indeed, the EU's fumbles at trying to achieve a compromise that pandered to Denmark and its Greenlanders (who don't export polar bears, but want their friends in Canada to be able to do so) demonstrates how the the views of some 50,000 people in Greenland have outweighed the majority of hundreds of millions in the rest of Europe. Maybe some other EU member states were also not convinced, but the lack of transparency in the EU's decision making makes it almost impossible for us to know.

Noting how Denmark has sought to bludgeon the EU in the whaling debate, we can only suspect at this stage.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has been reported to say that the polar bear population will decline some 30% over the next 45 years, but CITES appears to have a generic guidance that says the projected decline needs to be more than 50% over three generations – 45 years in the polar bear case, before action can take place.

The problem with such large long lived mammal species, is that, in a world where we are losing Arctic ice at the same time, will there be enough habitat to allow for recovery when polar bears have passed the 'magic' 50% figure?

You can read how Canada, Denmark and unfortunately even a 'conservation' group, helped keep polar bears in trouble in the Guardian's coverage of the ongoing CITES meeting.

WDC has one question to the EU and that is what will it do now as its compromise proposal failed? Do they just walk away or are they working to get something achieved?

If they do, then lets please ensure that Denmark cannot vote internally to force other EU countries into an abstention. If Poland, the UK, Germany and others want to vote for better polar bear conservation lets get on and do it. The ambiguous procedural rules of the Lisbon Treaty are now becoming a mill store around the EU's neck when the EU was meant to be able to take action.

Advocate General Maduro in Case C-246/07 Commission v Sweden strongly supports the freedom of EU member countries to insist action in this type of issue.

the Advocate General states;
‘…The distribution of competences operated by the Treaty is biased towards action: neither Member States nor the Community can block the other from pursuing a higher level of protection of the environment.’

At 57 the Advocate General states;
‘I am sympathetic to the argument that Member States must not be caught in a never-ending process, in which a final decision by the Community is postponed to the point of inaction. If that proves to be the case, a decision should be deemed to have been taken and Member States should be allowed to act’.

Whilst the US and the Russian Federation have managed to agree that the polar bear deserves the protection of banning trade at this years CITES meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, it appears that Denmark and Greenland alongside Canada are determined to ensure that the polar bear is not protected come hell or high water.

Yes, polar bears are threatened by climate change and rising seas, but they are also significantly threatened by increasing hunting and trade. It is estimated that only 20–25,000 polar bears now remain in the world and 15,000 of those live in Canada, where they are increasingly hunted for their skins and other parts as well as simply for sport.

The EU, with its 27 votes at the CITES conference, has the duty to help protect this key species. But it appears that the EU has put forward a compromise proposal that would keep polar bears off the necessary Appendix I and would effectively put off the discussion about what to do.

This proposal is not what many EU governments promised or what the EU Parliament voted for,  - and indeed may compromise the EU completely.

As some of you would know form these blogs WDC has been challenging the EU to clarify its voting procedures at these major environmental conventions. In a previous CITES meeting the EU Commission attempted to arm-wrestle pro-conservation countries into taking a weaker stance on a proposal to protect bluefin tuna.

On that occasion the EU put forward a compromise proposal but it was subsequently defeated, but the Commission then forbid any EU member state from voting for the original stricter proposal and instructed member states to abstain. There was even rumours of discussions in back rooms of fining countries that actually stood up and voted for protection.

Now we find ourselves in the potentially the same position.

The EU has put forward a compromise on the polar bear, but what if it loses that vote? Will the EU tell Germany, the UK, and other EU Member states that they can not vote with the USA and Russia for effective protection?

The EU has been gutted in the IWC by Denmark acting for Greenland in the past, lets just hope to goodness that this is not the case again.

EU member states should reject the compromise, but if they don't, then they should have the right to uphold EU law and vote for what they know is right.

Its time for this Denmark induced nightmare to end.

You can read more on this unfolding story on the Guardian newspaper website

You can read more on Denmark and the issue of the EU and whaling here

Our colleague Vanessa Williams-Grey is in Sri Lanka for Whale and Dolphin Conservation helping the people of Sri Lanka establish responsible whale watching. All photos courtesy Andrew Sutton.

