Coastal Stock(s) of 

A.tlantic Bottlenose Dolphin: 

Status Review and Management 

Proceedings and Recommendations from 

a Workshop held in Beaufort, 

North Carolina, 13- 14 September 1993 

Cornpiled by 

Katherine R. Wang 

P. ldichael Paysle 

Victoria G. Thayer 

U.S. Ilepartment of Cosnmerce 

National Oceanic and Att~~osphr:ric Administration 

Natiotlal Marine Fisheries Service 

NOPLA Technical Memoratldutr~ NMFS-OPR-4 

October 1994 
'I'his report documents, in a timely manner, the comunication of 

preliminary results that were presented at the workshop. It has not 

undergone external scientific review. Also, the inlterpretation of the 

results of these studies, and the information presented at the workshop, 

represent the opinions and vxews of the participants and not the NMFS. 

This workshop report is intended to act as a first step towards the 

clo~npletiori of a Conservation Plan under the MMPA for the coastal 

st ock(s) of Atlantic bottlenose dolphin that, when approved by the 

A,ssistant Administrator for Fisheries, will prepresent the official position 

of the NMFS. 

Suggested citation: 

Mrang, Katherine R., P. Michael Payne, and Victoria G Thayer. (Cotnpilers) 

1994. Coastal Stock(s) of Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin. Status Review and 

Nhnagernent. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-4, 121 p. 
Coastal Stock(s) of 

Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin: 

Staltus Review and Management 

Proceedings and Recommendations from 

a Workshop held in Reaufort, 

North Carolina, 13- 14 September 1993 

Cornpiled by 

Kath'erine R. Wang 

P. Michael Payne 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

Victoria G. Thayer 

Southleast Fisheries Science Center 

Beaufort Laboratory 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Beaufort, North Carolina 

NOAPL Technical Men~orandum 

NMFS-OPR-4 

October 1994 

U.S. Department of Cotnrnercch 

Ronald IT. Ijrown, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adrrlitlistratiorl 

D. Jamcis Baker, IJnder Secretary for Oceans arid Atrnosplrcrc 

Natiorllal Marirle Fisheries Service 

Rollarld I:. Sclrrnitten, Assistant Adrr~inistntor for Fisherit,:; 

Contents 

A. Species Desciription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 

B. ?lie 1!)8711988 Die-off - What Happened? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

C. Ilie Coastal Migratory Stock - The Depleted Determination a . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 

D. Determinatiom of Bottlenose Dolphin Stock Discreteness: 

Application of a Combined Behavioral and Genetic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 16 

E. Recognizing 'Two Populations of Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncutu.~ 

off the Atlantic Coast of North America: Morphologic and 

IZcologic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

S'I'ATUS OF RESEARC:H AND/OR MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TIIAT MONITOR 

COASTAL BO'I'TLENOSE DOLPtIINS 

A. Slu~rveys of U.S. East Coast Bottlenose Dolphin Abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

B. R.esearch/Management Programs and Sfranding Networks in Coastal Atlantic 

Waters (by state) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

NewJersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

MIaryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Maryland Department of Natural Resour.ces 

h4ar'i,n%e h4arnmal Stranding Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ! 

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

\'"ha,[ Do We Know About Coastal Bottlenose Dolphins 

in Virginia? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

'I'en~pclral and Geographic Occurrences of' 7irr.siop.s II.~~II(.NIL(.S 

Strandings in Virginia, 1983- 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 

Site-Specific Monitoring of Atlantic Coastal t3ottlenose 

Dolphins in the Beaufort, North Carolina Area . . . . . . . 45 

Marine Mammal Strandings in North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Marine Mammal Research and Stranding Response 

in South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 

Population and Behavioral Patterns of Bottlenose Ilolphins 

in Bull Creek, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

G~wrgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 -. Flor~da . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 

Bc~ttlenose dolphins belong to the Order Cetacea, 12amily Delphinidae and Genus Tursiops. 

Currently, all forms of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins are assigned to the species truncatus, although 

this statu!i may change as more knowledge is obtained about the different forms now considered to be 

separate :fi~rsiops trurlcatus stocks. 

Bclttlenose dolphins are distributed throughout U.S. Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic waters. 

In the U S. Atlantic, this species is distributed along the coast from Long Island, New York to the 

Florida Keys. North of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, this species demonstrates a disjunct 

distributioin, with concentrations of animals near-shore (in embayme~lts and within several kilometers 

of the coast) and offshore, near the continental shelf margin, from 60 to 200 km from the coast. 

South uf Cape Hatteras, the nearshoreloffshore distribution pattern is less distinct and there appear to 

be latitudinal clusters of animal concentration rather than the longitudinally discrete concentration 

areas Fou~ild north of Cape IIatteras (Fig. 1). 

Sleasonal density distribution patterns have been described for U S. waters north of Cape 

I-latteras ((XTAP, 1982) and south of Cape Ilalteras (Burn et al., 1987). Durlng summer in the U.S. 

Atlantic, bottlenose dolphins are distributed along the coast, usually as far north as Long Island, New 

York, and offshore as far north as Nova Scotia, Canada. The main coastal concentrations of 

inigralory bottlenose dolphins during the summer occur from North Carolina, northward to New 

Jersey (Fg 2). During autumn, dens~ty distribution patterns suggest near-shore animals migrate 

south ailong the coast to Florida. During winter, coastal migratory bottlenose dolphins do not occur 

north of Cape Hatteras, but rather, are distributed from south of Cape Hatteras to the central Florida 

coast. 'I'hey are concentrated at the southern end of their range at this time (Fig. 2). Although 

bottlenose dolphins occur year-round along the southeastern Florida coast, in winter they are only 

about IlIlOth as abundant as along the central and northeastern Florida coast (Burn et al., 1987). 

Du~ring spring, the dolphin distribution again shifts nortnwarti aiong the coast. ' It is unclear if 

the off:sliore portion of the population follows a similar north-south pattern, or what the actual extent 

of off:;lhorc: distribution might be, since sampling has generally been limited to areas within 200 km of 

the coa.st. 
1Jigur.e 1. L)istributional Knnge of Rotllenose 1)olphins illong the U.S. Atlantic Coilst 

Figure 2. Areas of Majior Concentrations of Coastal Migratory Stock(s) of Bottlenose Ilolphins 
Stock I)iffc:re~iti,alio~i: 'I'lier-e alq)ear to bi: both near-shol-e anti oftshore l'or-111s (stocks) of 

t,ottlcnose dolphin along the I1.S. Atlantic coast and in other oceiln areas (Hcrsll, IOX7a: 1087h). 

