Entries by Philippa Brakes

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.

Just as a debate is raging in the US about the proposed import of 18 beluga whales for display scientists in the US have published research which they believe shows that the vocalisation of one particular beluga whale in captivity were remarkably close to human speech. 

Listen to the recording and judge for yourself.  

This is not new. It is not unusual for beluga whales to imitate the sounds that they hear in captivity. Put ‘beluga sounds’ into YouTube and you will be furnished with a host of examples, from belugas imitating the sound of their trainer’s whistles, right through to an apparent imitation of flatulence. 

We also know that belugas can understand verbal commands that are used by their trainers, in combination with whistle and hand signals. The question is, in imitating these human vocalisations was the whale trying to tell us something; to transfer information through sound in our own language? 

The research was published in Current Biology and shows that these vocalisations were two octaves lower than usual and were made before the whale reached adulthood.  Noc, the beluga whale who was recorded making these unusual sounds, died in captivity some five years ago. Yet, it has taken all this time for this research to emerge. 

And what did one of the staff at this captive facility believe he heard Noc say when he was in the water cleaning his pool? ‘Out’ 

Was that ‘Get out’ or ‘Let me Out’? Perhaps we’ll never know.

Consciousness is often perceived as an ethereal notion which is difficult to pin down. However, finally, a group of eminent scientists meeting to discuss the neurobiological basis of conscious experience and related behaviours agreed that:

“Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

These scientists argue that the abundance of new data in this field requires a re-evaluation of our preconceptions about consciousness in other species. Whilst this may come as no surprise to many of us, it is a huge step forward for these scientists, from a broad range of neurobiological fields, to be satisfied that they have enough supporting evidence to boldly state the case for consciousness in these other species.

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was crafted in July at Cambridge University during the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals. The Declaration was signed by the conference participants and in the presence of the celebrated scientist, Professor Stephen Hawking.

WDCS argues that not only are whales and dolphins conscious, but that they often live in complex communities, that they are capable of experiencing a range of emotions and that they are sentient and sapient beings.

In a landmark case a US judge has ruled in favour of captive elephants and against the Los Angeles Zoo.

Judge John L. Segal in his judgment against the Los Angeles Zoo noted that despite representation to the contrary from zoo staff, ‘the elephants are not healthy, happy, and thriving’.

Elephants are large brained, social, long lived mammals, who invest a great deal of time and effort in raising their offspring; attributes that can also be used to describe dolphins and orcas. Science has also shown that elephants are self-aware, one aspect of consciousness that was previously believed to be the preserve of humans and a select group of primates. Now the science demonstrates that bottlenose dolphins are also self-aware.

Judge Segal noted that ‘Captivity is a terrible existence for any intelligent, self-aware species… to believe otherwise, as some high-ranking zoo employees appear to believe, is delusional’.

The judge stopped short of ordering that the elephants should be release to a sanctuary. Nevertheless, the captivity tide is turning and this case bodes well for other large brained, social, sentient species, such as whales and dolphins.

Read a report of this landmark case here 

In the post festive haze, as we wade through the sea of discarded Christmas presents, it is hard not to recognise that one of the things that sets us humans apart from many other species (but perhaps not quite all species), is our relationship with ‘stuff’. We make it, we buy it, we collect it, we recycle or bin it and then the whole process starts all over again. But this is no surprise, our amazing ability to manipulate ‘stuff’, our ancestry as hunter-gathers and our ability to collect and store the objects vital to our existence has enabled our success, bald apes that we are.

This relationship with the material things around us is one element of our existence which differentiates us from whales and dolphins. Our ability to build cities, write and store religious texts, historical chronicles and technical documents, have local and national government and a global economy and through such commerce fund national education and healthcare, all of this and more make us uniquely special as a species. There can be no doubt that we have extraordinarily complex social systems that differ culturally between geographic regions.

As a result it is perhaps understandable that we have a natural tendency to consider ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution and we tend to measure the ‘success’ of any other species against ourselves. But, this may be one of our grandest follies. Success is a relative concept, if biomass were the indicator then many other species, much less complex beings than ourselves, would be resounding winners in the ‘success’ competition.

But back to the issue of complex species and their relationship with ‘stuff’. Who at times does not envy the liberated existence of a whale, swimming wild, feeding, socialising and going about their daily business without the encumbrance of any ‘stuff’. Perhaps admiration for ‘living free’ (not just wild, but also ‘free’) is one of the appealing factors that send us in our droves to go whale or dolphin watching.