She writes from the field from what sounds like a stunning part of the world.

Engaging with the whale watch community at Mirissa, Sri Lanka
Believe me, I’m as surprised as anyone to find myself writing about blue whales from what can only be described as possibly the best ‘outdoor office’ in the world. I’ve rigged up my laptop so that I can sit, swinging precariously - and thus typing equally precariously - from a hammock slung between two palm trees, barely metres from the ocean. My ears are full of the sound of waves crashing and the guttural squarks of birds flying from tree to tree. It’s green here, very green, and each evening, the air is heady with the scent of frangipani, whilst at dawn, stilt fishermen take up their positions perched atop impossibly flimsy-looking wooden poles in the ocean outside our villa.

Welcome to Mirissa, southern Sri Lanka. We are staying for a week as guests of Sri Lankan Airlines and their tourism partners, Jetwing Hotels and John Keells Group, as we embark on a joint project to engage with the local whale watching community and – hopefully – work together to make whale watching here as good as it possibly can be.  Because, despite appearances, all has not been entirely well in Paradise.

On Sunday March 3rd, thousands of people, including delegates representing 178 countries, convened in Bangkok, for the 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties (or ‘COP’) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

WDC has a small team at the meeting and on the agenda are issues that will affect the lives and conservation of many animals; amongst these are a little-known large marine mammal from the west coast of Africa, the polar bear and a number of sharks and rays.

We have invited Mark Peter Simmonds to introduce the issues for us.

Despite several international conventions (or agreements) in place to conserve the world's wildlife (whether it's to control trade in their parts or to protect their migratory pathways) there has been a decline in wildlife populations of almost a third over the past 40 years. Instead of working together and in harmony, it appears that these conventions are sometimes at odds with each other, confusing the issues and muddying the waters, and ultimately failing to protect the very plants and animals they are meant to be protecting.

Ahead of the 16th "Conference of the Parties" (or the 16th meeting of member countries) of one of these conventions - the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES - Margi Prideaux, Wild Migration's Policy and Negotiations Director provides an enlightening, and honest, commentary about the cooperation that exists (or doesn't exist) between CITES and another one of the international conventions - the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, or CMS.

Protecting elephants, manatees and polar bears: the elusive commodity of international cooperation

On the 3rd of March the international body established to manage trade in endangered species (CITES) will meet in Bangkok, in line with its 3 year political cycle. The fate of many species including elephants, manatees and polar bears is on the agenda and Governments around the world are now firming up their positions to accept or reject proposals to give each of the species greater levels of international protection.

CITES is one of the five biodiversity conventions complemented by another that conserves migratory species (CMS), another on wetlands and on World Heritage and the high profile convention on biological diversity. The intent is that there should be ‘synergy’ and ‘cooperation’ between each convention. In the main their objectives complement each other. The Secretariats for each have developed various accords about ‘sharing information’ and working towards ‘common goals’, but in reality each body operates as an island in a sea of political confusion. Cooperation is an elusive commodity in international wildlife politics.

Perhaps that can be excused where the subject is as ambiguous as ‘defining when a representative sample of temperate ecosystem fungi is adequately protected’. It should be simple when the subject is an easily visible animal, with quite clear threats impacting it’s future. It should be even more straightforward when only two conventions really need to pay attention – CITES and CMS.

So much is shared between CMS and CITES. Each convention focuses on protecting wild animals and each has clear and complementary objectives– CITES on reducing the threat of trade to specific species and CMS on reducing other threats and protecting habitats – simple. Each has their headquarters in Europe making regular communication a simple matter. There are 109 Governments who are Parties to both conventions, which is 92 percent of CMS’s total Parties and 62 percent of CITES’s total Parties. Yet a ‘disconnect’ exists between the two.

