Full Title Name:  Detailed Discussion of Dolphin Drive Hunts

Share |
Lauren Tierney Place of Publication:  Michigan State University College of Law Publish Year:  2010 Primary Citation:  Animal Legal & Historical Center 1 Country of Origin:  United States

This article discusses the method of dolphin drive hunting, particularly in Japan, and the conventions and agreements that may potentially provide the best protection for dolphins from these hunts. It also discusses the welfare issues surrounding the hunting methods and the Japanese cultural interest in maintaining the hunts.


I. Introduction

Dolphins have been made famous over the years by their use in television shows, movies, and live aquatic shows.   However, a recent lesser-known documentary called The Cove has brought public attention to a side of dolphins that few people have ever seen on film – the historical method of dolphin hunting known as a “drive hunt.”   The Cove was the 2009 Academy Award winner for best documentary resulting in international attention to this practice.   It “follows an elite team of activists, filmmakers and freedivers as they embark on a covert mission to penetrate a remote and hidden cove in Taiji, Japan.” [1] Due to a lack of international cooperation and a lack of any treaty that directly addresses this activity, dolphin hunting continues in many nations.  

While it is not the only nation that has been known to have dolphin drive hunts, Japan, in particular the town of Taiji, has come under the most attack as being the most inhumane and brutal.   Many in the country, however, argue that dolphin drive hunting is deeply rooted in Japan's culture, dating back to the 15th century.   Dolphins have been hunted for their meat and blubber to provide food, and to produce fertilizer and dog food, as well as to minimize the competition for the local fish supply.   In more recent years, drive hunts have also been used to capture live dolphins in order to supply the aquarium market with dolphins for display.   This article discusses the method of dolphin drive hunting, particularly in Japan, and the conventions and agreements that may potentially provide the best protection for dolphins from these hunts.   It also discusses the welfare issues surrounding the hunting methods and the Japanese cultural interest in maintaining the hunts.  

II. Method

Drive hunting is a method where once a pod of dolphins has been spotted, numerous boats work to herd the dolphins into the shallow bay.   The fishermen use an instrument to clank together to make noise underwater in order to scare and confuse the dolphins in the correct direction.   Once the dolphin pod has moved into the bay, the mouth is then sealed off by a large net, thereby trapping the dolphins tightly together in the shallow waters of the bay.   Leaving the dolphins overnight in the bay so that they become exhausted from thrashing, the fishermen then go in and, one by one, kill the dolphins using knives and poles.   The dolphins' throats are slit and the dolphins left to die, taking minutes to do so.   This method has been mostly replaced by the more modern act of driving a pin into the dolphins' neck, killing them in seconds.   Not all of the dolphins are slaughtered.   Some are specifically selected, sometimes by the trainers themselves, to be used in marine park aquariums, while the others are released back into the wild.   The drive hunt season is typically from September through March. [2]  

While the drive hunts are the most notorious, it is not the only method used to hunt small cetaceans.   Hand harpooning, crossbow hunts, and small-type coastal whaling are other methods used, though to a smaller degree.   The Japanese government assigns catch quotas for each species, divided regionally among Japan’s prefectures (an administrative district that is about the size of a county in the United States), which in turn are divided among the fishing cooperatives of each prefecture.   Quotas for drive hunts are divided between the Wakayama Prefecture, where the town of Taiji is located, and the Shizuoka Prefecture, the location of the town of Futo on the Izu peninsula. [3] While the drive hunts are limited to a certain time of year, the other methods of hunting small cetaceans are not limited or restricted except for hand harpooning of Dall's porpoises, which is prohibited during the month of July.  

The intense hunting has resulted in a "domino effect."   Hunters typically begin by hunting the largest population of dolphins until it is near depletion before moving on to the smaller populations.   International agreements have failed to address this problem.   "Faced with the decimation and near extinction of the targeted whale species, in 1982 the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) issued its moratorium on commercial whale hunting, which was entered into force in 1986, leading to the exploitive hunting of small cetaceans as an   alternative to whale meat. [4] Thus, the moratorium offered protection for larger cetaceans while possibly leading to the decimation of smaller cetaceans as an alternative.  

