Ethics and Cetacean Welfare

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.

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 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.

By Elsa Panciroli

With photographs by Charlie Phillips

I’d just finished my lunch when I got the call from my local BDMLR coordinator, Linda Nicholson, “it’s on.” She’d messaged to warn there’d been a mass stranding and I should stay by the phone. I’d spent the last 20 minutes manically gulping food and going over the action plan: call my boss, close-up, get fuel, go home, put together a grab bag, check the location - and drive.

It’s a stunningly beautiful 3 hour journey from Inverness where I run the WDCS Dolphin and Seal Centre with my colleague Kila, to Sarsgrum near Durness, in the far-flung north-westerly corner of the UK. I found myself see-sawing between excitement and dread. On the one hand I was going to see my first long-finned pilot whales: I’d be able to touch them, hear them and examine their beautiful bodies. On the other hand, was this really how I wanted to see my first: suffering as they lay crushed by their own weight on the cold sand?

At 6:15pm, I was the second WDCS worker on the scene after Field Officer Charlie Phillips, and far from the first person - let alone the first marine mammal medic - to get to Sarsgrum. The Kyle of Durness is a snaking bay just next door to Cape Wrath. It is narrow, shallow and riddled with mud and fine sand banks - a cetacean’s worst nightmare.
The police, Coastguard and BDMLR were visibly present, their cars lining the edge of the single-track road in a lopsided conga above the shore. There were 4 pilot whales at Sarsgrum: a mother and calf, an adult about 20 metres from them, and another adult on a bank in the middle of the bay, separated from the shore by waist deep water. As we are taught in training, I kitted up and made straight for the highest ranking BDMLR medic.

Tracey Meiklejohn, Coordinator for Caithness, filled me in on events so far. Around noon 50-60 pilot whales had been seen in the bay when the tide was in. Even at full water it was dangerously shallow. The Navy bomb disposal team, who operate off the cape, had used their boats to corral most of them out of the danger zone and seawards, but the four at Sarsgrum had beached despite their best efforts. We had to keep them alive and comfortable and wait for the tide, which was in 6 hours. Their chances of survival were quite slim.

I approached my first live pilot whale with my heart in my throat. It looked more like the models we trained on than a living creature. It proved itself conscious with explosive exhalations, its blowhole opening from a half moon slit to a fist-size gape and then swiftly pulling shut. At 4-5 breaths per minute it was in the normal range for a beached pilot. I went to the mother and calf and offered to take over from those who had been keeping them wet and monitored since they’d beached hours before.

The mother was 5-6 metres long, her calf 3-4 metres. They lay side by side, the calf squealing constantly in distress. Its mother listed terribly to her left, despite all efforts to upright her, and she occasionally thrashed in an effort to get closer to her youngster. They were draped in sheets, kept wet by three diligent members of the public. I sat myself beside the calf and began gently caressing him and cooing, hoping to calm him. He couldn’t have been more than 2 years old, still suckling.

What struck me was their eyes: they look right into you. Adrift on the land like this, whales are useless lumps of flopping fat, but you can see the intelligence and distress in their eyes. In the water these creatures have majesty and agilty, but out of their element they are crushed by gravity, prisoners in their own bodies and helpless.

It was decided to move the calf - a male - so the mother could see it more easily. She was distressed by the process, but calmed afterwards. The youngster continued to squeal. It was at this point we got the terrible news from BDMLR medic Jamie Dyer about the rest of the whales. While 20 of them had made it out of the Kyle to the open sea, the remaining animals had tragically beached on a sandbank out of sight of Sarsgrum. “It’s carnage out there,” he warned us, “only come if you have a dry suit and a strong stomach.”

At this point several of my colleagues from the WDCS Spey Bay centre arrived, so WDCS Conservation Officer Alison Lomax and I struggled into our drysuits and boarded the Coastguard and Navy ribs along with 30 others including medics and brave members of the public. As we were ferried through the shallow channel to the whales, Jamie Dyer explained that the animals were upside down, on top of one another, some being sick and others bleeding. “There are some already dead - you just have to put them out of your mind for now, try not to dwell. Our priority is to save those who are still alive and have the best chance of survival.”

