ArticlePDF Available

Frohoff, T., Vail, C.S., and Bossley, M. 2006. Preliminary Proceedings of the Workshop on the Research and Management of Solitary, Sociable Odontocetes convened at the16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Diego, California, December 10, 2005. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/58/13.

Authors:
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 1
1
Preliminary Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Research and Management of Solitary, Sociable Odontocetes
Convened at the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals,
San Diego, California, December 10, 2005
T
ONI
F
ROHOFF
1
,
C
OURTNEY
S.
V
AIL
2
,
AND
M
IKE
B
OSSLEY
3
1
TerraMar Research, USA, dolphinresearch@earthlink.net
2
The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), USA, courtney@wdcs.org
3
The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Australasia, bossley@internode.on.net
ABSTRACT
This is a preliminary and general overview of the Workshop on the Research and Management of
Solitary, Sociable Odontocetes, held on 10 December 2005 as part of the 16th Biennial Conference on the
Biology of Marine Mammals in San Diego, California. The overall goal of this international workshop
was to increase the effectiveness of individuals, organizations, and agencies working to improve research
and management of these animals by a) sharing and compiling existing information, b) identifying and
developing policy, management, and research recommendations and c) improving the exchange of
information, communication, coordination, and collaboration between all involved parties. Since the
activities initiated from this workshop are still in progress, this paper represents an on-going effort and
serves only as an initial overview of objectives, background, action items, and recommendations that are
continuing to be consolidated. Meeting objectives were defined prior to the workshop as follows: (1)
Identify the most serious dangers to the safety of solitary cetaceans and humans, (2) Identify what aspects
of protecting solitaries and humans (through management/guidelines, policy, and research): a) have
proven to be the most and least successful at mitigating these dangers (dependent upon species and
circumstances), b) have not yet been explored but show the most promise in exploring, (3) Evaluate the
effects of interacting with solitaries as part of recreation and management, (4) Identify the origin of
solitaries, and (5) Identify the most important needs and recommendations for government/legal policy,
management, research, and establishing an international communications network for exchange and
dissemination of information and updates about solitaries. This workshop served as a starting point to
consolidate existing information and develop a network of interested and knowledgeable parties dedicated
to the research, welfare, and protection of solitary, sociable odontocetes and the management and research
challenges and opportunities that they provide. Overall goals that were identified at the workshop that
require subsequent action, include: (1) Publication of formal proceedings from the workshop, including
bibliography, literature review, compilation of existing guidelines and participant surveys; (2) Initiation
and development of working groups to discuss and develop action plans and more definitive
recommendations for certain aspects of solitaries management in furtherance of workshop goals and
objectives; and (3) Development of a web interface and portal to consolidate research and other
information on ‘solitary sociables’ and creation of an email list serve to connect interested parties. Since
the activities initiated from this workshop are still in progress, this paper represents an on-going effort and
serves only as an initial overview of objectives, background, action items, and recommendations that
continue to be consolidated. The Workshop Workbook for the workshop, including presentations,
bibliographies, compilation of existing guidelines created to manage solitary odontocetes, participant
surveys and other supplemental information can be found at www.wdcs.org. The upcoming Workshop
Proceedings (in progress) will also be available on this website when completed.
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 2
2
INTRODUCTION
This is a preliminary and general summary of the Workshop on the Research and
Management of Solitary, Sociable Odontocetes, held on 10 December 2005 as part of the
16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals in San Diego, California.
This workshop was the first specifically designed to discuss these solitary cetaceans who
are becoming more frequently observed and receiving notable attention from the public,
local recreational and commercial interests, regulatory agencies, and the media (e.g,
Samuels et al. 2000, 2003; Wilke et al. 2005).
This workshop served as a starting point to consolidate existing information and develop a
network of interested parties dedicated to the welfare of ‘solitary sociables’ and the
management challenges and opportunities that they provide. Over 30 individuals from nine
countries participated in the workshop, with additional participation through an established
electronic mail list serve of other researchers and interested parties who could not attend
the workshop. Participants included a diversity of stakeholders including governmental
representatives, researchers, cetologists, ethologists, filmmakers, students, and non-
governmental organizations.