III. Legal Framework

The dolphin hunts are regulated by the Fisheries Agency in Japan. [5] In 1993, due to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Resolutions in the early 1990's and international criticism, the Fisheries Agency set catch quotas for nine targeted species in each prefecture involved in hunting them. [6]   The IWC also suspended catches of both striped and Dall's porpoises.   However, the catch quotas were imposed only on commercial fisheries.   In 2001, the Japanese government revised the fishing law and prohibited toothed whales fisheries, thus banning the dolphin hunts.   In spite of this, there was a conditional clause mechanism that allowed the government to issue an ordinance exempting commercial fisheries from the prohibition on the dolphin catches. [7]   Management was also formally transferred from the mandate of central government to that of prefectures, which historically allocates permits among fishing co-ops by means of the regulatory licensing system.   The practical effect of this change is the legalization of the dolphin hunt by the Japanese government, allowing its people to continue the drive hunt practice uninhibited by national regulations or restrictions on the capture of killing methods.   Despite research on the detrimental effect the hunts have on dolphin populations, the practice does not face any current international legal regulations.  

Small cetaceans are migratory species and thus not the biological resource of any one country.   Their protection depends upon the coordinated efforts of all countries along migratory routes.   "The challenge is to persuade nation-states to relinquish part of their sovereignty in order to ensure the welfare and survival of the threatened dolphins. [8] Those opposing the hunts advocate for a multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) that protects small cetaceans, like the dolphins.   There currently is not an international agreement to ensure the protection of small cetaceans, but there are multiple organizations that could potentially establish an adequate agreement to off the protection: The International Convention for Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).


A. The International Convention for Regulation of Whaling (ICRW)

The International Convention for Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was adopted in 1946 when people realized that certain species of great whales were near extinction. [9] It has since evolved into a conservation-oriented MEA for cetacean protection.   Article III of the ICRW establishes the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the only international institution that has spoken up on behalf of small cetaceans.   In 1973, the IWC's Scientific Committee established a subcommittee on small cetaceans. [10]   In 1976, this subcommittee reported an "urgent need" for international methods to manage those cetacean species that are not covered.   They identified the striped and Dall's porpoises as being threatened, but were not successful in including small cetaceans under the ICRW authority due to the opposition of pro-whaling parties.   In 1982, a zero catch quota was put on commercial whaling for all whale species, known as the moratorium which went into effect in 1986.   The moratorium does not apply to small cetaceans, however, once again due to the objections of the pro-whaling members.   Since 2001, Japan has refused to cooperate with the subcommittee on cetaceans, by failing to submit data and other information. [11]

B. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

The CMS, also known as the Bonn Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty formed under the United Nations Environment Programme that is concerned with the conservation of wildlife and their habitats.   Rachelle Adams, the 2007-2008 Distinguished Environmental Law Scholar of the National Resources Law Institute at the Lewis & Clark Law School, states that because “the MEA was purposefully created to protect migratory species, CMS is seemingly the most appropriate legal instrument to protect small cetaceans.   By joining the CMS, parties signal that they are in agreement to forego part of their sovereignty in order to protect species that are dependent on all of them for their well-being." [12]   Animals listed in Appendix 1 are those migratory species that are threatened with extinction and are offered strict protection.   CMS Parties work to conserve or restore the places where they live, mitigate obstacles for migration and control other factors that may endanger them. [13]   For those animals that are not listed in Appendix 1, CMS functions as a framework convention for adoption of regional agreements.   Appendix II list migratory species that need or would significantly benefit from international cooperation.   Thirty-three species of small cetaceans are currently listed in Appendix II.