First it must be said that Governments are inconsistent in the way they approach CMS and CITES. Their decisions often contradict or undermine what they have set out to achieve in one or the other, such as over elephants in Africa. When Governments are operating through CMS they consider elephants as regional populations (even species) and take steps to progress regionally specific measures to reduce threats and protect elephant habitat, recognizing that in some parts of Africa these habitats have shrunk to such a extent that many elephant populations are facing extinction. When the same Governments approach CITES they take the position that elephants across Africa are one species and that the only threat they face is illegal trade in ivory. Moreover they force international decision making over elephants to be focused through CITES, so that habitat loss becomes a second tier issue. It is a frustrating conundrum that from the outside seems so obvious – why not require that each body works together on the ‘two halves of the whole’?

But the disconnect stems from within as well. In 2008 West African manatees were determined by CMS’s Parties to be endangered (CMS Appendix I) by unanimous consent. The acknowledged manatee experts- the IUCN Sirenian Specialist Group – had made the case that habitat loss, destructive fishing techniques, local hunting and illegal sub-regional trade of manatee as bushmeat are imperiling the future of this gentle species. Manatees are a tropical species that live in and around mangroves and estuaries in a heavily populated sub-region of Africa that struggling under some of the most difficult political and economic conditions anywhere in the world. Most of the Governments in the manatee’s region have done their level best to change their national law to match what they agreed to do through CMS. They even created a specific regional agreement and action plan for manatees, and through this determined they wanted CITES to also ban international trade of the animals to help them strengthen their national laws. It seems so obvious that the world community should support such a request. However, as we approach the CITES meeting, the CITES Secretariat itself has argued against the proposal on the grounds that the science isn’t solid enough and the trade not “international” enough. The Secretariat has recommended that the proposal be rejected.

The problem extends to CITES assessments of species in the polar north as well. For the past decade the acknowledged scientific experts on polar bear – the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group – have been blowing a warning siren that many polar bear populations face extinction, as major parts of the Arctic ecosystem succumb to the impact of global warming. Indeed, polar bears have become the symbol of climate change, but the pressure on the species is made worse because some populations are still hunted for commercial trade. In 2011 the CMS Scientific Council advised that there was a strong case for CMS to determine polar bears as endangered, and during the subsequent political meeting, which echoed with scientific alarm about the extent that climate change is already impacting many migratory species around the world, CMS Parties agreed to consider polar bear for listing as endangered by CMS at its next meeting in 2014. Yet the CITES Secretariat’s advice about the same tenor of proposal put, by the Unites States of America, to CITES is that such a measure would be ‘disproportionate to the anticipated risk to the species at this time’. Again, the CITES Secretariat has recommended that the proposal be rejected.

In both cases the CITES Secretariat will defend is position by looking to the fine detail and definitions of the convention, but as they do so they are missing the bigger picture. Governments have been agitating for years that the international environmental governance system has become too complex, that there is too much duplication in some areas with too much disconnect in others. Without doubt, this is their own responsibility as the architects and decision makers for every international legal process that exists today. However, there is also a case to be made that as ever more complex science and management discussions have developed in the past 30 years, Governments now need some simple cooperative solutions to be brought forward by the professional bodies that service the five biodiversity conventions. Obvious and seemingly deliberate disconnects between the biodiversity conventions do nothing to benefit our collective imperative to protect the fractions of the planet’s ecosystems and wildlife that we have left. Let us hope that sense prevails and by the time we are casting our eyes in CMS’s direction in late 2014 that we won’t have a similarly bleak analysis to report. For now, cooperation still seems an elusive commodity in international wildlife politics.

A direct LINK to the opinion piece can be found here.
Margi Prideaux, is the Policy and Negotiations Director for Wild Migration.

Never underestimate the efforts of a single individual, or a small group of committed individuals, especially in this day and age of electronic media. Shona Lewendon’s recent efforts to mobilize the international community to press the issue of the dolphin slaughters in Japan as Tokyo seeks a bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics have been met with a crescendo of international support.  Labeled the Global Taiji Action Day, or Olympic Challenge, Shona’s enthusiasm and networking efforts have spawned over 42 local and coordinated demonstrations to occur on February 22nd in more than 21 countries.  Currently, Shona’s petition to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has received over 250,000 signatures and continues to grow. WDC support’s Shona’s approach in encouraging the IOC to consider the brutal dolphin drive hunts in its forthcoming meetings to discuss Tokyo’s bid for the Olympic games, and believes this form of political leveraging is critical to raise this issue with the highest levels of international diplomacy.