13ul-n (1988) 1i)und the pattern of' strandings to correlate with the hypotllesic.et1 coi~stal 111ig1-atol-y 

~uttern, which was baswl on density ciistributio~l piitterns along the U.S. east coast (1:ig. 3). 'I'tle 

stranding data collected during 1987 and 1988, ant1 the observed density distribution patterns along 

the L1.S. ,4tlantic coast, support the hypothesis of a single coastal migratory stock of arlirnals that 

ranges seasonally as far north as Long Island, New York and as far south as central Florida. It has 

been observed that many geographically localized populations of dolphihs in the Ciulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic waters show seasonally cyclical patterns in abundance, suggesting emigration from and 

immigration into embaynnents (Shane, 1980a; Gruber, 1981; Shane, Wells and Wiirsig, 1986). It has 

been well doc:umented that there are both resident and transient animals that utilize localized, nearshore environments over numerous years (Scott, 1990). The working hypothesis for- bottlenose 

dolphin stock structure in southeastern U .S. water:; is that 'the near-shore bo'ttienose dolphin 

population is composed of local, resident stock(s) in certain embaymenas, and also tmnsient stock(s) 

which migrate into and clut of these emhayments on a sca~)nal basis (Hersh, 1987a; Scott, 1990). It 

is these coast;il stock(s), in general. which were the subject of this workshop, and more sl)ecifically, 

the coastal mi~gratory stock(s), inasmuch as it can be distinguished frorn the resident stock(s). 

Figure 3. Interquilrlile 1,atitucie Range of Bottlenose 1)olphiri Stranding5 Along Ille U.S. 

Atlantic (Eo;lrt, June 1987-M:rrch 1988 
lJ., The 1198711988 Ilic-off - \.%illat Ilal>pened?' 

In1 1-oduction: I:I orn early June, 1987, unt~l March, 1988, unprecedented number \ of 

bottleriosc. dolph~ns, ~MPJ~O~S ~~U~ZCU~UJ, washed ashore along the Atlafit~c coast from New Jersey to 

I;lor~dal. Deta~ls of the ~nitial response to the event, subsequent organizat~on of a multi-disciplinary 

team of ~nvestigators, and scope of the analyses were provided In an unpublished Interim Report 

subn~itted to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission in May 1988. An account of the extent and 

in~pact of the mortalitly was prepared by Scott et al. (1988) 

'I'he event was unparalleled, and therefore demanded a comprehensive investigation of 

proximate and contributing factors. Routine laboratory protocols were modified to meet rigorous 

re:;earch st;~ndards. Contributing laboratories with expertise in pathology, biochemistry, 

rnicrobiolo:gy, virology, conta~ninants, and biotoxins performed analyses on coded samples from the 

dolphins. Specimens 1For contaminant and biotoxin analysis were mixed with controls from unrelated 

7'ursiops and four other cetacean species. At the termination of each study, data were transferred to 

our laboratory at the [J~~iversity ofGuelph, arid integrated with identifying information. 

'I'his report describes how the investigative process evolved, and the evidence implicating a 

biologic:al toxin as the proxi~nate cause. The dolphins apparently were poisoned by brevetoxi~i, a 

neurotc~lxin produced by the dinoflagellate Ptychodiscus hrevis, Izlorida's red tide organism. The 

dolphins were eventua:lly infected with a host of bacterial and viral pathogens which produced an 

array of be,guiling clinical signs. 

Diiscussion: B'etween the time the first dolphin stranded in New Jersey in June 1987, and the 

last on 1;lorida's east coast eleven months later, c~vcr 740 animals died. The exact toll is not known. 

since almos,t certainly some aninlals were not rec:overed. However, Scott et al. (1988) estimated that 

50 percent. or more of the coastal migratory stock between Florida and New Jersey died during this 

period. Without a guiding precedent to help uncover the cause, it was necessary for the investigation 

to sweep a broad range of disciplines before settling on the eventual path to the probable solution. 

The two most likely potential causes for an outbreak of d~ics kind werc csns.idcred to be infectious 

disease and poisoning. After weighing evidence from 18 n~onths of field and laboratory analyses, we 

concluded that brevetoxin, the neurotoxin proc1uc:ed by the dinotlagellate Ptyc-hodiscu.~ brevis, 

probably was thc proxiniate cause of this devastating event. 

Early firdings led the investigators away fro~n microbial agents as tlne principal cause of 

death. There was no si~~gle pattern of illness that could be associated with a known pathogen, tilough 

it was clear that infectious agents contributed to and sometirncs domin;itetl the clinical picture. The 

first aiiirnals to conle ashore on Virginia Beach in late sumtner clearly had been ill for some time, 

with a condition that ultimately affected skin, liver, and lung, and led to the accumulation of fluid i11 

the abdonlinal and thoracic cavities. Meanwhile, in New Jersey, Urs. W. Medway (University of 

Pennsylvania) and 11. Roscoc (New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlik) indicated in persorlal 

communic:ition that carcasses there were in better condition and less affected with secondary bacterial 

infectio~l. It appeared these differences were regional; dolphins coming ashore on Virginia Reach 

died in warrner waters heavily contaminated wit11 opportunistic bacteria. Over 50 percent of the 21 
species of potentially pathogenic bacteria isolated from 48 dolphins were of the genus Vibrio. These 

seernetl to have been a~ssociated with some of the problems in skin and blood vessels that ultimately 

killed rnany of the ariilmals but were not the primary cause of disease. 'The overwhelming nature of 

some of tht: infections, which probably arose in the lung, may have been related to 

im~nunc~incompetence, the cause of which cannot be established. The depletion of lymphoid follicles 

in spleen, lymph nodes, and the intestine supports this suggestion. 

Some dolphins also had viral infections. Eight had a skin condition characteristic of dolphin 

pox (G~eraci et al., 1979), complete with susp~cious inclusion bodies but in which no virus particles 

could he detected. In view of public sentiment expressed during the outbreak, it was comforting but 

not surlprisi~ng to learn that none of the dolphins examined showed evidence of retroviruses, the group 

of viru1r;es associated with Acquired Immune Ileficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and whose counterparts in 

animals could have bee11 a cause of reduced ability to fight normally harmless diseases. In any eveni, 

such viruses have a long latent period, and would not likely culminate in a single outbreak of disease. 