Solitary, sociable odontocetes are rarely, if ever, observed in the company of other dolphins
(Lockyer 1990). They initiate social interaction with people and sometimes form close bonds
with individuals over time, even soliciting and allowing close physical contact with boaters and
swimmers. In the past, these animals have typically been small delphinids and, most commonly,
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) (e.g., Doak 1989; Lockyer 1990; Müller & Bossley 2002).
However, there has been a recent increase in the occurrence of other solitary sociable
odontocetes; specifically, orcas (Orcinus orca) and beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)
(Frohoff in press). To date, at least seventy solitary and sociable dolphins have been recorded
worldwide.
With the growing phenomenon of solitary odontocetes interacting with humans there is often an
accompanying myriad of management challenges that arise in providing for the needs of the
animals and an increasing number of people eager to interact with them (Wilke et al. 2005;
Samuels et al. 2000, 2003). This workshop provided an opportunity to share the collective
experiences with solitary whales and dolphins, and to discuss areas of both diversity and
commonality in research, management approaches, and public education and outreach. There
appear to be unique aspects to each animal and his/her circumstances, requiring tailored and
individualized responses and management approaches. However, it may be possible to identify
commonalities that link these solitaries, if not in space and time, to successful approaches to
ensure their survival and welfare in the midst of public interest and safety.
Risks to Odontocetes and Humans
Solitary, sociable odontocetes exhibit many characteristic behavioral patterns that may
result in their injury or death or increase their risk of these due to proximity to human activity. In
fact, odontocetes exhibiting the highest degree of contact with humans appear to be at the
greatest risk of injury, illness and death from humans or human activity (Frohoff 2000). In
particular, incidents in which humans intentionally or accidentally injured or killed odontocetes
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 3
3
were reported almost exclusively for solitary animals and animals regularly provisioned with
food. The types and nature of ‘sociable’ interactions vary widely, but are generally characterized
by cetaceans initiating or allowing close and sustained proximity to humans (swimmers, waders,
boaters or people on docks) and allowing sustained or repeated interaction (tactile, acoustic and
visual) with humans. Some of these behaviors, ranging from affiliative to aggressive,
include:
• Closely following and approaching boats;
• Intensive, repetitive and frequent exploration and manipulation of boats, motors,
propellers, cameras and other objects;
• Postural and vocal mimicry of a person’s actions or motor sounds;
• Sustained and repeated tactile contact with person(s);
• Display of sexual action, including the rubbing of genitalia against an object or person;
• Biting or attempting to bite person;
It is important to note that the incidence of solitary odontocete aggression directed towards
humans, or between humans and odontocetes, varies dependent upon the circumstances
surrounding the solitary, its environment, and species involved. The only confirmed account of a
human fatality resulting from a bottlenose dolphin occurred in Brazil when a free-ranging
solitary, sociable bottlenose dolphin was physically restrained and abused by two men. The
dolphin severely injured one man and killed the other in self-defense (Santos 1995). Although
these animals provide unique opportunities for research, their interactions with humans typically
warrant immediate, intensive, and innovative methods of management to minimize hazards to
humans and the cetaceans. These situations have been the focus of much recent deliberation and
debate among scientists, managers, and the public. Relatively few studies of these animals have
been published (but see Frohoff 2000, Frohoff et al. 2000; and Wilke et al. 2005); and even less
information is available about their management. Thus, management of these situations is often
undertaken with little knowledge of previous successes and failures involving the same or similar
species.
This workshop provided an opportunity for researchers and managers from around the world to
present new case studies and information, share video footage, and to evaluate various methods
and needs of research and management. It facilitiated discussion about the unique opportunities
and challenges that solitary, sociable odontocetes present – and how they can best be addressed.
