The Cove: Understanding Japan’s Dolphin Drive Fishery and the Myths Surrounding It

Photograph of mother and baby dolphin courtesy of Dolphin Quest

The Cove: Understanding Japan’s Dolphin Drive Fishery and the Myths Surrounding It

The Cove is a 2009 award-winning documentary that exposes the annual drive fishery hunt of dolphins and whales in the whaling village of Taiji, Wakayama, Japan.

Drive fisheries are not historically new. Several countries aside from Japan have used, or still use, this method to hunt animals, including the Solomon Islands, the Faroe Islands and Peru. The drive fishery at Taiji is believed to have existed for more than 350 years. However, The Cove was not the first to document this controversial hunt—publications such as National Geographic and television series by the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau in the mid-1970s also highlighted it. Many people have rightly raised concerns about these hunting methods, questioning them on moral, ethical and animal-welfare grounds.

Live captures and the film’s emphasis

One aspect of the film that has proved particularly controversial is the claim that, in recent years, a proportion of animals from this fishery have not been killed but were instead selected for live display in public aquariums and marine parks. In 2007—the year The Cove was released—official figures show that 13,170 dolphins and whales were hunted and killed in Japan. Of that number, 1,239 were taken by the drive-fishery method, with 90 (7.3%) removed alive for aquariums.

 

Between 2000 and 2013, a total of 19,092 small cetaceans were taken in the drive fishery at Taiji. Of these, 17,686 were slaughtered, while 1,406 were captured alive and sold to zoos and aquariums (graph and data courtesy of Cetbase).

Unfortunately, the filmmakers suggested that supplying animals to aquariums and marine parks was the primary purpose of the hunt and that, if this practice ceased, so would the hunt itself. This emphasis is unsurprising given that one of the film’s principal figures is animal-rights activist Ric O’Barry, who is strongly opposed to dolphins being kept in zoological parks.

Where captured animals are sent

The film also implies that animals from the hunt are transported worldwide, including to the USA, and that visitors to marine parks are unwittingly supporting the killing of dolphins and whales in Japan. This assertion is misleading. In reality, most cetaceans held in both the USA and mainland Europe are sustained through captive-breeding programmes, removing the need to acquire animals by live capture from the wild. Animals sourced from hunts such as Taiji are generally supplied to aquariums in Asia and the Middle East. In 2010, it was alleged that 15 dolphins from a Japanese drive fishery were imported into Turkey.

Moreover, many zoological organisations involved in the care of marine mammals have publicly condemned drive fisheries and consider them inhumane. This includes the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums (JAZA), which issued a press statement in May 2015 opposing drive hunts.

Imports into the USA and policy changes

No animals from drive hunts are displayed or maintained in any public or private facility in the USA. The last notable case involved a false killer whale named Kina, originally imported by the U.S. Navy’s Marine Mammal Program from Ocean Park, Hong Kong, in 1987. Kina was transferred to the Hawaiian Institute of Marine Biology in 2000 for research rather than public display. In September 2015, Kina and her two bottlenose dolphin companions were relocated to Sea Life Park in Hawaii, where studies on their echolocation and biosonar abilities continued in partnership with the University of Hawaii. Kina passed away at Sea Life Park in October 2019.

An attempt in 1993 to import false killer whales from a drive fishery to a U.S. marine park was blocked by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which regarded such operations as inhumane. That decision effectively curtailed further imports of animals from drive fisheries into the USA.

Some animal-rights groups have referenced SeaWorld California’s 2012 import of a captive pilot whale from a Japanese aquarium. However, that individual was originally a lone stranding rescue from January 2004 and was deemed unsuitable for release; it was not acquired through deliberate capture or a drive fishery.

---

Key points

1. Primary motivation: The principal drivers behind Japan’s drive fishery are pest control and food production, since dolphins and whales are perceived to compete with fisheries. The hunt has taken place for hundreds of years; live captures for aquariums are a relatively recent development. Even if aquariums stopped acquiring these animals, the hunt would most likely continue.
2. Imports to Europe and the USA: No animals from drive fisheries have been imported into mainland Europe since 1980 or into the USA since 1989. The majority of cetaceans displayed in these regions now come from captive-breeding programmes.

Article reviewed and amended November 2025

Do Dolphins Commit Suicide? Examining the Myth and the Science Behind the Claim

Dr John Lilly, a neurologist who worked with dolphins between 1955 and 1968

 

Do Dolphins Commit Suicide?

Over the years, the idea that dolphins can consciously take their own lives has appeared in books, documentaries, and online discussions. It’s a claim that continues to provoke strong emotional responses and is often used to criticise dolphin care in captivity. But what does the scientific and historical evidence actually show? A closer look at the people and events behind this belief reveals a more complex — and much less dramatic — reality.