Orcas, for example, are top marine predators, a fact which places them, by our own reckoning, at the apex of evolutionary success. However, their ability to go about their lives so successfully without the need for clothing to keep them warm, cooking utensils, food storage facilities or the possession of trinkets to keep them entertained, surely warrants at least some humble respect from we the collectors.

Over the millions of years of our planet’s history, the single biggest driving force for life on Earth has been evolutionary success. The simple point is that when observing the world through the snap shot of geological time which is the existence of Homo sapiens we must be careful not to use ourselves as the benchmark of success and refinement. There is a bigger picture. Whilst we often feel like it - and perhaps we are even wired this way - it is just possible that our species is not the centre of the universe.

There are ever unfolding revelations about whales and dolphins: their intelligence, their complex brain structure, the possession of spindle cell neurons by some species, their multifaceted relationships with each other and even the revelations that behaviour can vary – like our own - between different cultures. We also now know that bottlenose dolphins can demonstrate a sense of self, by recognising themselves in a mirror. The more we learn, the more questions we have. One particularly intriguing notion is the idea that some whale and dolphin species have such close social bonds - biologically important for ensuring feeding and even survival - that rather than just a sense of ‘I’ they may have a more profound sense of ‘us’, almost a collective consciousness driving certain behaviours.

To ask the question ‘Are they smarter than us?’ is to miss the point. Orca’s and many other cetacean species are certainly ‘smart’ by any definition, they are successful, but they are also very different to us.

Many now recognise that these impressive, cognitive beings are a ‘who’ not a ‘what’. They are not the property of any state, corporation or individual and that the time of keeping these sentient, sapient ocean giants in small tanks for our entertainment is over.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is bringing a controversial court case against SeaWorld in the USA which will challenge the captivity of five orcas, on the grounds that it is an infringement of the 13^th Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.

The analogy with human slavery is a strong one. There can be little doubt that the orcas in captivity are held involuntarily for our entertainment. These orca’s are not offered a choice about whether they want to live in captivity. But there has also been some sensitivity in the US in comparing the plight of the orcas with that of African American slaves. Perhaps this demonstrates rather well that the initial social and legal hurdle that must first be overcome is that the status of orcas and other cetaceans as non-human persons in their own right must first be recognised. There is a mental journey required to recognise the rights of others, firstly in recognising their status as non-human ‘persons’ we recognise their basic right to life and from there work to recognise the right to various other freedoms and norms. At the time when the 13^th amendment was raised in the US, some challenged the notion that African Americans were equal to whites, indeed some argued that African Americans were not even of the same species. Fortunately, those days of ignorance have largely passed and serve to reminds us what a long way we have come as a species in developing respect and understanding for each other, but, of course, we still have a long way to go.

Nevertheless, the strategy of highlighting the captive orcas’ plight as slavery and against the US Constitution is controversial, even among those who advocate for whale and dolphin rights. Steven Wise, a Law Professor and head of the Non-Human Rights Project (NhRP) is concerned that a judge will simply rule that orcas are not slaves under the Constitution (because they are not recognised as ‘persons’), which will then set a difficult precedent. Wise and colleagues believe that first they need to establish the legal non-human personhood status of cetaceans. This certainly seems a more logical strategy.

Rather extraordinarily, the NhRP has been invited to participate in the orca case on the basis of an ‘amicus curiae’ or ‘Friend of the Court’. This in itself is an interesting development. The NhRP has not sought to appear as an amicus to either PETA or SeaWorld, but instead to work to assist the court in understanding some of the legal and philosophical issues raised within the context of this case and to further the interests of the orcas.

“Our purpose is to ensure that the orcas’ best interests are being properly represented, that their legal status is advanced, and that an unfavourable ruling inflicts the least possible harm on the development of an animal rights jurisprudence” said Wise.

The fact that this expert advice has been sought independently by the court reveals that the issue of animal rights, and in particular the interests of these orcas, is being taken very seriously by a US court. There doesn’t appear to be a similar move to have a ‘Friend of the court’ provide a view on cetacean husbandry or the economics of keeping orcas in captivity from the industry perspective. This is an – albeit tacit – recognition that the interests of the orcas in this case may be more important than the interests of the industry itself. Perhaps some progress.

Wise states: “SeaWorld opposes our request to appear as an amicus because it is confident the Court will rule the orcas are not slaves under the Thirteenth Amendment. PETA apparently opposes our request because it wants the case to ‘go down in history as the first time that a U.S. court considers constitutional rights for animals.’ Winning is beside the point. But losing this case will neither help these orcas nor further any long-term strategy for creating a viable animal rights jurisprudence”.