Two Agreements on cetaceans have been concluded to date under the auspices of CMS.   The first, the Agreement on Cetaceans of the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), covers all species of cetaceans located on the Atlantic coasts of North Morocco and South Portugal. [14]   ACCOBAMS was entered into on June 1, 2001 as a regional approach for cetacean conservation.   According to CMS, “the Agreement aims to reduce threats to all cetaceans in these waters and to promote closer cooperation amongst Parties with a view to conserving all cetacean species present in the area. ACCOBAMS calls also on its members to enforce legislation to prevent the deliberate taking of cetaceans in fisheries by vessels under their flag or within their jurisdiction, and to minimize incidental catches.” [15]

The second Agreement is the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North-East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), which covers all species, subspecies or populations of toothed whales in the Baltic and North Sea, with the exception of the sperm whale. [16]   ASCOBANS became enforceable in March 2004.   It “includes a concise Conservation and Management Plan that describes....measures that should be implemented by the Parties.”   The plan “calls for Parties to adopt national laws to prohibit the intentional taking and killing of small cetaceans where such regulations are not already in force.” [17] In August of 2003, a meeting of the Parties extended the area covered under ACCOBAMS further west to the Northeast Atlantic coasts along Ireland, Portugal and Spain, making a geographical link with ASCOBANS.   A Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) was also adopted under the auspices of CMS that aims for the conservation of cetaceans and their habitats in the Pacific Islands region. [18]

C. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that international trade of animals and specimens does not threaten their survival. [19]   CITES is relevant to dolphin drive hunts because not all dolphins   are slaughtered and marketed for meat, but rather some dolphins are caught and exported live for trade in the entertainment industry. [20]   CITES was drafted as result of resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of the members of The World Conservation Union (IUCN), but the text of the convention was not agreed upon until 10 years later in 1973.   It was not until 1975 that CITES finally became established. [21]

CITES is an international agreement that countries follow voluntarily.   CITES is legally binding upon those countries (Parties) that agree to be bound by the Convention.   However, it does not take the place of national laws; thus the countries must adopt their "own domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is implemented at the national level.” [22]

Species that are covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices .   Appendix I lists species that are threatened with extinction and thus trade in these species is permitted in only exceptional circumstances.   Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but where trade must be controlled in order to avoid them from becoming so.   Appendix III lists species that are protected in at least one country who have asked CITES help in controlling the trade.   As a result, CITES has the potential to legally stop the export of live small cetaceans. [23]  

CITES' position, however, is that there is no evidence that the trade in dolphins is detrimental to the survival of the populations, thus CITES has no legal authority to intervene. [24]   This is contradicted by existing evidence of the detrimental impact of trade in live dolphins on those populations from which they have been captured.   Activists argue that because the primary goal of the hunts is to capture live dolphins for trade, the slaughter of thousands of dolphins that are caught with them is also a detrimental result of the trade.   Thus, it is not clear why CITES has adopted a policy of non-interference in the trade of dolphins and not calling into question the non-detrimental findings that are submitted by the Japanese government.   Rachelle Adams argues in her article that CITES should be playing a proactive role concerning the non-detrimental findings submitted by the Japanese government on the trade in dolphins. [25]

D. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an umbrella convention of the marine environment. [26] It involves a comprehensive codification defining the rights and duties of coastal, port, and flag states on a vast array of issues concerning the use of the planet's oceans.   Small cetaceans, like the dolphin, tend to live in coastal waters; consequently, Part V of UNCLOS dealing with the rights and duties of parties in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) is especially pertinent.  