Ric O’Barry and the “Flipper” Myth

Perhaps the most popular source stems from animal-rights activist and former dolphin trainer Ric O’Barry (formerly O’Feldman), who worked on the 1960s TV series Flipper. In his 1989 book Behind the Dolphin Smile, he claimed that Kathy, one of the dolphins who played Flipper, “committed suicide” in his arms. O’Barry maintained that because dolphins “are not automatic air breathers,” she chose to stop breathing. However, this position has since been scientifically disproved, as noted by veterinarian Michael T. Walsh (see comments below).

Dr John Lilly and the Theory of Voluntary Breathing

Prior to this, scientist Dr John Lilly, a neurologist who worked with dolphins between 1955 and 1968, had made a similar claim. Although Lilly’s early research led to several interesting discoveries, he became a controversial figure due to his speculative views on dolphin intelligence and his blending of science with imaginative conjecture. He also took a break from dolphin studies to explore human consciousness using isolation tanks, during which he experimented with hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD.

During his early dolphin research, Lilly discovered that general anaesthesia could be fatal to dolphins unless their breathing was supported by artificial means. He therefore concluded that dolphins were voluntary breathers.

From this, he speculated that if dolphins had to “think to breathe”, they might be capable of suicide by choosing to stop. In his 1979 book Communication Between Man and Dolphin, he wrote:

“If, in an oceanarium, any dolphin/porpoise/whale is kept in isolation in solitude... social deprivation may be so severe that the cetacean commits suicide by voluntarily ceasing either breathing and/or eating.”

Lilly claimed that several dolphins at his Virgin Islands research facility, the Communication Research Institute, had died in this way. However, records from that period, including his earlier book Man and Dolphin, suggest otherwise.

His first two resident animals, Lizzie and Baby, did not die by suicide. Lizzie died three weeks after arriving on the island from a brain haemorrhage caused by an accident prior to transport, and she also showed signs of lung infection. Baby’s post-mortem revealed chronic lung infection as well. Lilly noted that both animals had “bad breath” and nasal discharge on arrival from Florida.

Further to this, dolphins he worked with during the 1980s also did not die through self-asphyxiation. In fact, two animals, Rosie and Jim, were later released back into the wild.

Scientific Reassessment

Published research has since cast doubt on Lilly’s belief in voluntary breathing among cetaceans. At the 1991 Conference of the International Association for Aquatic Animal Medicine, veterinarian Michael T. Walsh presented a paper entitled Cetacean Facts and Fallacies. Regarding voluntary breathing, he stated:

“There is no physical or scientific evidence to verify this supposition. It appears to be based partially on early investigations with anaesthetic agents and popular myths. Current clinical investigations into the use of sedatives and anaesthetics have shown that these individuals are involuntary breathers.”

Interestingly, Lilly’s views on oceanaria and dolphins in captivity were not as negative as animal-rights groups often suggest. In Communication Between Man and Dolphin, he wrote:

“Eventually the oceanaria may be closed by conservation groups... I hope not.”

In an appendix to the same book, outlining his 1979 plans to resume dolphin research, Lilly explained why he never publicly condemned dolphinariums:

“The oceanaria have done a very great service for the dolphins and killer whales in acquainting literally hundreds of thousands of humans with their existence and with their capabilities in a circus way. The dolphins and whales are indebted to the oceanaria for educating the human species.”

Jacques Cousteau and the Common Dolphin

Another possible origin for the idea of “dolphin suicide” comes from diver and broadcaster Jacques Cousteau’s experience with captive dolphins while filming an episode of The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau, later published as The Undersea Discoveries of Jacques Cousteau: Dolphins (1975).

The animals used in Cousteau’s early research were common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), a species known for its nervous disposition and difficulty adapting to captivity. In fact, only one institution—the now-closed Marineland in Napier, New Zealand—was successful in maintaining common dolphins for extended periods. Its last dolphin, caught in 1974, lived until September 2008.

Cousteau later admitted that their early attempts to keep dolphins were “clumsy” due to limited knowledge of marine mammal care. He wrote in Dolphins (1975):

“The species of dolphin that is usually seen giving performances in American marinelands is Tursiops truncatus, or bottlenose dolphin. This species adapts fairly well to captivity and has a robust constitution. It is also found in the Mediterranean, but there the most numerous species is Delphinus delphis, or common dolphin, which is smaller and lighter than the bottlenose dolphin. It is also considered more delicate than the latter, as we were soon to discover.”

In October 1957, Cousteau’s team captured a female common dolphin named Kiki for research at his Oceanographic Museum in Monaco. Initially housed in a tank of unspecified size, she was later moved to a hotel swimming pool and joined by a male, Dufduf, who died in March 1958 after swallowing pieces of wood and cloth.