The overall goal of this international workshop was to increase the effectiveness of
individuals, organizations, and agencies working to improve research and management of
these animals by a) sharing and compiling existing information, b) identifying and
developing policy, management, and research recommendations and c) improving the
exchange of information, communication, coordination, and collaboration between all
involved parties. Since the activities initiated from this workshop are still in progress, this
paper represents an on-going effort and serves only as an initial overview of objectives,
background, action items, and recommendations that are are continuing to be consolidated.
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 4
4
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
Agenda
Introduction
8:30-9:00 Coffee and Gather
9:00-9:30 Introduction and Overview
-Welcome and Introductions - Mike Bossley
- Review Workshop Agenda and Goals - Courtney Vail
-Workshop Guidelines: Clarify and Agree -Toni Frohoff
9:30-9:45 Christina Lockyer/NAMMCO/Norway
“Overview of Solitary, Sociable Odontocetes”
9:45-9:50 Introductory Session Q & A
SESSION I Case Studies and Profiles: Bottlenose Dolphins
9:50-10:05 Mark Simmonds/WDCS/UK
“Management and welfare considerations relating to ‘Georges’, a solitary male
bottlenose dolphin, during his residency off the English coast (March-September
2002)”
10:05-10:20 Mike Bossley/WDCS/Australia
“Jock: Dolphin Therapy in Reverse”
10:20-10:35 Oz Goffman/University of Haifa/Israel
Effects and implications of long term (5.5 years) association between an
unsupervised dolphin and human swimmers, based on interspecific underwater
interactions of “Holly”, a solitary sociable bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus)
from the shores of Nuweiba, Sinai, Egypt”
10:35-10:45 COFFEE BREAK
10:45-11:00 David Day/UK/France
Observations and Video Footage on the Interaction of 3 Lone Sociable
Bottlenose Dolphins with Humans, Including Records, Observations and
Problems with Local People from the French group Reseau Cetaces”
11:00-11:15 Diana Reiss/Wildlife Conservation Society/U.S.
Unable to attend
11:15-11:30 Session I Q & A
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 5
5
SESSION II Case Studies and Profiles: Belugas
11:30-11:45 Cathy Kinsman/Whale Stewardship Project/Canada
“The Whale Stewardship Project: Research and Stewardship of Solitary Sociable
Beluga Whales in Eastern Canada”
11:45-12:00 Dana Hartley/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)/U.S.
“Managing Solitary Beluga Whales in the Northeastern US - the story of “Poco”
12:00-12:10 Session II Q & A
12:10-1:10 LUNCH
SESSION III Case Studies and Profiles: Orcas
1:10-1:25 Ken Balcomb/Center for Whale Research/U.S.
“Early Observations of Solitary Young Killer Whales”
1:25-1:40 Suzanne Chisholm/Michael Parfit/Mountainside Films/Canada
“Luna”
1:40-1:55 Donna Sandstrom/ORCA Alliance/U.S.
“Working together for Springer: the Orphan Orca Fund.”
1:55-2:10 Marilyn Joyce/Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)/Canada
“Pacific Solitary Killer Whale Case Studies L98 and A73: Considerations for
Management Decisions”
2:10-2:25 Session III Q & A
SESSION IV Research and Management Considerations: Overviews
2:25-2:40 Toni Frohoff/TerraMar Research/U.S.
“Mitigating High Risk Situations for Solitary Odontocetes: Options and
Alternatives”
2:40-2:55 Kim Bassos-Hull/ Mote Marine Lab/U.S.
“A Demonstration of the Need to Increase Public Awareness of Problems
Associated with Humans Interacting with Wild Dolphins: A Case Study Near
Sarasota, Florida”
2:55-3:10 Session IV Q & A
3:10-3:20 COFFEE BREAK
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 6
6
SESSION V Group Discussion: Addressing Current Problems and Future Challenges
3:20-3:30 Review objectives (below) and discuss defining “success” for solitaries
3:30-5:10 Identify recommendations and action items
3:30-3:40 Address Objective #1
3:40-4:05 Address Objective #2
4:05-4:20 Address Objective #3
4:20-4:30 Address Objective #4
4:30-5:10 Address Objective #5
5:10-5:20 Review: What’s Missing?