Dr. K. Sorners is continuing to characterize the reovirus-like particles isolated from an ulcer on the 

palate of a dolphin. It is premature to comment on the serological tilers to canine distemper virus, a 

n~orbilliviri~s, in6 of 13 blood samples. Kennedy et al. (1988) have diagnosed morbillivirus infection 

and found distemper-like lesions in harbor porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, from the Irish sea. We 

found no evidence of such infection nor was a rr~orbillivirus detected using techniques suitable for its 

propag;ttion. It is possible that the dolphins had been previously infected with a virus that escaped 

detect~on, or was no longer present at the time of the outbreak. A study must be undertaken to 

deterln~ne \whether the virus or other antigen responsible for the serological reaction is widespread In 

dolpliii~s and whether II~ is a pathogen. This calls for an examination of blood samples from a broad 

range of cetaceans, and an investigation into the nature of the antigen. 

Geographic and temporal patterns of mortality also lacked the hallmark of infectious disease. 

During August 1987, at least 125 dolphins stranded dead along the Virginia coastline; nearly 50 came 

ashore in each of the months before and after. Others, according to fish-spottertpilot Mr. D. 

'Thotnp;<on, were reported dead in small clusters at sea 18 miles from Cape May, New Jersey (August 

21, 1987). To create such an overall pattern, an infectious agent would have had to be highly 

virulenl. -- causing acute disease across all ages and both sexes, spreading rapidly over a broaa 

geographic range, and killing groups of animals without pause. Viruses and some bacteria introduced 

either I-ly airhorn transmission or through direct contact are capable of producing such havoc. Seals 

exposed on crowded rookeries have fallen victim to epizootics of influenza (Geraci et al., 1982), 

morbillivirus, (Mahy e:t al., 1988; Osterhaus and Vedder, 1988) and leptospirosis (Vedros et al., 

1971). Yer. there is little to suggest that these or other contagious organisms could spread as 

explosi~vely among cetaceans. Dolphins are rnore dispersed in an environment which, unlike air, solid 

substrale or even a closed body of water, would not readily support the transmission of such agents. 

Tht: accumulating evidence led us to consider a point source contaminant as the cause of 

mortality. 'This was alsc) a subject of public concern, as reflected by a train of media reports that 

sewagt: and toxic wastes were being discharged in the New York Right and Delaware Bay areas. We 

approached the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain information on permitted and illegal 

dumping of' rnunicipal and industrial wastes off the mid-Atlantic states, and sub~rlitted tissues for 

heavy rnetal and organochlorine contaminant ainalysis. 
1,evels of contaminants in the dolphin's blubber were found to be among the highest recorded 

for a cetacean (Gaskin et al., 1971 ; 1983; Agwilar, 1983; Tanabe el al., 1984; Martineau et al., 1987; 

and Muir et al., 1988). Unfortunately, it is not possible to cornpare the levels with those in other 7: 

trunctrlus, as the only study on this species employed a different technique (King, 1987). Ti) ensure 

that the high values were not an artefact of our methodology, we analyzed blubber and liver samples 

from pilot and hu~npba~ck whales, and harbor porpoises, for which published data exist. Results of 

PCB, IIDE, and t-nonachlor analyses on the pilot whales agree closely with the recent findings of 

Muir e:t. al. (1988) for the same species. Residues in the blubber of humpback whales (DDE and 

PCB) are c'omparable lo those reported by Taruski et al. (1975). 

Our DDE and PCB values in the harbor porpoise are similar to or lower than Gaskin et al's. 

(1971; 1983). The values in Tursiops stand unrt:servedly arnong the highest in cetaceans - a 

commt:intar:y on the state of eastern coastal waters. 

High organochlorine levels i11 T. truncatus were not restricted to the stranded group; the 

captive::; had concentrations similar to those in all but the stranded mature males. The results for the 

beach-cast :specimens obviously reflect the levels of contaminants in the nearshore environnlent. where 

the dolphins accumulate these substances. The residues occur in the blubber of captives perhaps 

because: th~ey are given contaminated food, or more likely because wirh a steady diet, they have no 

need to mobilize blubbler fat, which would deliver the compounds to lliver for excretion. Under these 

stable conditions, the presence of organochlorines in blubber may not pose a risk. Free-ranging 

 animal:^ facing intermiltent food supply, or mobilizing fat during lactation, migration, or times of 

illness, rellease compounds from this depot into vital, perhaps more critical organs such as liver. 

Considering the evidence that at least some of the dolphins were ~nobilizing PCBs from 

blubber to lliver, it is conceivable that blood levels rose and were susta,ined long enough to exert ap 

effect. Ont: class of organochlorines, the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), can be harnlful following 

both acute and chronic exposure (Safe, 1985). Typically affected are liver and skin, and nervous. 

reproductive, and immune systems (Safe, 1985). Yet we cannot categorically relate any of the 

conditions observed in the dolphins to the known effects of these compounds because of vast 

differein~ces in response within and between species. Furthermore, it is unlikely that conlaminants 

were the key to the event. The timing of the outbreak would have required that these compounds be 

~nobilized tio functionally toxic levels within a synchronized time-pulse. This is an unlikely scenario 

for substances which for decades have been a constant ingredient in their environment and body 

tissues., un~lr?ss somethi:ng else triggered their release by first debilitating the dolphins. 

Biotoxins were considered to have this capability. The possibility was strengthened when 

saxitoxi~~, a neurotoxin produced by marine dinoflagellates, was found to be responsible for the deaths 

of 14 h~umpbacks whales, Megapteru notlueanglitze, in early December 1987 and January 1988, in 

Cape Cod Bay (Geraci et al., 1989). Following that study, we analyz:ed liver samples from 17 

dolphins that had died during the early, middle and late phases of the outbreak. There was no 

evidence of saxitoxin in these tissues 

By late summer 1988, some of the dolph~n lrver samples wert. reported to contatn b~evetox~n 

(Ph'rx), Ilprd-soluble polyether toxrn produced by the unarmored rn;irtne d~noflagellate Piyc~hod~rc u\ 

brc>vr.\, Florrda's red tltje organlsrn The neurotoxrn 14 extraordinar~lj potent, ~dpahle of generating 

effects in 1l3ie nanomolair to prcomolar concentratron range 111 vrvo (Schulmnn et al , 1990) When the 
analyscs were con1plel:ed in January, 1989, Pb'Tx was found to be in the livers of 8 of the 17 beached 

dolphiris collected during the outbreak. No toxin was detected in any of the 17 controls, selected 

from dolphins that died it1 captivity, others in regions or at a time not related to the fatalities under 

investigation, and three that died during capture in October, I987 (Table I). A greater nurnber of' 

 analyst:^ would have aldded statistical weight to these findings, yet the tests are tirne-consuming, and 

by this writing, 34 dolphin samples in addition to the fish specimens were all that could be processed. 