Kiki was returned to the museum two weeks after Dufduf’s death and was joined by a newly captured pregnant female. However, this second dolphin panicked, crashed into the tank wall, and died from head injuries after escaping a handler’s grasp during introduction.

Lessons from Early Captivity

The importance of careful handling during capture and transfer was later highlighted by Professor Sam Ridgway, research veterinarian for the US Navy, in Mammals of the Sea: Biology and Medicine (1972):

“Occasionally, a new cetacean will have difficulty orienting itself and swimming when placed in the water... Sometimes human assistance is needed to keep the porpoise from running into the walls of the tank and to start swimming on its own... Attendants should position themselves around the edge of the tank. If it appears that the animal is going to strike the wall, the attendant should turn it...”

By choosing to capture an open-ocean species with a highly nervous temperament, and by housing it without sufficient acclimatisation or support, Cousteau’s team inadvertently caused avoidable stress and injury. It is clear that lack of experience, rather than self-destructive intent, was responsible for the animals’ deaths.

Conclusion

The notion that dolphins can consciously choose to end their lives is largely a myth built from misinterpretations of early research, anecdotal accounts, and a limited understanding of dolphin physiology. While dolphins are intelligent and socially complex animals, the evidence does not support the claim that they can deliberately stop breathing to die. What these early cases highlight instead is how far marine mammal science and husbandry have advanced since those formative decades — and how important it remains to distinguish empathy from evidence when discussing the lives of these remarkable animals.

The Consequences of France’s Cetacean Ban and the Marineland Closure

 

Abstract

The closure of Marineland Antibes, following France’s legislative ban on the keeping and breeding of cetaceans, has left a number of dolphins and killer whales in an uncertain situation. This commentary examines the origins of the ban, the subsequent welfare and management implications, and the broader challenges faced by European zoos in navigating policy driven by activism rather than animal welfare science. The case also highlights the limitations of so-called “sanctuaries” and the complex regulatory environment surrounding cetacean management within the European Union.

Introduction

The recent closure of Marineland in France illustrates a growing problem in the management of captive cetaceans across Europe. This situation has arisen primarily from the French government’s decision, influenced by animal rights lobbying, to prohibit the keeping and breeding of cetaceans in captivity. The legislation also banned public training displays, rendering the continued operation of Marineland financially unviable.

Following the closure, the French authorities blocked several attempts by the owners to relocate the animals abroad, most recently to two facilities in Spain. The result has been a group of dolphins and whales left effectively in limbo, unable to be transferred or displayed, and with no clear long-term welfare plan in place.

The Beauval Proposal

ZooParc de Beauval subsequently proposed the creation of a new facility to house these displaced animals. The zoo had previously expressed interest in keeping dolphins but had withdrawn such plans due to the hostile climate created by activist campaigns and uncertainty over the long-term future of cetacean husbandry in France. The new project, framed as a “dolphin sanctuary”, now provides an opportunity to reintroduce cetaceans under a more politically acceptable label.

The Killer Whale Dilemma

For Marineland’s two killer whales—a mother and her son, both born in captivity—the outlook is particularly bleak. The French government has repeatedly blocked their transfer to Loro Parque in the Canary Islands, the only European facility capable of accommodating them. A previous proposal to relocate them to a purpose-built site in Japan was also rejected.

This situation exemplifies a broader issue: animal rights activists often achieve their legislative aims but provide little in the way of realistic, long-term solutions for the animals affected. While their actions may stem from ethical concerns, the practical consequences—animals stranded in unsuitable conditions—are rarely addressed.

Lessons from the “Sanctuary” Model

Globally, there are no truly operational cetacean sanctuaries. The only high-profile attempt, established by Merlin Entertainments in Iceland, has been fraught with logistical and welfare difficulties. The two beluga whales involved were originally displayed in a Chinese aquarium later acquired by the company. Merlin sought to reposition itself through a high-visibility public relations exercise, transferring the animals to a supposed sanctuary in Iceland.

In reality, the whales remain in an indoor pool at the visitor centre, as the adjacent bay—intended to serve as the sanctuary—remains under renovation. Limited seasonal releases into the bay have led to health complications, including stomach ulcers, possibly linked to stress from exposure to the sea-pen environment. The bay can only be used during summer months; winter storms make it hazardous for both animals and staff.

This location was, notably, the same site once used for Keiko, the killer whale made famous by Free Willy. As documented by Mark Simmons in The Death of Keiko, the site was wholly unsuitable for long-term management. Keiko ultimately died of pneumonia in a Norwegian fjord after seeking human contact following release. The project’s failure demonstrates why the re-release of long-term captive cetaceans is not a viable or humane option.

Regulatory Complications within the EU

The European Union’s classification of all cetaceans as CITES Appendix I species has added further complexity. In most regions, bottlenose dolphins and even killer whales are listed under Appendix II. The EU decision was primarily motivated by efforts to control trade in whale meat, not by concerns related to zoological management. Nevertheless, it has created significant bureaucratic obstacles for legitimate inter-facility transfers, further limiting options for the Marineland animals.