5:20-6:00 Wrap up and Next Step Action Items
Summary of Discussions
Clarification of the terms “management” and “stewardship” was made at the beginning of
the workshop discussion and included the following:
Stewardship is often part of larger management plan.
Stewardship is typically conducted by non-government organizations (NGOs) while
management is often a function of government and regulatory agencies. Sometimes
the two can work collaboratively or the government gives authority to individuals
or NGOs.
Managing humans versus managing a solitary cetacean are usually different
challenges and require different solutions.
Workshop Objectives
Consensus indicators/categories for the following objectives:
A=all agree
B=broad majority (75%)
C=average (equal split)
D=few agree (25% or less)
Objective #1: Identify the most serious dangers to the safety of solitary cetaceans and
humans. [“A” to all]
1. boat propellers
2. fisheries/entanglements
3. feeding by public/poor diet/foreign food objects
4. stress
5. zoonoses/disease transmission
6. disturbance of sleep
7. acoustic deprivation
8. pollutants
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 7
7
9. vandalism/direct injury by humans/shooting
Objective #2: Identify what aspects of protecting solitaries and humans (through
management/guidelines, policy, and research):
a) have proven to be the most and least successful at mitigating these dangers
(dependent upon initial assessment of species and circumstances)
MOST Successful [“A” to all]
1. deliberate and prompt implementation of stewardship/management plan
2. consistent on-site stewardship/monitoring program
3. regulatory agency support
4. good research that promotes the dolphin’s ultimate safety
5. collaboration with enforcement, community stakeholders and local knowledge
6. discretion with ‘informing’ or involving general public
7. capture, relocation/transfer, release
8. identify cause of solitary state/behavior
9. conduct initial health assessment/evaluation
10. public outreach/education
11. consideration of special interests (e.g. fishers) and cultural communities
12. accurate information and outreach to media (once solitary is known)
13. forming a good management team
14. use experts when you can in coordination
15. coordination of agencies and other actors
16. honor voluntary cooperative agreements (verbal or written)
17. where appropriate, monitor discreetly and do not intervene
LEAST Successful [“A” to all except for numbers 7 and 12]
1. undue confrontation with local community
2. inconsistent enforcement of guidelines/protective laws
3. inconsistent messaging in outreach efforts
4. media portrayal of solitary
5. lack of good training tools for voluntary stewards
6. allowing general public to take things into their own hands
7. allowing untrained and unauthorized interest groups to ‘take things into their
own hands’ [B]
8. doing ‘nothing’ (i.e. ignoring and hoping the animal will go away) , but monitor
9. not utilizing the existing research on solitaries
10. absence of coordination between researchers, managers, and vets
11. unrealistic reliance on enforcement and other regulatory authorities
12. sporadic or intermittent funding/lack of long-term funding commitment [B]
b) have not yet been explored but show the most promise in exploring: [No consensus
code determined, but general agreement reached]
1. exploring funding interests of private sector/creating a funding mechanism
through diverse interests
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 8
8
2. possibility that each solitary is unique, and existing laws not adequate to address
protection of solitary = create a council to address solitary management challenges?
For instance, proactivity and creativity in permitting processes that currently govern
management of these animals
3. Nurturing existing, new or non-traditional partnerships
4. continue and maintain ad-hoc coalitions/task forces/ ‘rainy day’ funds
5. educate public and media in advance to quell public ‘hysteria’ or satiate interest
6. provide an alternative to direct interaction (media, websites with live video
feeds)
7. create website for solitary sociables/professional research database
8. public interactive website
9. website for co-management/cross-boundary sharing of information
10. empower regulatory authority through new legal mechanisms to address
solitaries
11. capacity build for necropsy on all solitaries
12. enrichment programs
Objective #3: Evaluate the effects of interacting with solitaries as part of recreation
(public) and management/stewardship (research community): [No consensus code
determined, but general agreement reached]
1. develop guidelines for interaction, if interaction is occurring or considered a
desirable management option
Objective 4. Identify origin of solitaries
(No time for discussion of this objective.)