The pattern is nevertheless clear: 47 percent of the 17 diseased animals contained the toxin; all the 

rest did not. 

Levels in dolphin liver ranged between 80-16,000 nglg, and the calculated total amount in that 

organ was 0.08-14.7 mg. Assuming all the toxln was confined to liver, the total body burden would 

have tuc-er~ 2-290pg/kg, comparable to or orders of magnitude higher than the 2.85pgIkg level known 

to cause illness in man (McFarren et al., 1965). These values are conservative. Standard extraction 

procedures are only qualitative for one urlaltered form of PbTx. Other fornis that are covalently 

bound or otherwise modified were not considered, nor is it reasonable to assume that all the toxin was 

in the liver. 

Signs of PbTx poisoning in fish and rnatnmals are related to its action on the nervous system. 

Mice lose: rnotor control, become paralyzed and die of respiratory arrest (Baden and Mende, 1982). 

'I'he site of' action is the voltage-sensitive sodium channel in excitablt: membranes, where the toxin 

causes increased sodium flux with subsequent depolarizatio~~ and persistent activation of excitable cells 

(Poli t:t all., 1989). Death is rapid, and there are 110 reports of discerliable histopathologic changes in 

acutely poisoned animals. Might this account for the presence of PbTx it1 a menhaden recently 

consumed by dolphin KDL 644 (SWF-TT-BS04-B) that showed no evidence of toxin in its liver'? 

Most of the clolphins did not die this way. They manifested an array of chronic disorder.? 

including fibrosis of liver and lung, adhesions of abdominal and thoracic viscera, and secondary 

microbial infections associated with inlrnune suppression, as evidenccd by histological charlges in 

lymph nodes. We suggest that sublethal exposure to PbTx precipitated the train of events leading to 

some or a,ll of these clironic changes. PbTx promotes peripheral vasodilation (Poli et al., 1989) and 

is card1iioto:sic (Rodgers et al., 1984). As a toxic aerosol, or once absorbed, it disrupts neural control 

of respiration (Rorison et al., 1980) and induces bronchoconstriction (Baden et al., 1982). Symptoms 

of poi:;oning in humans reflect the gastrointestinal and neurologic action of the toxin. They include 

nausea., vomiting, diarrhea, reversal of temperature sensation, ataxia, and numblless ant1 tingling of 

extreniitics (Ijaden, 1983). A dolphin so affected would likely stop eating, eventually ex1i;iust its 

blubbe~r reserve, and thcreby lose its passive buoyancy and thermal shield. The stress associated with 

these changes alorle could set the stage for infection by the ubiquitous opportunistic organisms that 

were is;olated from tht: affected dolphins. Superimposed on this, any direct neurotoxic efft:ct of Ph'l'x 

would be r~articularly threatening to a diving mammal. 

How Were Il~olphins Exposed to the 'Toxin?: Red tides in southeastern lJ .S. waters 

normally originate 20--75 ktn west of the central f'lorida coast in the Gulf of Mexico (Steidinger and 

Iladdad, 1($81), and generally dissipate. Occasionally, as in 1972, 1977, and I980 (Roberts, 1979; 

Steidirigel- and Badell, 1984), they can he entrained and transported to the east coast of 1;lorida by the 

Gulf L,oop Current-l;lorida Current-Gulf Stream system. This happened in the fall of 1987, and 

resulte:tl in the eventual closure of shellfish beds along the North Carolina coast; there also were 

reports of' respiratory and eye irritation in fislierrnen and residents (Tester et a]., 1989), yet tile toxin 
was found in tlie livers of dolpllir~s that beached irl Virginia three months before that time. 'They 

rnust havc 4encounterecl the organisms sometinie and sornewliere along their northerly migration route. 

In February, 1987, a /'. hr-evis bloom was 25 km from a point where Gulf waters are 

transported to the east coast. Drift bottle data (Williams et al., 1977) suggest that a fragment could 

have reached tlie east coast by spring of that year. The possibility exists that blooms had been 

occurr1i:ng all sulrlnier :in and adjacent to tlie Gulf Stream, and went undetected until a filament reached 

the North Caroli~la coast in October, 1987. Such blooms would have been difficult to detect at sea, 

as they are not easily seen from vessels and tliere would have been little in the way of toxic aerosols, 

which are generally produced by waves atid surf action i11 shallow waters. Planktivorous fish lnight 

have cc?ins~uxned the cells offshore during their migration northward, and dolphins could have obtained 

this toxin by eating t11t:se fish or their predators. These conditions would have exposed dolphins both 

directly in water, and indirectly in food, to PbTx for an extended period, with effects manifested a 

short time later as they reached tlie mid-Atlantic coast. 

Brevetoxin was recovered fro111 three yellowfin menhaden, Brevoortia srnithii, caught off Vero 

Beach, Florida in late February 1988, and one unidentified menhaden taken from the stomach of a 

dolphirl that stranded near Cape Canaveral on January 12, 1988. Thc finding of brevetoxirl in fish at 

that time and place suggests that there was a persistent, undetected bloom that kept the food-web 

contaminatc;d tlirough the winter. Alternatively, the bloorli that had delivered the filament to North 

Carolit-~,a in October 15187, had dissipated and left fish contaminated fix at least three months. The 

first scenario challenges our understanding of the process of P. brevis blooms, the second of the 

dynamics of brevetoxiri transfer in marine organisms. 

In the fall of 1'387, on their southerly migration, dolphins encountered the bloom off North 

Carolirxi. F'. Tester (MOAA-NMFS Beaufort I,aboratory, personal communication) observed dolphins 

surfacing in the bloo111!j at that time. Three nio~iths later, and perhaps all along, they were feeding on 

containinated fish. We: believe that this second encounter with the toxin -was responsible for the wave 

of stranded aninials recovered along the Florida coast in the winter of 198711988; three of six 

dolphins e:rcanlined had F'bTx-2 in their livers. 

Lxvels of PbTx. rn the viscera of the live-caught rnenhaden tratislate to 200pg of toxin per 

500g fish. Ilsiug this value, a dolphin feeding 011 ri~enhaden at a rate of 10 kg each day would 

consurne 4 mg of PbTx.. That is below the 6 mglkg LD50 for mice, but if general toxicological 

dogma is applied, much lower doses would be required to incapacitate an anirlial as large as a 

dolphin. In fact, only 0.2 tng can cause illness in people. 