We braced ourselves for the worst.

Some kind of safety valve shuts off your emotions in situations like this. Although the scene was terrible, we took a collective deep breath and went straight to work. Jumping into the shin deep water we split into two teams, moving from whale to whale, often stepping over dead ones to reach those still desperately trying to keep breathing. The noise was incredible, as every animals puffed, thrashed, squealed and screamed to each other. After digging into the sand under the belly side, we pushed each whale upright. One person stayed behind to brace the animal and stop it from tilting back onto its side, and the team moved on to the next. It went on like this until every living pilot whale was upright with its blowhole free of water and sand.

Many of the usual rules didn’t apply: pontoons and such equipment couldn’t be deployed effectively as the water got steadily deeper, and with the animals piled on top of one another it was impossible to avoid their powerful flukes. We had to watch out for one another and ourselves.

Soon the water was up to our thighs and we were able to help the smaller whales and juveniles off the sandbar. We did this in groups where possible, but again and again they came back towards their distressed friends. Some of us wrangled them away from the sand while others pushed and tugged more whales out to safety. Soon the group of swimming pilot whales had grown to around 15 animals, all huddling together and calling frantically.

It was an exhausting final effort to get the last and largest individuals out to join them. Two in particular refused to leave without each other. When we tried to push one, it would hear the other calling and turn back. In the end we had to push them nearer each other before both consented to be shoved off the sandbar. Meanwhile the bodies of those who didn’t make it were covered over and soon disappeared, including a calf no more than a couple of months, perhaps 2 metres long, its neonatal folds still clearly visible. It had died before we could get there.

The tide raced into the bay, and soon the ribs were pulling us out of the water. Alison and I, being tall, remained as long as physically possible, gently but forcefully pushing the pilot whales in the right direction and keeping them together. Soon we were close to being swept off our feet and the ribs retrieved us too. Only 4 or 5 people with flippers stayed to keep driving the group out to the sea and safety. We felt a mix of elation and worry as we watched them recede into the distance.
It was close to 11pm when we reached shore again. It had taken over 4 hours of punishing physical effort, but we’d achieved something fantastic: every whale that was alive when we got there had been refloated. Alison was cold and my drysuit had leaked badly. Thoughtful locals had come with hot drinks and snacks. We refuelled, changed our clothes and returned to Sarsgrum. We gave our drysuits to our WDCS colleagues and let them continue the fight to save the remaining 4 whales at Sarsgrum.

Alison and I were completely exhausted - it was over for us. Our thoughtful and resourceful boss, Centre’s manager Alice Mayne, had booked all of us into a hostel, where we collapsed into fitful sleep. Our team members kept the last whales alive and refloated them after 1am.

I woke at 4am and went to rejoin those still at Sarsgrum. Charlie Phillips and I had been keeping one another updated, and he was now out on the headland watching to make sure none of the animals were coming back. He told me at least 8 of the whales had restranded in the night, but only 4 were still alive. The other bodies may have been some of those already dead on the sandbar, but the 4 who were alive were likely to have been the ones that had been refloated late that night. One was a calf.

They were sinking into the mud, and it was a distressing couple of hours before a vet could reach them through the dangerous terrain and assess them. All were humanely euthanized. We breathed a sigh of relief that their suffering was over.

Our thoughts have to remain with the survivors. It’s a horrible event, and every death is sad and painful, but of 50-60 animals more than half, 40+ of them made it back to the sea. This is a fantastic success. Everyone worked tirelessly, despite the cold, lack of sleep and difficult conditions. I for one think exhaustion and aching muscles are worth it to rescue such beautiful, special creatures.

If it wasn’t for our efforts, most - if not all - would have perished.

It will be months before any of us will close their eyes without seeing pilot whales in their dreams.

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

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.