"Article 61, 'Conservation of the Living Resources,' obligates coastal state parties to avoid overexploitation of their marine resources in the EEZ...Subsection 2 imposes a 'hard-law,' unqualified obligation on coastal states to ensure that 'the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over -exploitation,' taking into account 'the best scientific evidence.'   Subsection 4 obligates coastal states to act to prevent species from becoming seriously threatened." [27]

Applying this to the dolphin hunts, it would appear that Japan is in violation of its commitments under Article 61.   "The Japanese government supports the exploitation of threatened species of small cetaceans without necessary scientific research, while ignoring decisions of the ICRW calling both for a halt to the hunts and for submission of information and data on those targeted populations." [28]  

E. The Convention on Biodiversity (CDB)

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) has a wide scope.   It has three objectives: (1) conservation of biological diversity, (2) sustainable use of its components, and (3) the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of utilization of genetic resources. [29]   The CBD is mostly soft law, consisting of general provisions instead of the necessary, unambiguous hard law obligations.   The provisions are not binding, but rather "qualified commitments." [30]   Under the CBD there is only one binding commitment; the submission of national reports.   The CBD does not currently offer protection to any species of animals, let alone small cetaceans.  

The CBD does provide two mechanisms that could potentially promote the protection of small cetaceans.   The first is the annex mechanism pursuant to Article 30, which states “[A]nnexes to this Convention or to any protocol shall form an integral part of the Convention or of such protocol. . . . Such annexes shall be restricted to procedural, scientific, technical and administrative matters.” [31] "Small cetaceans could be protected by listing them in an annex to Article 8, 'In-situ Conservation,' as species that the parties are required to protect under this Article." [32]   Adoption of an annex is less complicated than an adoption of an amendment.   One year after the notification on the adoption of the annex by the Conference, the annex would enter into force, except to those parties who have submitted a notification of their objection.  

"The other potential mechanism is the adoption of a protocol on the conservation of small cetaceans pursuant to Article 28 of the CBD, which states that 'the Contracting Parties shall cooperate in the formulation and adoption of protocols to this Convention.'” [33]   However, this would require years of work, negotiating and drafting the protocol.   It would also require ratification by each party for it to come into force.  


IV. Self-Regulation: Response from Organizations

The hunts have come under the concern of the International Whaling Commission on both welfare and conservation grounds. [34]   But, the IWC's repeated recommendations to end the hunts have been ignored.   However, there are currently no restrictions on either the capture or killing methods.   Both the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), and the United States Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) has strongly condemned the hunts as being inhumane and say they must be terminated immediately.   The WAZA Code of Ethics explicitly prohibits their member organizations from procuring animals from drive hunts. [35]

The treatment of the dolphins during the drive hunts is argued to conflict with current animal welfare standards that are employed by most modern and technologically advanced societies. Many dolphins die from drowning, suffocation, stress, and injury when they are captured and corralled into the shallow harbors.   Dr. Diana Reiss, senior research scientist and director of the New York Aquarium’s Marine Mammal Research Program, says that “the Japanese dolphin drive hunts are an abominable violation of any standard of animal welfare, and [that] these hunts inflict measurable pain and suffering on animals that are intelligent, sentient, and socially complex.” [36]


V. Welfare and Beyond: The Dangers of Dolphin Drives

There are multiple controversies surrounding the drive hunts including animal welfare, market economics, and public health.    Aside from the more obvious animal welfare considerations, the issue of the public's health is a concern not just for the dolphins, but for the humans who support the practice.

A. Mercury Level Concerns

Dolphin meat and blubber has high levels of mercury, cadmium, DDT, and PCB.   The mercury levels are high enough that it poses a health risk to those that frequently eat dolphin meat.   Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, has discovered that Taiji residents that eat dolphin meat have extremely high concentration of mercury in their bodies.   Endo, one of world’s foremost authorities on mercury levels in dolphins caught off Japanese coasts, conducted a test with other researches between December 2007 and July 2008.   He found that the average mercury level of the Japanese population as a whole is only 2.55 ppm for men and 1.43 ppm for women. [37] After testing fifty Taiji residents (thirty men and twenty women), he found that the average mercury level for all fifty subjects was 21.6 parts per million (ppm) for men and 11.9 ppm for women, nearly ten times the national average of Japan residents. [38] In three cases, the mercury level was more than 50 ppm, high enough to cause nerve damage, similar to that seen in Minamata disease. [39] Critics argue that the meat is not labeled as contaminated when it is put out on the market even though it contains dangerous levels of mercury.   Studies done on residents of Taiji have shown that the average human mercury levels are above the level deemed acceptable for human safety. [40]