Captive Successes and Ethical Realities

It is important to acknowledge that the maintenance of bottlenose dolphins under appropriate conditions has been highly successful. Many individuals now represent several captive-born generations removed from wild-caught founders. Earlier claims that dolphins could not thrive or reproduce in human care have been disproven by the development of sustainable populations in accredited zoological institutions.

Of all the cetaceans involved in this case, only two bottlenose dolphins were wild-caught, in 1983 and 1985. The remainder were born and raised entirely in captivity.

The stark reality is that if these animals cannot be relocated to suitable facilities, euthanasia may become the only remaining humane option. This outcome would represent a tragic and avoidable consequence of policy driven more by ideology than by pragmatic animal welfare considerations.

 

References

Klinowska, M. (1991). Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales of the World: The IUCN Red Data Book. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.

Simmons, M. (2019). The Death of Keiko. Washington: One Voice Press.

CetaBase (2024). Marineland Antibes Cetacean Inventory. Available at: https://www.cetabase.org/phinventory/marineland-antibes

CetaBase (2024). Marineland France Orca Census. Available at: https://www.cetabase.org/orcensus/marineland-france/

Marine Animal Welfare Blog (2024). “Keiko and the Icelandic Bay.” Available at: https://marineanimalwelfare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_32.html?m=1

Camels in Human Care Are Domesticated

 

Picture courtesy: http://www.peppermintnarwhal.com/

Getting the Hump: Camels in Human Care Are Domesticated

Despite the fact that it is not supported by bona fide empirical scientific research, the British government has passed a law intending to ban wild animals in circuses by 20 January 2020. The law does not cover domestic animals, but what is intriguing is how the British government defines "domesticated."

According to this Act, a “wild animal” is defined as:

"an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain."

 
This is an interesting turn of phrase, as it excludes some animals that are truly domesticated globally from being displayed in British circuses. A case in point is the camel.

Camels belong to a group of animals known as camelids, which also includes the guanaco and its domestic counterpart the llama, and the vicuña and its domesticated counterpart the alpaca. There are three living species of camel: the Arabian or Dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius), the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), and the wild Bactrian camel (Camelus ferus).

The Dromedary camel is a familiar sight in many Middle Eastern countries. This animal is truly domesticated, with its wild counterparts having died out around 2,000 years ago. Consequently, there are no wild Dromedary camels anywhere in the world.

It is sometimes claimed that there are wild Dromedary camels living in Australia. This is incorrect. These animals were imported to Australia in the 19th century as working animals. The groups now living in the Australian outback are domestic animals that have become feral.

The wild Bactrian camel is a critically endangered species found in parts of northern China and southern Mongolia. It is distantly related to the domestic Bactrian camel. Although both have the characteristic double hump, they are distinct species that diverged from each other roughly 700,000 years ago. Furthermore, there are no wild Bactrian camels (Camelus ferus) currently in human care.

Governmental Double Standard

In 2018, the government introduced The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations. This legislation mandated inspection and licensing of animals presented to the public that were not already covered by legislation such as the Zoo Licensing Act or The Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. It covers domestic animals presented in circuses.

The British government (or at least its advisors at DEFRA) appear to have a rather bizarre idea of what actually constitutes a domestic animal. It almost seems as though the criteria in the bill were written in a vexatious manner, targeting circuses specifically, while excluding other animal enterprises that display animals to the public.

As a result, we now have a situation where licensed animal enterprises with camels can display them at public events—except in a circus ring, even if the animals travel to different venues. One can’t help but feel that the ban on animals in circuses is discriminatory against a particular sector of society and panders to the animal rights lobby, rather than being a genuine effort to ensure high standards of animal welfare.

A pair of Bactrian camels grazing in a field.
Picture courtesy: Circus Mondao, taken July 31, 2019

Sex Change in the Animal Kingdom

 

The phenomenon of sex change in animals (especially in fish) is fascinating and often misunderstood. Over the years, it has been the subject of many opinion pieces attempting to suggest that the concept of a binary sex system in animals is fundamentally flawed. While such arguments may have merit in some contexts, particularly with certain invertebrates and fish, they do not apply universally - especially not to mammals and birds, where the sex binary remains consistent. However, the subject is nuanced and deserves thoughtful exploration.

Sex Change and the Animal Kingdom

The animal kingdom is remarkably diverse, comprising many phyla with differing reproductive strategies. When it comes to the ability to change sex during an animal’s lifetime, this is primarily observed in fish, with a few instances in amphibians and invertebrates. Among fish, the phenomenon is typically driven by social structure and dominance, rather than purely genetic programming.

Perhaps the most well-known example is the clownfish.