Objective #5: Identify the most important needs and recommendations for: [No
consensus code determined, but general agreement reached]
a). Government/Legal policy
(No time for discussion of this objective.)
b). Management/Stewardship
1. understanding social needs and capabilities of solitaries
2. development of additional management measures; e.g. acoustic
playgrounds/enrichment areas, etc.
c). Research
1. more consolidated work on necropsy and sample collection
2. general data sheet for data collection (data sheet to tie to database)
3. disease prevalence
4. development/compilation of ethograms
5. human/anthropological research
6. explore research related to solitaries that do not become sociable
7. develop working group to further recommendations and deliverables
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 9
9
d). Establishing an international communications network for exchange and
dissemination of information and updates on solitaries
1. develop closed web-based database to be hosted by WDCS and supported
by technical assistance from working group
OVERALL GOALS REQUIRING SUBSEQUENT ACTION
Because of the ambitious agenda and timeframe of this workshop (one-day), all discussions and
recommendations were not achieved. As a result, it was decided that interested parties would
form working groups for important issue areas to further recommendations from the workshop,
as well as develop tangible recommendations that will serve as tools for the research and
management of ‘solitary sociables’. These include the following:
Publication of formal proceedings from the workshop, including bibliography,
literature review, compilation of existing guidelines and participant surveys (to be
subsequently finalized and posted on the WDCS website, www.wdcs.org)
Development of a web interface and portal to consolidate research and other information
on solitary, sociables and creation of an email list serve to connect interested parties
Initiation and development of working groups to discuss and develop action plans and
more definitive recommendations for certain aspects of solitaries management in
furtherance of workshop goals and objectives. The following working groups were
created:
1. Research Requirements Working Group: to identify and recommend research
needs.
2. Website Working Group: to develop web portal, initially or permanently to be
hosted by WDCS, and to serve as central location for scientific information and
exchange, resources, contact information, and other tools to be identified.
3. Guidelines Working Group: to identify recommended guidelines and
approaches to proactive and reactive ‘solitary sociables’ situations.
4. Public Outreach Working Group: to develop and standardize public outreach
regarding the content and manner in which guidelines be distributed to the
public.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
To date, the following recommendations have been compiled from the working groups that
were initiated at the workshop:
“Research Requirements Working Group”
Revised Goals & Activities
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 10
10
Goals
1. To encourage the development of non invasive research projects designed to provide data
to improve the management of solitary odontocete situations (recognizing that most
management issues relate to managing humans rather than the cetaceans).
2. To encourage the development of non invasive research projects designed to investigate
why specific odontocetes have become solitary (e.g., orphaned, social companion(s) has
died, etc) and why some of these solitary odontocetes redirect their social behavior
toward humans.
3. To encourage the development of research protocols designed to maximize the collection
of data from dead solitary odontocetes.
4. To develop procedures to ensure the dissemination of information from this working
group.
5. To encourage multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research on solitary, sociably
odontocetes.
6. To promote the integration of research and management/stewardship so that both
activities will complement and support each other.
7. To develop policies and strategies to reunite solitary cetaceans with their families when
appropriate (e.g., when a calf is separated from a known mother or natal group, or a
solitary has become geographically isolated.)
8. That baseline research is implemented at the first possible opportunity when an
odontocete is believed to be displaying human oriented social behavior.
Activities
1. Develop a data base of all known current sociable solitary odontocetes and the research
currently being undertaken on them.
2. Facilitate the establishment of an email forum to allow researchers to share experiences
and ideas in relation to sociable solitary odontocetes.
3. Develop generic protocols for the preliminary investigation of sociable solitary
odontocete situations until site and individual specific methods can be developed.
4. Provide input into the proposed solitary sociable odontocete website to be hosted by
WDCS.
5. To investigate funding opportunities for research into sociable solitary odontocetes.
“Guidelines Working Group”
Items for discussion
The differences between female and male solitary cetaceans.