WDCS is committed to the campaign for the recognition of cetacean rights. The Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans agreed in Helsinki provides a series of profound propositions to challenge the way that we currently perceive and treat whales and dolphins. The road to recognising their rights in national and international legislation will not be easy.

At the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting, scheduled for next month in Vancouver, WDCS CEO Chris Butler-Stroud will be presenting at a symposium titled ‘Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: ethical and policy implications of intelligence’.

Many still consider the idea of recognising the rights of other highly cognitive mammals as an extremist view point, some even view it as a threat. Certainly it is challenging to the current status quo. The fact that we can now credibly use the emerging scientific understanding of both cetacean intelligence and the social complexity of whales’ and dolphins’ lives to argue for the recognition of cetacean rights in a highly esteemed forum such as the AAAS demonstrates that the scientific community is now taking the proposition of cetacean rights seriously as a topic for debate. Rationalising how cetacean rights, once recognised, will manifest through legal and political structures will be one of the greatest challenges as we work towards fully realising all the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans and this will be the topic of Chris Butler-Stroud’s presentation.

We have the support of philosopher’s such as Thomas I White, we have the support from leading scientist such as Lori Marino and Hal Whitehead and the commitment of lawyers such as Steven Wise who are working to provide the mechanism by which the rights of non-human persons can be first recognised and then protected. A US court has tacitly recognised that cetacean ‘interests’ are a valid part of the debate and through the AAAS the scientific community acknowledges that we must examine the ethical implications of the emerging science on cetacean intelligence. Is it now only a matter time? The question for the orca’s who remain in captivity is just how long this journey will take us.

Find out more about the issues surrounding whales and dolphin rights on our website. Also, have a look at our new book - "Whales and Dolphins: cognition, culture, conservation and human perceptions" which brings together a wide range of experts to look again at our current knowledge of these amazing creatures. Available from the WDCS Shop.

This week the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) will set aside an entire day, Saturday 23rd October, during the 10th Meeting of the Parties in Nagoya, to celebrate and commiserate the Oceans.

This ‘Oceans Day’ is being held to ‘stress the urgent need to protect the world’s marine biodiversity and highlight the important role it plays in supporting many of the essential life supporting functions of the Earth’.
As the rainforests are the Earth’s lungs, so the oceans are its lifeblood.

There is little doubt that the oceans and seas are under ever increasing threat from human activities. Far from decreasing, some of these threats are on the increase. We are expanding aquaculture, scouring the seabed for the last vestiges of gas and oil and building new forms of alternative energy as we attempt to ameliorate the damage to the climate from our terrestrial activities.

The latest Attenborough/BBC documentary ‘The Death of the Oceans?’ leaves the viewer will little doubt that we need take radical action to preserve the ocean environment and it unique ecosystems.
The oceans; out there; blue, vast and capable of taking anything we through at them, right?

Wrong. This attitude belongs back in the early 1900s, when the oceans were thought to be an all-consuming abyss, but today we know a great deal more. The awe inspiring complexity and diversity of life in the oceans and the critical role that the oceans play as part of the biosphere should be sufficiently compelling for us to make the radical changes which we all know we need to make.

But, this knowledge alone does not seem to be quite enough to motivate us to do what we know we should. Perhaps we need a ‘vehicle’ to get us on the road to rehabilitation
.
A presentation by Dee Eggers, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at UNC Asheville, North Carolina, may perhaps provide a key. Eggers links the plight of a specific group of individuals – dolphins – with the plight of Earth’s ecosystems.

Eggers argues, as others have before her, that dolphins may qualify as persons and thus deserve to have their ‘moral standing’ recognised. This has implications for how we ‘manage’ these animals. Rather than species and populations, each would be considered as an individual.

It may sound simple, but this would be such a fundamental shift in the way that we do business when it comes to conservation and the ‘management of marine resources’, that the consequences could reverberate for centuries – a point in history where humankind moved from a human-centric attitude, towards a person-centric outlook.

But there is a growing momentum in this direction. Earlier in the year the question was posed ‘Will this be the decade when dolphins are recognised as non-human persons?’. A short time later a very significant step on the road to having cetaceans recognised as non-human persons was enshrined in the Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans; Whales and Dolphins (see also ‘Cetacean Rights, human wrongs and moral progress’).

As with any new, radical endeavor, there will be several stages to our acceptance. Firstly, we need to analyze the data and be convinced of the arguments, we then need to build credibility and have the courage to speak out in support of a call for change. Finally, and this will be the hardest part, we need to take action to enact the shift; more than just a shift in thinking, but a shift in reality.