And this approach is not only strategic from an international relations perspective, but is guided by the Olympic Charter itself.  The guiding and binding principles of the official Olympic Charter and bylaws, meant to govern not only the International Olympic Committee (IOC), but also the national Olympic Committees (such as the Japan Olympic Committee-JOC), govern the organization, action and operation of the Olympic Movement and sets forth the conditions for the celebration of the Olympic Games. It is the constitution for the IOC and other Olympic committees.  Within this charter is specific language relating to the IOC’s roles and responsibility regarding the environment, mandating the IOC to “encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues.”  In this regard, the IOC and JOC are obligated to address this very significant environmental issue of the dolphin drive and other hunts that occur around Japan’s coastline and that have become the focus of international concern and local conflict on the ground in Taiji, just 160 miles from Tokyo.

As a candidate city for the 2020 summer games, Tokyo should be prepared to address the international concern surrounding the annual dolphin hunts that occur in its waters, where up to 20,000 small whales and dolphins are permitted to be slaughtered each year through a variety of methods.  Decades-long condemnation of the dolphin drive hunts that occur primarily in Taiji in Wakayama Prefecture has undergone a resurgence of interest as the issue moved to the big screen with the release of the Academy-award winning documentary, The Cove, in 2009. WDC has been involved in actively opposing the dolphin drive hunts for nearly two decades and has been working on a number of levels to nurture lasting change within the hearts and minds of those within Japan and elsewhere that are opposed to the hunts.

More importantly, as symbolized by the Olympic Games themselves, cooperation and collaboration in addressing controversy on the international stage is necessary and possible.  With continuing strife, stalemate,  and growing tensions on the ground in Taiji, international activists continue to affirm their commitment to bearing witness to these brutal hunts through their occupation of this coastal village.  At the same time, the central Government of Japan continues to ignore the growing international debacle at its doorstep through its persistent flouting of not only international conventions and global environmental treaties addressing its whaling activities, but its spurning of world opinion in an attempt to maintain its political leveraging over matters involving the utilization of global fisheries and other natural resources.  As the Government of Japan continues to cling to an outdated practice that most of the civilized world, and most likely a majority of its citizenry, finds appalling and that brings unnecessary shame to an entire country, the need for international diplomacy is ever-present, providing the Olympic Committee with an opportunity to engage in peaceful and balanced dialogue on this issue.

WDC took a similar tack in leveraging the power and influence of the Olympic Committee by engaging with the UK Olympic Committee regarding any potential sourcing of Icelandic fish products from the HB Grandi company (or its UK distributors)  as this company has proven links to whaling in Iceland.  Through our constructive dialogue with the organizing Committee, and their mandate to comply with the spirit and intent of the Charter regarding environmental responsibility,  the London 2012 committee  agreed to conduct an internal audit of their fish supplies for the Games (all fish intended for athletes, staff or the public). This audit confirmed that the Games were indeed ‘Grandi-free’ and therefore clear of links to Icelandic whaling.

If Japan wishes to be seen as a responsible global leader, and a welcomed host for an event such as the Olympics, then it must look closer to home and end this archaic practice. Shona’s efforts help to highlight the conflict that the Japanese Government faces in trying to divorce itself from the brutality of the dolphin hunts and its industrial whaling policy while projecting its global credentials as a potential host. This approach challenges the issue of global governance and the IOC’s mandate for environmental responsibility opens the door.

Another swim-with-the-dolphin facility has been proposed in the Caribbean.  WDC is no stranger to the seemingly perpetual proposals from existing facilities to either expand their dolphin programs in their current locations, or extend them to other islands, such as what Dolphin Cove Jamaica is attempting to do on the Turks and Caicos Islands. A swim-with dolphin program has been proposed at Coral World Ocean Park on St. Thomas, USVI, using all of the traditional arguments that such a program is necessary to enhance both education and tourism. Although these are usually the two primary justifications for siting a dolphin program in the Caribbean, or anywhere for that matter, we encourage the authorities to consider whether these programs are harmful not only for the dolphins involved in these programs, but the people of St. Thomas and all that travel there.