Not all the dolph~ns were po~soned by eatlng t15h PbTx was found In the l~vers of three 

11~1141tig cdlve\ I)olpli~ti WAM 205 (l'lble I), wlth the h~gliest concentratton of Pb'Tx In Itver, wa\ 

e\tiniated to be le5\ thdn 3 nionth\ of dge The toxln had to li,ive been deltvered In thc ni~lk, 

suggesting that llke otlie~ 11pld 5oluble rei~dues, I'bl'x my be stored In fatty depoti and rnobil~zed 

,dong with tat\ as the ,~nlnial drdw\ 011 the lecelve\ There I\ no precedent lor the f~nd~ng of I'b'l'x 

In m~lk, nor lids th15 loute of I'b'l'x el~rn~ndt~on heen cons~dered 

Tlic c~r~urn\tant~di evidence suggest5 ~lidt I'bTx 15 the rno\t probable c'iu\e for tile rnortallty 

('o~ltr~but~ry; to the ult~~r~late dern~je ot the a~~~~ndl.i w\ a ho5t of m~crobtal ,~nd cnvrronmental factors 

1h1\ I\ unI~E.ely to h'ive heen tile ftr\t tlme that dolphtn\ hnve been cxpo\ed to tlle toxtn I' Orevls 
t,looms regularly occc~r on the Gulf coast of Florida. Tliere they are restricted geographically, in 

conrl-a>,[ t'o dolphins, which move about freely. The chance of encounters is therefore reduced. They 

do occul-. ;ind at least one other associated mortality of dolphins has been reported (Gunter ct al., 

1938) Because there has been no search for biotoxins in stranded animals, other poisonings would 

have g'one undiagnosed. One might also speculate that dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico have 

encouiti~tered blooms often enough to associate malaise with the ingestion of toxin-containing 

organisn~s or the aerosol, and thereafter avoid contact. 

The episode along the east coast obviously required that the circumstances that delivered the 

organi:,mv there be coupled with the presence of carrier-fishes situated in the path of migrating 

dolphins. The u~lparalleled scope of th~s event would suggest that all of these conditions have beer, 

met ra,rely, if at all, in the past. 'The summer of 1987 was unusual by any measure. In North 

Carolma, hurnan poisoning from consumption of fish (Bonaventura and Bonaventura, 1987) and 

shellfis,h 0'. Tester, personal cornrnunication) further attest to the unusual conditions that year. 

The toxin in yellowfin menhaden has relevance to human health. Though not a fish that is 

co~nmercially harvested, its southern range overlaps with related species of surface-feeding 

planktivores that are. In this case, the toxin was present in viscera and not the flesh, thus presenting 

no risk to humans consuming traditionally prepared fish, or in the oils, which are extracted under 

conditions that should destroy the toxin (Poli, 1988). To establish whether a risk in fact exists, 

studies shct~ld be directed toward determining the uptake, distribution, persistence and transfer of 

I1bTx in some representative corn~nercially exploited species. 

'l'he discovery of PbTx in the dolphi~ls and its previous circumstantial link to manatee deaths 

(O'Sliea ct al., 1991) lead to a new generation of thought on factors contributing to natural mortality 

of marine ~nam~nals. Many questions will remain unanswered until directed studies are pursued. 

'I'hey must include: biological toxins; studies on effects of chronic, sublethal exposure to I'bTx; 

retros]:lecrive correlations between bloonls and peak episodes of mortality; and determination of the 

enviro~~mental conditilons that lead to the unusual event of 1987. Equally important is the need to 

resolve the growing question of whether contaminants at levels found in the dolphins might have 

affecte~d their resilience and rendered them more susceptible either to the toxin or to the 

n~icroc:~rganis~ns that e:ventually brought them to their demise. 

1Sditor's Note: Since the tirne when this workshop report was given, Dr. Thomas Lipscomb, of the 

Armed I;c.)rces Institute of Pathology, presented preliminary results of analyses conducted on tissues 

fro111 s8evcral of the dolphins obtained from the 198711988 n~ortality event. Lipscomb el 4. (in press) 

histologically examined lungs and lymph nodes from 79 dolphins that died from August 6, 1987 to 

April 16, 1988 along the Atlantic coasts of New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida. 'These tissues were 

tested lor lhe presence of rnorbillivin~s antigen by an irnrnunoperoxidase technique. Indications of 

morbillivir.al infection were present in 42 (53 %) of the 79 dolphins examined. 'The results of this 

study will be published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, rnost likely in the October 1994 issue. 
Table 11. Results of Elrevetoxin Analysis in Dolphin Samples from the 198711988 Die-off. 

---- - Strandcti, Virginla, Aug 198'7 ---- - WAM 239 t- + + + 93 

WAM ;!3 1 + + + + 83 

WAM 226 + + + I 

WAM 2.14 + + + 2 

WAM 2.19 i- + + 2 

JGM 418 + 

Stranded, Virginia, Sept-Ozt 1987 - WAM 2:95 4- + + , + 

WAM 280 t + + + 

WAM 296 + + $- + 

WAM 282 + + + 2 

CWP 273 tStranded, Florida Jan-Feb 1988 

S-88-TI -5 1 + 

S-88-'IT57 t 

S-88-'T'I 01 t 

S-88 T7 I1 1 

K 644 t 

SS-88-TT-04 t 

D~ed D~ir~ng Capture, Vlrg~n~a Beach, Oct 1987 - VB-87-@I04 t 

VB-87-Cl14 t 

VB-87-CO9 t 

Stranded, Teras 1987-1988 - C 552 t 

C 391 -t 

C 575 t 

Sti-anded, n~itl-Atlantic Coast. Aug-Nov 1988 - WAM 331 IWAM 136 

WAM 110 

WAM 732 

WAM 735 

WAM i39 

I ) I eak prcscnt, t)ut did not cornlgratc w~th star~d;ird 

'NO [~~iik !>U~~:YQIVC of Ph'l'x. 
C. Tlhe Coastal Migratory Stock - Tlie Depleted Deterniinatior~' 

Introduction: In the IJnited States, marine mammal populations are managed under the 

legislative authority of'the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (as amended). 'The 

~nanage:~nc:rit goal defined in the MMPA is optimum sustainable population (OSP) level, which has 

been defined to be population levels at or greater than those that protiuce maximum net productivity 

(MNP) to the ecosystem carrying capacity. Population stocks outside of OSP (below MNP) are 

defined as depleted. Ftemoval of animals (incidental bycatch, live-capture, etc.) can be legally 

authorizecl from non-depleted stocks. 