One mercury level standard is the provisional tolerable weekly intake of mercury.   In 2003, The World Health Organization “t aking into account the possible effects on pregnant women and children” revised the previous 3.3micrograms per kg of body weight per week “figure downward to 1.6 micrograms per kg of body weight per week...Japan, however, adopted a standard of 2.0 micrograms per kg of body weight per week, saying that as a fish-eating culture it is only natural its standard be slightly higher.” [41] In response to the question of why officials don’t do more to warn consumers of the dangers of eating whale and dolphin meat, “Endo says its likely that officials simply don’t see a problem” maybe because few people eat dolphin and whale meat and those that do tend to be older. [42]

B. Ethical Concerns Based on Animal Intelligence

The biggest issue surrounding the drive hunts is the effect on animal welfare.  WAZA and AZA have condemned them as being inhumane practices and urging that they be terminated immediately. [43] The WAZA Code of Ethics explicitly prohibits any member organizations from procuring any animals from drive hunts. [44]   Because of the dolphin’s mental, emotional, and social capacity, activists argue that the drive hunts have a particularly negative impact.   Dolphins have been known to be very intelligent and sentient animals, possessing cognitive characteristics that are rare in the animal kingdom.   Brain size and surface folding have been shown to be correlated with the complexity in cognitive abilities.   Dolphins’ brains are large, complex, and even more intricate than our own. [45]   Studies have demonstrated that dolphins are self-aware animals capable of thinking about their own thoughts and possessing self-identity.   In 2001, Reiss and Marino published conclusive evidence that bottlenose dolphins are able to recognize themselves in a mirror, an ability that only self-aware animals possess.   Dolphins have been shown to respond very similarly to humans when they are engaged in a task that requires them to think about how certain they are of the information, thus requiring them to think about their own mental state. [46] They are extremely intelligent animals, capable of understanding abstract concepts and to comprehend a human-based communication system made up of thousands of unique sentences. [47] They have also been shown to have a memory for past events that is similar to our own. [48]

Drive hunt critics and dolphin activists argue that because the dolphin possesses such high intelligence, the methods used during the hunts has a more detrimental impact on the species.   They argue that the dolphins increased intelligence deserves a more humane method of kill.   However, Yoji Kita, a spokesperson of Taiji, Japan and the former head of the whale museum, says that he has trouble with the reasoning that intelligence adds to the value of the creature. [49] It is an issue of cultural differences.   Mayor Sangen of Japan thinks that it is strange to keep an animal in captivity with the intent to eat it, and thus finds that all cows are “very sad.”   They do not understand the American culture of maintaining farms where animals are raised in captivity simply to be slaughtered for consumption. [50]

C. Stress Induced Health Risks

Not only is the killing of the dolphins a welfare issue, but the surviving dolphins face health risks due to the stress of the hunts.   The dolphins’ health is severely compromised by the stress accumulated during the hunts.   Their overall health and immune system function are compromised by the stress they encounter during both the chase and capture of the hunts. [51]   Stress also has a negative impact on the dolphins' reproductive success.   Thus, even though not all of the dolphins are killed in the hunts and are eventually released back into the open ocean, the stress from the overall experience has a negative impact on the population of the species.   Responses to the event can even manifest itself in metabolic process that causes lethal damage to the kidneys, heart, and other biological systems.   Exertional myopathy, for example, which results in immediate or delayed death, sometimes up to months to manifest. The entire populations of dolphins off the coasts of Japan are at risk due to the damaging effect of stress on the dolphins' reproductive success and overall health. [52]

D. Effect on Dolphin Social Structure

Additionally, the hunt severs the dolphin populations’ strong social and family bonds.   Dolphin populations have strong social bonds and family ties.   Evidence has shown that they exhibit altruistic and empathetic behaviors toward members of own groups and even other cetaceans. [53]   They have been observed assisting pregnant females with delivery, and alloparenting, or babysitting each other's offspring.   Dolphins have an extended period of juvenile dependency where the younger members rely on their parents for survival. [54]   When many female dolphins are taken, it potentially leaves the separated calves to an emotionally and physically agonizing death.  