It is no secret that many of us want to be close to dolphins. The honest truth is that most of us want to be close, sometimes without thinking about the costs to the animals involved, the environment, or personal safety.  In fact, I believe captive facilities have catered to and exploited our love for these animals by packaging an experience that appears to be made from heaven—an opportunity to get up close and personal with these animals in what appears to be a controlled setting and where the animals choose freely to engage in a relationship with us. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The project’s champions state that only captive-borne dolphins will be utilized, assuming that these statements will be enough to preempt the community’s concern that dolphins will be captured from the wild to stock the facility, or from the dolphin drive hunts in Taiji, Japan.

Unfortunately, facilities that promote dolphin swim-with programs suggest that the interactions between humans and dolphins are reciprocal—that dolphins seek out these interactions through their own will and desire. Rather, these dolphins are motivated by food in a severely restricted environment, not by a reciprocal desire to be near us. No matter how we might justify these attractions, whether through a veneer of education, or with the hope of attracting tourist revenue and bolstering the local economy, these programs are self-serving prisons for a species that naturally roams hundreds of miles a day, and should never be forced to seek an encounter with us except on its own terms. These programs are nothing more than our entertainment and amusement, at the dolphins’ expense, no matter where these animals come from, and regardless of the facts put forward by Coral World.

Furthermore, dolphin swim-with programs are not all rosy for human participants, either:  injuries occur frequently, and can be serious. An unsuspecting public is not ready for a dolphin that becomes aggressive and either bites, rams or pushes them underwater. These incidents are too numerous to count, but more recently a Swedish tourist was injured near Cancun, Mexico in Isla Mujeres and has vowed never to swim with dolphins again. One high profile incident that was profiled in the media occurred in 2002 where ‘Inside Edition’ journalist Nancy Glass was severely and permanently injured by 500-pound dolphin that fell upon her during a swim-with encounter in the Bahamas.

Furthermore, Coral World’s insistence that it will only utilize captive-born dolphins in its programs should be questioned. We have seen other swim-with facilities within the Caribbean struggle to find captive-born dolphins for their programs, and have resorted to taking them from the wild, primarily from Cuba.  I am certain that although Coral World claims that it will bring in only captive-born animals to its proposed facility, it may indeed end up sourcing these animals from the wild now, or in the future when its dolphins die and need to be replaced.

Whether they take them from the wild or not, Coral World and other swim-with facilities sustain an international trade in dolphins as they perpetuate the very demand for these interaction programs that instigates captures from the wild and transport throughout the Caribbean, and elsewhere.The dolphin trade is indeed lucrative, but many Islands throughout the Caribbean have refused to implement dolphin programs, including Antigua (who had even once proposed capturing dolphins in their waters), Dominica, St. Maarten, and Costa Rica. Others have banned additional imports or exports of dolphins and other marine mammals, including Mexico.

Furthermore, captive dolphin tourism is being questioned and the cruise industry has shown signs of change. More enlightened cruise lines are turning away from promoting swim-with and other captive programs to their patrons.  Recently, Carnival UK noted its change of policy in promoting swim-with activities at ports of call by announcing in their 2010 Sustainability Report that as part of their green initiatives and as a reflection of their commitment to the environment, they have elected not to operate tours which involve interaction with captive dolphins. They join Regent Seven Seas, formerly Radisson Cruise Lines, who made the same decision in 2005 when they took a stand against the capture and exploitation of dolphins by announcing that they would be dropping all swim-with excursions from their rosters.

Inconceivably, many swim-with facilities are located on or near the coast, oftentimes just yards away from where these animals swim free within their family groups. I think Coral World underestimates the concerns of a public that is keen to choose environmentally-responsible activities, and contribute to the welfare and sustainability of both the local environment and a species better left and seen in the wild.There certainly are better alternatives that Coral World could pursue that don’t contribute to the destruction of the marine environment and its amazing inhabitants, and perpetuate a more compassionate ethic that isn’t reliant upon the imprisonment of another sentient species.