Although there: is considerably more information on bottlen~se dolphins than most other 

cetacean species, for the most part, information necessary for deterrninatlon of stock status relative to 

OSP levels is inadequate. Generally, long, conslstmt indlces of popularinn production and abundance 

are necessary to determine OSP. However, there are cases where catastrophic changes in 

populations can occur, thereby allowing assessment of the degree of change and status relatlve to 

OSP. 'The recent masslve die-off of bottlenose dolphlns along the east coast may be such a case 

Durlng the surnnner and fall of 1987 and the wlnter of 1988, an apparent dlsease epidemic 

resulted In the death and stranding of an unusually large number of ktlantlc bottlenose dolphin\, 

Tursiops IruncatuJ, along the U S east coast from New Jersey to central Florlda In response to this 

anomaly, a multi-agency team was formed to Investigate the causes and effects of the rnortallty event 

Th~s paper is directed at the second component of the Investlgatlon assessment of the effects of the 

mortality event 

Population Levels and Indices of Change: At the present there is no comprehensive 

estimate of the size of the stocks of bottlenose dolphins in U.S. jurisdictional waters. 'The abundance 

of bottlenose dolphins in certain "priority" regions has been estimated. Scott, Ilansen and Burn 

(1988) suitrunarized these estimates and proposed that the number of bottlenose dolphins comprising 

the numerous stocks throughout both the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic waters prior to 1983 

may h;ave ranged to at least 23,000 individuals. Extrapolation of this estimate to existing abundance, 

however, assumes that: the stocks have been stable ovei.a,period of 15 or more years and that no net 

migration occurred during the different sampling periods of the studies summarized. The abundance 

of the stock(s) affected by the apparent disease epidemic was certainly less than the total number of 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico iind U.S. Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. 

I-listorically, about 15,000 animals are tliougllt to have lived in mid-Atlantic near-shore 

waters, based on North Carolina shore-based fishery catch records from the turn of the century 

(Mead, 1!)'75). In 195'9-1981, the estimated average mid-Atlantic summer abuntlance of bottlenose 

dolphins is believed to have ranged from 4,300 to 12,900 anirllals (95 percent confidence region), 

including both the near-shore and offshore groups (CETAI', 1982). -I'l~e bcst availahlc information 

suggests that in recent times, coastal North Carolina and Virginia supported 1,200 or more dolphins 

during part of the spring and summer (Mead, personal communication). This number may have 

representecl a substantial portion of the mid-Atlantic coastal migratory stock prior to rhc disease 

epidemic. 

--A- - 

''~',iki>rl f rorn Si:i,t t i.L a1 (1'iHliI 
I'opulation survey data from several independent sources suggest that there was a greater 

abuncl;t~lcc of dolpllins ear-shore in 1987 and early 1988 than in recent prior years (Keinatti and 

Ml~sicli, 1988; Valacie, personal co~nmunicatio~~). Offshore, the abundance of dolphins may have heen 

slightly lower in Augusl, 1987, tllan in the su~nlners of 1980- 198 1 (Scott and Burn, I987). The 

apparent increase in ~lcar-shore abundance might have been caused by irrl~lligratio~l from the offshore 

stock, a real increase in the coastal stock, concentration of animals from wide geographical range, a 

change in the sightabilty coefficient for animals surveyed, or some combination of these factors. 

Table ;!. Sunlmary of Coastal U.S. Atlantic Bottlerlose Dolphin Strandings froni January 1982 

to May, 1987, Classificd by Interaction Type. Data Provided by Smithsoruan Institution Marine 

Ma~lirl~al F:vents Program. 

State All ~ishiri Parts Gunshot Prop Broken Other pl f' 

Gear Missing Wounds Wounds Bones - 

MA 3 1 0 O 0 0 0 33.0 3.5-6.9 

R I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NY 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

N J 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 25.0 2.3-4.7 

DE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

MD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

VA -70 8 5 0 0 1 0 20.0 1.8-3 5 

N C 122 3 3 0 0 0 1 5 7 0.4-0 8 

SC 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

G A 11 8 1 4 I 0 0 0 15.8 1.3-2.6 

FL,? 129 4 3 0 0 O C, 5.4 0.4-0 8 - 

Total 386 17 15 1 I 1 1 9 3 0.7-1.4 

'p = I'srcent of total slrand~ngs result~ng from human actlons, f, expressed as percent, represents the 

e\tltnated ,\nnu,ll hun~a~?-~nduced rnortal~ty rate uc,lng p and the range of natural nlortal~ty rates 7-14 

percent per yedr 

'Dnt'i fc Ir Flor~dd Ieprescnt central Atldnt~c and northern coastal regions only 

It is not clear il' both the coastal and olfsllore stocks were affected by the mortality event. 

'I'he sir.(: ant1 coloratio~i~ ofsome of tlle stranded animals examined suggested that both of the groups 

were involved (Mead, personal conl~nunicatio~~).). In addition, reports received from fishermen and 

recreational bo;iters of tloating carcasses in the offshore mid-Atlantic region, although not verified, 

further suggested invol.vcment of the offshore group. Dufficld (personal communication) analyzed 36 

1)Iood sa.mples froni different stranded and live-caught bottlenose dolphi~ls sampled from Virginia and 

Florida during the mort.ality event. All but one of the samples analyzed exhibited the coastal 

hernoglobi~~ characteris~tics (Duffield, Kidgway and Cornell, 1983). The single different sample 

exhibited hybrid coastal/coff'shore characteristics. 'l'his result does not necessarily imply that the 

offsl~ore stc)ck was urlal'ff:cted, since the likelihood of an anirnal dying off'shore and then being cast 

:isliore i:.; expected to be considerably less than that for an animal dying near the coast. 'fhere were 

no kllo\un ,aninlals fron.1 resident, local dolphin stocks, such as the Indian and Banana River, Florida 

stock, Sound stranded with sy~npto~ns of tlie disease epideuiic. 'I'lle bcst infornlation suggests that the 
observed niortality may have primarily affected the coastal, migratory stock of animals that ranges 

hetwecn 1:lorida and New Jersey. 

7111il: most direct means of assessing the impact of the nlortality on the dolphin populations is 

by con~~parison ofconsistent pre- and post-event population indices. Assessment of impact on the 

basis of tht: number of dolphins stranded relative to the population at large is dependent on 

assumptions about the accuracy of abundance estimates and the relationship between the stranded 

carcass count and the true total mortality (Scott and Burn, 1987). The number of animals observed 

washirig ashore is likely a fraction of the total ~nortality. There is also some chance that the reporting 

rate of stranded carcasses differed between the years prior to the stranding anomaly due to increased 

public awareness in 198711988. In addition, the accuracy of absolute abundance estimates Inay be 

questionable since the estimates are usual,ly of surface abundance unless there has been an effort to 

correct for animals sulbmerged at the time of the sample. 