Difficulties of cohabitation with fishermen and divers.
Importance of guidelines to facilitate the cohabitation of fisherman/divers and solitary
cetaceans.
“Compulsive behaviors”, such as playing with nautical material: find the appropriate
guidelines and convince people not to arouse the interest and nor to use boat material
with solitary sociable cetaceans.
In France, there are two solitary and sociable dolphins behaving differently,
we ought to be careful to avoid confusion on the given information specific to
each dolphin.
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 11
11
General guidelines to be as clear as possible:
o What to do when the solitary sociable cetaceans gets tangled in rope ?
o What to do when the dolphin is playing with nautical material?
Proposed Goals and Timelines
(Proposed timeline of June 2006)
Ideas for guidelines and more support of the authorities for this summer 2006 for existing
solitary animals in different countries/region.
Synthesis of all guidelines that we already have, to find out the common points and the
different ones (and why there are different points or opinions).
(Proposed timeline of Fall 2006)
Language for educational outreach materials.
FORMAL WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
The Workshop Workbook for the workshop, including workshop presentations,
bibliographies, compilation of existing guidelines created to manage solitary odontocetes,
participant surveys and other supplemental information can be found at www.wdcs.org.
The upcoming Workshop Proceedings (in progress) will also be available on this website
when completed, and are an attempt to consolidate existing information on solitaries and
serve as a comprehensive resource for those interested in the subject. It is hoped that these
documents and the workshop upon which it is based will serve to foster additional and
improved attention and research on the management and stewardship of solitaries in the
future.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Workshop and paper were sponsored by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
(WDCS) with additional support provided by the Summerlee Foundation. We also wish to
acknowledge the contributions made by the participants of this workshop and subsequent
discussion and working groups.
LITERATURE CITED
Doak, W. 1989. Encounters with whales and dolphins. New York: Sheridan House.
Frohoff, T.G. In press. Dolphin-human interactions. In Encyclopedia of Human-Animal
Relationships (Marc Bekoff, ed.). Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Frohoff, T.G. 2000. Behavioral Indicators of Stress in Odontocetes During Interactions with
Humans: A Preliminary Review and Discussion. International Whaling Commission
Scientific Committee, SC/52/WW2.
Frohoff, T.G., Kinsman, C., Rose, N.A., and Sheppard, K. 2000. Preliminary study of
the behavior and management of solitary, sociable white whales (Delphinapterus leucas)
in Eastern Canada. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee,
SC/52/WW3.
SC/58/13 (2006) Page 12
12
Lockyer, C. 1990. Review of incidents involving wild, sociable dolphins, worldwide. Pages 337-
353 in S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves, eds. The Bottlenose Dolphin. Academic Press, San
Diego, California.
Müller, M. and Bossley, M. 2002. Solitary bottlenose dolphins in comparative perspective.
Aquatic Mammals 28(3), 298-307.
Santos, M.C.O. 1995. Lone sociable bottlenose dolphin in Brazil: Human fatality and
management. Marine Mammal Science 13(2):355-356.
Samuels, A., Bejder, L, and Heinrich, S. 2000. A Review of the Literature Pertaining to
Swimming with Wild Dolphins. Marine Mammal Commission.
Samuels, A., Bejder, L., Constantine, R. and Heinrich, S. 2003. Pages 277-303. Swimming
with wild cetaceans with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. Marine Mammals:
Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues. CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia.
Wilke, M. Bossley, M., and Doak, W. 2005. Managing human interactions with solitary
dolphins. Aquatic Mammals 31(4), 427-433.
... Common sense suggests that disease transmission risks for dolphins in the wild are much less than in confined quarters due to the dispersal of microorganisms in an open environment. Also, risks of brief tactile interactions would be mitigated by healthy human investigators who would avoid mucus membranes and other inappropriate touching such as is often observed when these lone sociables interact with the general public [13]. Taken together, although there is always a risk of disease transmission and injury, well-controlled interactions between professionals and cetaceans in open waters represents the least risky scenario when compared with those in captivity where micro-organisms are more concentrated and cetaceans are stressed and confined. ...