Dolphins learn much of their behavior and vocalizations through observation and imitation of other members of their pod.   Their cultural traditions are passed down from one generation to another. [55]   The drive hunts may disrupt these traditions and possibly result in the loss of important life-sustaining cultural components, thus having a negative impact on the well-being of the entire population of dolphins.  


VI. The Cultural Significance of Dolphin Drives

Japan argues that the drive hunts are an integral part of the country's culture, dating back hundreds of years.   Taiji is known as the birthplace of Japan’s traditional whaling method. [56]   The fishermen argue that telling them to eliminate the drive hunts is like telling them to lose a piece of their culture.   Whaling use to be their most important industry, although it has diminished over the years.   In the 1960's, over five hundred people worked Taiji's whaling industry and it provided 60 percent of the town's tax income.   Now, however, it maintains only around one hundred workers and comprises a mere two to three percent of the town's tax income. [57] Moreover, there are a dozen religious ceremonies, shrines, and festivals involving whales in Japan.  

It is difficult for the United States, a nation that has become accustomed to prizing dolphins for everything but their meat, to understand the way that Japan sees dolphins.   The United States slaughters billions of animals each year, among that, 35 million cattle used to make cheeseburgers, meatballs, and ground meat.   In contrast, “in Brahmin Hindu culture, cattle are considered sacred and are not slaughtered for their meat.   Despite this, Americans still rightly consume beef because its culinary traditions shouldn't be determined by the opinions of other nations' citizens.” [58]   Japan, however, is completely surrounded by water and does not possess the wide open lands that America does, so they must find their food from other sources, such as the ocean.   “It's unreasonable to expect [Japan’s] people to come to the same ethical conclusions as other countries absent the same cultural and historical experiences.   Those who oppose the hunt solely because of the nature of the prey are hypocritical not to reflect on their own lack of empathy toward the animals they consume before demonizing Taiji's 400-year-old practice, which sustains its economy and way of life .” [59] As Taiji town Mayor stated to the Associated Press: “We will pass down the history of our ancestors to the next generation, preserve it. We have a strong sense of pride about this.   So we are not going to change our plans for the town based on the criticism of foreigners." [60]

There are signs the hunts may be increasing in intensity and expanding, in part to provide the aquarium industry. [61] More than 20,000 dolphins are killed each year in Japan, at least 2,500 of which are killed by direct catch. [62] Since Japan is not the only country that currently hunts whale and small cetaceans some suggest that an international agreement needs to be reached to ensure that any species of small cetacean will not become endangered or threatened by over exploitation and hunting.  


VII. Conclusion

Dolphin drive hunts is a controversial issue deeply rooted in a nation’s cultural history.   Over the years activists have been working with the marine mammal scientific community and other non-governmental organizations to end the practice of drive hunts.   Because dolphins are a migratory animal existing off the coasts of multiple countries, an international effort is needed to afford them protection and conservation.   While there is currently no regulation on the drive hunts, there are several conventions and agreements that could potentially offer protection for small cetaceans like the dolphin.  