For the offshore stock in the mid-Atlant~c region, a comparison of pre-event (1980-1981) 

average population index, and an index based on a sample taken in August 1987, was used to assess 

the likely range of the impact of the mortality on the stock (Scott and Burn, 1987). The 1987 sample 

indicaled that the impact through August was most likely small (< 10 percent) relative to the 1980- 

1981 summer abundar~ce level. Because the mortality event was not cornplete at the time of the 

August 1087 sample, arid due to the uncertainty about the population trajectory since 198 1, this result 

needs further testing. 

For the coastal stock of dolphins, there are no consistent pre- arid post-event population 

survey indices yet available with which to assess potential impact. The pre-event patterns observed in 

areas :such as the Chesapeake Bay mouth (Keinath and Musick, 1988) and Nassau County, Florida 

(Valad~z, personal communication), may be confounded by the apparent increase in abundance in 1987 

and 1988 Thus, the ]potential i~npact on the coastal stock was estimated by comparison nf the die-off 

period to prior year average stranding rates Inherent in this estimation is the assumption that 

stranding rate is a consistent index of the stock mortality rate. 

As of June, 1988, 742 stranded bottlenose dolphins from New Jersey to Florida's east coast 

were n~ported to the Smithsonian Institution's marine mammal stranding events program for ,.the 1 Imonth period from June, I987 through April, 1988 (Mead, personal communication). In the prior 3 

years, for the same gt:ographical range arid months, an average of 73.33 dolphins were reported to 

the str;+ncling network. Thus, the 198711988 anomaly represents an order of magnitude increase 

(10.11 ti~nes) in reportcd strandings relative to the most recent 3-year t~istorical level. Natural 

mortality rates on the order of 7 to 14 percent per year are believed to encompass the most likely 

range for bottlenose dolphin populations (Hersh, 1987~). Assuming the stock natural mortality rate 

(tn) to be the lower end of the reported range (7 percent per year, 6.42 percent per 11 months), that 

the ob:;ervecl mortality wholly affected the near-shore stock, and further assunling that the reported 

stranding rate is propor.tional to m and consistent between years, then the observed mortality 

represent,s an 1 I-n1onl.h m of 64.9 percent. An annual rn would be slightly larger than this value if 

only tl-ie long-term av'erage risk of death was applied to the final I-month period. 

7 he annual rate of change in the dolphin stock abundance 1s the d~fference between the annual 

rllortality rate, annual blrth rate, and annual net ~mm~gratlon rate For the coastal mid-Atlantlc stock 

of dolph~ris affected by the dlsease epidemic, Hlaylock (1984) observed up to 11 5 percent of the 
population sanipled were calves, i~nplying an annual birth rate (6) on that order. Data collected frorn 

strandeti aniti-ials suggest that calving for this stock occurs in the spring and is not gerierally protracted 

over the year. Thus, a potential decline for this stock since early 1987 is estimated as > 50 percent 

(17 - 111 := 53.4 percent)^. 

Table 3. Parameter Values Used in Simulations of the Dynamics of the Coastal Migratory 

Stock(s:) of Bottlenose 1)olphins. 

Sy~nbol Values 

Natural ]Mortality Rate m 0.07, 0.14 

Mum;m-induced Mortality Rate f 0.0, 0.007 1n=0.07 

0.0. 0.014 n-i= 0.14 

Maximurn Net Productivity Rate MNP 0.02 

0.04. 0.06 

Maxirnum Net Productivity Level MNPL 0.6, 0.8 

Median ,4ge at Sexual Maturity x 8, 11, 14 

Estimates of Human-induced Mortality: The magnitude of annual retnovals from this stock 

due to i,ncidental catch ,arid other directed human causes is not well documer~ted. Marine mamma: 

stranding clata provide information useful for estimating an index of human-induced mortality of 

cetaceans in the U.S. Ghlf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast. Many of the cetaceans that strand 

are examined for cause:; of n~ortality. Burn and Scott (1988) examined the stranding data provided by 

the Smithsonian Illstitution (Mead, personal communication) for evidence of human-induced ~nortality 

in bottlenose dolphins. A total of 386 bottlenose dolphins stranded from central Florida nor-tl-i along 

{.he Atlantic coast were reported from January 1982 through May 1987. Of these, 9.3 percent showed 

some evidence of human--induced mortality 01). Data from June 1987 to the present were not 

exa~nineld in this context because of the (then) ongoing stranding anomaly. For tlie range of the 

disease-affected coastal sl.ock of dolpliins, Table 2, lists the bottlenose dolphin strandings by state and 

type of purported human-.induced mortality. 

,4s:;uming the cllassificatio~l scheme of Burn and Scott (1988) to be accurate and that tlie 

stranding data indexes I.~urnan-induced nlortality rate in proportion to the natural mortality rate, then 

t:stirnates of human-induced mortality rates can be derived from these data. Using the range of 

natural I-nortality rates (,rn = 7 to 14 percent), the additio~lal nlor-tality rate due to hurnan-related 

activities; (f) can be estimated by these proportions Cf = rn((l-1)) '-1)). Istimates off by state and for 

the coastal n~igratory stc.)ck range are presented in Table 3. 'I'hese data indicate that added mortality 

due to human activities n-lay range from 0.7 to 1.4 percent per year for the coastal migratory stock of 

clolpliins. 
Optimum Sustainable Population (OSI'): The OSP is defined as the range of population 

size from1 111-~e level resulting in maximum net productivity to the ecosystem carrying capacity (K). 

Under the terms of the MMPA. population stocks outside the OSP range are defined as depleted. By analogy with other large anirnal species, the population level expected to result in MNP for bottlenose 

 dolphin:^ is greater than 50 percent of K (Fowler, 1981a; 198 1 b). 

M,anagement of bottlenose stocks has been based not on explicit deter~nination of stock status 

relative to OSP, but rather on the estimated MNP for the stocks of interest. The basic assumption 

upon wlhich this management method was developed was that annual MNP for cetacean stocks 

generally iranged from 2 to 6 percent of stock abundance. This range has been demonstrated to be 

biologically achievable, depending on co~nbinations of calf and norl-calf mortality rates and upon the 

age of first calving andl calving intervals (Reilly and Barlow, 1986). 