... In the past, scientific documentation of sociable interactions with cetaceans has almost entirely been with odontocetes and typically with members of the family Delphinidae, particularly bottlenose dolphins (Figure 1). However, notable exceptions have been documented in the lone, sociable beluga whales (family: Monodontidae) observed annually for the past ten years under the Whale Stewardship Project and TerraMar Research [68], [70] and for two orcas (see various contributors in both [13], [72]). These studies are the first in the world of their kind for orphaned and solitary individuals of these species. ...
... Individuals known as lone sociable dolphins present the potential for doing so. Lone sociable dolphins are free-ranging cetacean individuals who are often solitary, yet, for one reason or another, have initiated, or participated in, sociable interactions with humans in the wild with some regularity [13], [14]. Some of these individuals were orphaned and have become separated from their social group and are truly isolated from conspecifics. ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract: Contemporary knowledge of impressive neu- rophysiology and behavior in cetaceans, combined with increasing opportunities for studying free-ranging ceta- ceans who initiate sociable interaction with humans, are converging to highlight serious ethical considerations and emerging opportunities for a new era of progressive and less-invasive cetacean research. Most research on ceta- cean cognition has taken place in controlled captive settings, e.g., research labs, marine parks. While these environments afford a certain amount of experimental rigor and logistical control they are fraught with limitations in external validity, impose tremendous stress on the part of the captive animals, and place burdens on populations from which they are often captured. Alterna- tively, over the past three decades, some researchers have sought to focus their attention on the presence of free- ranging cetacean individuals and groups who have initiated, or chosen to participate in, sociable interactions with humans in the wild. This new approach, defined as Interspecies Collaborative Research between cetacean and human, involves developing novel ways to address research questions under natural conditions and respect- ing the individual cetacean’s autonomy. It also offers a range of potential direct benefits to the cetaceans studied, as well as allowing for unprecedented cognitive and psychological research on sociable mysticetes. Yet stringent precautions are warranted so as to not increase their vulnerability to human activities or pathogens. When conducted in its best and most responsible form, collaborative research with free-ranging cetaceans can deliver methodological innovation and invaluable new insights while not necessitating the ethical and scientific compromises that characterize research in captivity. Further, it is representative of a new epoch in science in which research is designed so that the participating cetaceans are the direct recipients of the benefits.
Article
Full-text available
Many mammal populations include solitary indi-viduals. These individuals could be solitary for short or long periods and involve more or less spatial separation from conspecifics. Av ariety of accepted socio-ecology variables such as food availability, predator pressure, and reproductive strategies can account for much solitary behaviour. However, other factors, such as human interfer-ence, disease and the individual variability evident in many mammals may also be significant in some cases. The reasons dolphins become solitary are common to many mammalian species, but the response of some dolphins to the solitary state, including ar edirection of social responses to humans or other species, could be unique to the Delphinidae.
Encounters with whales and dolphins
  • W Doak
Doak, W. 1989. Encounters with whales and dolphins. New York: Sheridan House.
In press. Dolphin-human interactions
  • T G Frohoff
Frohoff, T.G. In press. Dolphin-human interactions. In Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships (Marc Bekoff, ed.). Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Preliminary study of the behavior and management of solitary, sociable white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Eastern Canada. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee
  • T G Frohoff
  • C Kinsman
  • N A Rose
  • K Sheppard
Frohoff, T.G., Kinsman, C., Rose, N.A., and Sheppard, K. 2000. Preliminary study of the behavior and management of solitary, sociable white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Eastern Canada. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/52/WW3.
Pages 277-303. Swimming with wild cetaceans with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues
  • A Samuels
  • L Bejder
  • R Constantine
  • S Heinrich
Samuels, A., Bejder, L., Constantine, R. and Heinrich, S. 2003. Pages 277-303. Swimming with wild cetaceans with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues. CSIRO, Collingwood, Australia.