Although there are conventions such as the ICRW, CMS, CITIES, UNCLOS, and CBD, that could potentially provide protection for dolphins, it is the unwillingness of the overseeing bodies and member nations that has prevented the application of these conventions to dolphin hunts.   There may be many reasons for this unwillingness.   Japan is a powerful nation, where dolphin hunts are a deeply rooted cultural tradition.   There are over 25 species of dolphins, and while some individual species may be at risk of being threatened or endangered, dolphins as a population are not.   It may take each species of dolphin becoming threatened before they may be offered protection.   Due to the nature and legal process of the conventions it may take years for any potential regulations to be established.   Dolphin drive hunts remains a controversial issue between animal welfare and cultural traditions that will essentially require international cooperation for any possible resolutions.   In the meantime, anti-dolphin hunting groups continue to use the public awareness sparked by The Cove to put pressure on Japan to end this internationally condemned practice.

[2] Animal Welfare Institute. “Dolphin Drive Hunts” http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/734/pid/734 (4 Nov 2010).

[4] Id. at 142.

[5] Id. at 143.  

[6] Courtney S. Vail & Denise Risch, Driven by Demand, Dolphin Drive Hunts in Japan and the Involvement of the Aquarium Industry 10, http://www.wdcs.org/submissions_bin/drivenbydemand.pdf (Apr. 2006).

[7] Id.

[9] Id. at 158.  

[10] Id. at 159.

[11] Id. at 161.

[12] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Id. at 169.

[27] Id. at 170.  

[28] Id.

[29] Id. at 172.

[30] Id. at 172-173.

[31] Id. at 174.  

[32] Id.

[33] Id. at 174.

[34] Diana Reiss & Lori Marino, Japan’s Dolphin Hunts from a Scientific and Animal Welfare Perspective http://www.whales-online.org/doc_bin/reiss_marino_drivehunts_2007.doc .

[35] Id.

[36] Conservationists, Scientists Outraged by Japanese Dolphin Hunt (21 September 2006), http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-conservationists.html .

[37] Johnston, Eric. The Japan Times. “Mercury danger in dolphin meat.” (23 September 2009) http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090923f2.html .

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] Diana Reiss & Lori Marino, Japan’s Dolphin Hunts from a Scientific and Animal Welfare Perspective http://www.whales-online.org/doc_bin/reiss_marino_drivehunts_2007.doc .

[44] Id.

[45] Id.

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] Duits, Kjeld. Japanese Dolphin Drive Hunts: Right or Wrong? http://www.ikjeld.com/ (7 October 2005).

[50] Diana Reiss & Lori Marino, Japan’s Dolphin Hunts from a Scientific and Animal Welfare Perspective http://www.whales-online.org/doc_bin/reiss_marino_drivehunts_2007.doc .

[51] Id.

[52] Curry, B. E. 1999. Stress in marine mammals: the potential influence of fishery-induced stress on dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-260.

[53] Connor, R.C. Norris, K.S. 1982. Are dolphins reciprocal altruists? The American Naturalist 119, 358-374.

[54] Id.

[55] Rendell, L., Whitehead, H. 2001. Culture in whales and dolphins. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24: 309-382.

[56]   Thomas, Pete. GrindTV. “Despite swelling opposition, dolphin hunt begins in Taiji, Japan” 3 September 2010. http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/20198/despite%20swelling%20opposition%20dolphin%20hunt%20begins%20in%20taiji%20japan/ .

[57] Duits, Kjeld. Japanese Dolphin Drive Hunts: Right or Wrong? http://www.ikjeld.com/ (7 October 2005).

[58]  The Oracle.   “Opposing Japan’s dolphin hunt shows hypocrisy .” 7 September 2010. http://www.usforacle.com/opinion/opposing-japan-s-dolphin-hunt-shows-hypocrisy-1.2320722 .

[59] Id.

[60]   Thomas, Pete. GrindTV. “Despite swelling opposition, dolphin hunt begins in Taiji, Japan” 3 September 2010. http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/blog/20198/despite%20swelling%20opposition%20dolphin%20hunt%20begins%20in%20taiji%20japan/  

[61] Diana Reiss & Lori Marino, Japan’s Dolphin Hunts from a Scientific and Animal Welfare Perspective , http://www.theoceanproject.org/actfordolphins/scivi.html .

Share |