Many argue that we now have ample evidence. Cetacean specialists such as Lori Marino - who’s detailed investigations into the anatomy of the dolphin brain lead her to argue that cetaceans may be one of smartest animals on the planet - to philosophers, such as Thomas I White, came together at a meeting in Helsinki earlier this year, recommending that we take this issue of dolphin and whale personhood seriously.

This movement is now developing its voice, selecting it battles and rallying its troops. Eggers’s presentation highlights the wider value and importance of these arguments: recognizing the personhood of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) will have a fundamental positive influence on all living beings in the oceans and seas, and, by proxy, upon all biota, as our attitudes toward and respect for nature evolves.

Eggers notes that in taking the action required to reverse climate change ‘The fact that it is not optional makes the fact that it is hard irrelevant’. Viewed from a cetacean’s perspective the same may be true for the personhood debate. This will undoubtedly be a difficult, and at times uncomfortable, journey for we humans to make, but is it really an option to continue to ignore the fact that there are others on this planet besides ourselves deserving of moral standing?

Oceans Day will be held in Nagoya, Japan. What better place to begin ‘protecting the world’s marine biodiversity and highlight the important role it plays in supporting many of the essential life supporting functions of the Earth’; particularly as it pertains to cetaceans.

Philippa Brakes, October 2010

This weekend something changed for cetaceans. One big step for man; one giant sweep of the caudal fin for cetaceans.

We spend great deal of time and energy battling the many threats to cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and their habitat, but this weekend we made significant progress in a new arena. At a conference hosted by WDCS and Paola Cavalieri, co-founder of the ‘Great Ape Project’, experts gathered to discuss the recent findings in cetacean science which demonstrate that these animals often live in complex societies and that some species even have their own culture, which they transmit between generations or groups. The objective of the meeting was to determine what these, and other, scientific findings mean for how we treat cetaceans and what obligations such knowledge bestows upon us, as the perpetrators of much harm to cetaceans.

Some people are already suggesting that we aim to ‘give’ ‘human rights’ to cetaceans. But this is not the case; in fact it rather misses the point. Cetaceans do not need ‘human’ rights, what we are seeking is the recognition that cetaceans have their own set of rights, including the right to life, freedom of movement and residence within their natural environment and the right not to be held in captivity or servitude, or be subject to cruel treatment, or be removed from their natural environment. We do not want to ‘give’ these rights, but instead to ‘recognise’ that these rights already exist. As our colleague Paola Cavalieri has stated, this would indeed be moral progress.

Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins
Based on the principle of the equal treatment of all persons;
Recognizing that scientific research gives us deeper insights into the complexities of cetacean minds, societies and cultures;
Noting that the progressive development of international law manifests a growing sense of entitlement by cetaceans;
We affirm that all cetaceans as persons have the right to life, liberty and wellbeing.
We believe that:

1. Every individual cetacean has the right to life.

2. No cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude; be subject to cruel treatment; or be removed from their natural environment.

3. All cetaceans have the right to freedom of movement and residence within their natural environment.

4. No cetacean is the property of any State, corporation, human group or individual.

5. Cetaceans have the right to the protection of their natural environment.

6. Cetaceans have the right not to be subject to the disruption of their cultures.

7. The rights, freedoms and norms set forth in this Declaration should be protected under international and domestic law.

8. Cetaceans are entitled to an international order in which these rights, freedoms and norms can be fully realized.

9. No State, corporation, human group or individual should engage in any activity that undermines these rights, freedoms and norms.

10. Nothing in this Declaration shall prevent a State from enacting stricter provisions for the protection of cetacean rights.

Agreed, 22nd May 2010, Helsinki, Finland

Click here to sign the Declaration

Several years ago, on a bright cold morning in Kaikoura I took a very memorable whale watching trip with some IWC colleagues. Much optimism filled the air as the snow capped mountains pierced the blue sky and we anticipated the delights of the New Zealand coastline. We were very lucky. It was a special day in every way. We started the journey out to the deep sea-canyon water where the sperm whales are found, escorted by a typically exuberant group of dusky dolphins. We then saw several sperms whales. We watched them quietly whilst they gathered their breath and rested at the surface between dives. Along the way we also saw New Zealand fur seals, albatross and, as we neared the shore on our return, Hector’s dolphins. When the Hector’s dolphins came into view, the captain let the engine idle, allowing the passengers to take in the vista of mountains and sea, birds and marine mammals. Then, as if to make the point, although none needed making, over the PA system he put on the song ‘What a Wonderful World’ by Louis Armstrong . This was a bright and optimistic time. A sense of positive change for whales was palpable.

New Zealander’s (Kiwi’s) are know for their practical approach – the ‘number eight-wire’ mentality – but also for taking a bold principled stance on issues such as disarmament, nuclear power, human rights issues and of course, traditionally, on whaling.

How then, in a matter of a few short years from this memorable day in Kaikoura, where anything seemed possible, do we find ourselves in a situation where the New Zealand government is now countenancing a compromise on whaling. Where has all the passion gone? Is it simple exhaustion? Has the war of attrition with the whaling fraternity finally worn down some of the whales’ staunchest allies?

Some suggest that there is something more sinister at play; that international relations with the USA and Japan are overshadowing the views of the person on the street in New Zealand, that these views are being lost in the mire of trying to help secure a longer-term aboriginal whaling quota for the USA.

But I still hold out some hope that isn’t the case. The Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said that he is going to ask New Zealanders what they think before NZ officials would be permitted to vote on any deal on whaling – although quite how he is going to do this is yet to be revealed. Does he plan to hold a referendum? It seems unlikely, and rather unnecessary, since polls on the issue demonstrate, irrefutably, that the majority of Kiwi’s are fundamentally opposed to commercial whaling.

The theory of the New Zealand deal makers appears to have its foundations in good intentions. The objective, the proponents argue, is an overall reduction in the number of whales killed. The argument seems to be that we are at a crunch point within the IWC and that a way to make a deal with the whalers, but Japan specifically, must be found, otherwise the whalers will leave the Commission and form regional management bodies that will ‘manage’ whales under regulations that the conservation-minded nations would be unable to influence.

But these threats are not new. In fact, such threats have been echoing around the halls of the IWC meetings for over a decade and there remains a great debate about the political and legal ramifications of such a move by Japan and its allies.

Do the deal makers really believe that the deal that is on the table is ‘do-able’? That the whaling nations can be trusted to act in ‘good faith’? What precedent for good governance of global resources would be set by rewarding endless infringements of the IWC rules by granting coastal quotas?

In talking about a potential compromise on whale killing – even with the objective of reducing the number of whales killed overall (something which is far from guaranteed by the current deal, and most certainly not in the long-term) – the NZ Government has created an expectation that under the right circumstances NZ would vote for a compromise. What this diplomatic shimmy fails to recognise is a point of principle. This principle is fundamental to the people of New Zealand – they do not approve of commercial whaling.

So where to now New Zealand? There is time for recovery from this incongruous position, but the government will need to act quickly and decisively to reassure its public that this administration still believes that protecting whales remains an important part of what it means to be a Kiwi.

Meanwhile, whales go about their business in all corners of the oceans.

And I think to myself…. What a Wonderful World.

Will dolphins be recognised as persons in the coming decade? The article ‘Are Whales and Dolphins the Great Apes of the Oceans?’ was posted to the WDCS website before Christmas. In January, the Times Online published an article noting that some scientists are asking whether dolphins should be recognised as non-human persons. Could this be the beginning of an enlightened age?

We live in an era of increasingly astounding discoveries related to the intelligence of dolphins, borne out through their behaviour and the underlying brain and sensory anatomy. We now know more about the complexities of the societies in which dolphins live; their use of tools; transmission of culture between generations; the very specific roles that individuals play within these societies; and even their sense of self.

At a time when questions are being raised about the nature and role of moral systems within non-human societies, and the likelihood of evolutionary continuity for such traits, it seems inevitable that a spot light will come to rest on our own treatment of other species. This will be particularly poignant for those species for which we can reliably demonstrate a certain level of intelligence and capacity for complex psychological suffering.

In February, scientists will be meeting in San Diego, California to present some of their discoveries about dolphin cognition and to discuss with well known philosopher Professor Thomas I. White whether it is time we recognise dolphins as non-human persons. There is little doubt that we now have ample evidence that dolphins are indeed complex, highly intelligent beings with individual characters, a sense of self and emotional sophistication. If researchers are correct in asserting that some dolphin species are even more intelligent that chimpanzees, isn’t it time we formally recognised dolphins as the non-human persons which they clearly are?

It seems inevitable that sense will ultimately reign on this issue and we will come to recognise that there are other intelligences on our planet that are as worthy of protection as our own. However, the timeframe for these revelations is hard to predict. First we must begin the process of breaking down our own human-centric prejudice and let the facts speak for themselves.