Under this management scheme, if 2 percent represents the true MNP, then a long-term 

average removal rate o~f 2 percent, in addition to natural mortality anti with no net migration effect, is 

expecte~d to result in an equilibrium stock abundance level at the lower end of the OSP range for 

stocks with initial abundance outside of OSP, an average long-term rt:moval equal to MNP is expected 

to result in an equilibrium stock level below OSP. Stocks outside of OSP can be recovered to OSP 

while sustaining removals as long as the long-term average removal rate is less than MNP. 

Estimates of Recovery: The dynamics of the mid-Atlantic coastal migratory stock of 

bottlenose dolphins were modeled as a difference equation with density dependence as described by 

the Pella-Tomlinson model routinely applied to whale stocks by the Scientific Committee of the 

International Whaling lCommission (Allen, 1976; de la Mare, 1986). The model takes the form: 

where AD represents the. population size, W, human-induced removals, R, recruitment, and S, survival 

over time index t (taken as 1 year). Human-induced removals were taken as: 

where J" is the human-induced lrlortal~ty rate estimate, cond~tioiled on natural inort,tl~ty lat?, rr! Tllr 

annual surv~val rate, S, is taken as e "' The nurnber of recru~ts, K, 17 detined as 

where ;r 15, the lrled~arl age at maturity (Table 3), A the res~l~encc terin, K tllc carrying capacity, nnd I 

the compensation term Given a range of the relat~ve lower Iim~t of OSP (i e MNPI,) and 

~ndepcrident ranges of MNP and m assuinptlons (see Table 3 for values used), the correspond~iig 

parameter value for A uias found as In Ilolt (1985) 

A = MNPII?Z(I - MNPL') 

with the value of z found by solut~on of 

MNPI, = ( l I(,- t 2))"" ' " 
'I'l~~e tiine to recovery was taken as tlie nurnhcr of years required for the simulated stock size 

to reaclh A4NPL afier a.n overall reduction of' 51 percent from the assumed equilibrium population level 

ill existence.: just prior to the tlisease epidemic. I jolt (1985) argues that A > l/(z + 1) results in a 

super cornpensation effkct in tlie stock-rccruitnient relationship whereby the absolute nurnber of 

recruits ir~creases at declining population sizes relative to that ~iun~ber at K. However, constraining A 

5 l/(z + 1) implies that the full range of assunled MNP cannot be realized given the range of 

assuineld AdNPL. As literature suggests that the MNP and MNPL ranges are biologically reasonable 

(Fowle:r, .1981a; 198 1 b; Reill:y and Barlow, 1986), the unconstrained A values were used. 

The distributicln of populat~on recovery t~~nes over the range of parameter values used is 

shown In Fig. 4 for the cases of no human-~nduced morhlity versus constant human-induced mortality 

ratcs 'Ihe recovery tlrn~e distrlbut~ons are heav~ly skewed. In the cases of no human-~nduced 

nio~-tal~~~y, tlie med~an expected recovery time from a reduction of the specified magnitude was 32.5 

years, 1~1th a range of 14 - 90 years In the casts where there is an assumed constant rate of humantnduced rnu~rtality equal to estimates of the pre-epidem~c rate, the distr~bution of expected recovery 

tlme IS sh~fted to longer periods, with a median value of 50.5 years and a range of from 18 to > 100 

years For tlie cases 11lcluding human-induced mortal~ty, 22 percent of the s~inulations resulted in no 

recove1 y kvtthin a 100-year tirne interval None of the trajectories simulated resulted in extinction. 

As the recovery stand,lrd used 111 these calculat~ons was the lower limlt of OSP, the recovery 

tlme estlniates can be cons~dered conservative Uncertainty in the degree of reduction was not 

expl~c~tly treated in the emulations run Ilowever, parameter ranges used result In a large range of 

reduct~c~ns from K and thus iiidy reasonably reflect expectations for reductions > 53 percent. In 

contrast, il' the true red'uction was less than the specified level, then the recovery time distributions 

are non conservative. 

Consistent and long-term populat~on lilonitorlng of tlie affected stock will be necessary to 

reduce the uncertainty dssoclated wlth the estimates of recovery Assulnptions about the rnagn~tude of 

depletion, the degree of hunlan-induced mortalily , and the degree of ~nvolvenient of other bottlenose 

stocks need testlng via d~rect cxperlmentatlon and monltor~ng As no consistent pre-and post-event 

~nd~ces ,ire yet dva~labl~?, developnleni of %ucli ~ntllccs through cvntn~zued atld new poputat~uu s-drnpi~ng 

survey5 and studiec of Ib~olog~cal sa~iiples from 4trandcd animals w~ll be needed to test the 

dssulnptlo~ ~f 

I). Determination of Bottlerlose Dolphin Stock Discreteness: Application of a Combined 

Bc:havioral and Genetic Approach 

Ran,dall S. Wells 

Effective conservation programs require t~asic knowledge of the population units to be 

rnanagecl. /\re distinct population units, or stocks, identifiable? Are the geographical ranges of these 

stocks known'! How discrete are different stocks'? Efforts to identify bottlenose dolphin stocks and to 

assess tX.~cir discretcnes:; I,n the coast;tl waters of the southeastern Unitt:d States have been complicated 

t,y the nearly continuous distributior~ of these ani~ilals, and by the wide variety of ranging patterns 

reported for this specie!;. 
I;igu~-c. 4. 1;requenc:y I)istril)utior~ of Silnulated Bottlerlose 1)olptiin Population Rcvovery Time 

in Yeirr-s for the Cases ofdf = 0 (No flnrn:rn Iriduced Mortality) :rnd f > 0 (Constant Ifurnan 

Indtxcerl Mortality Ki~tc). 

Ciross distinctions can often be made between bottlenose dolphin stocks inhabiting significantly 

different geographiciil ranges. These distinctions can be based on differences in general morphology, 

rnorphometrics, or genetic l'actors such as hemoglobin values. Evaluation of these parameters 

requires handling specimens, and is usually based on examination of beachcast carcasses (usually of 

unknown geographic origin) or specimens caught incidentally in fisheries. Along the U.S. Atlantic 

seaboarti. three stocks have been thus identified: the coastal migratory, the coastal resident, and the 

offshcore (Hersll and Duffleld, 1990). The level of discreteness nf 'these stocks resnains to .bt 

at1ecliratt:ly evaluated. Within the depleted migratory stock of the Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin, 

are t1.1el-I: tirier-scale stock distinctions that [night aid in conservation pl.anrring? For exarnp'ie, does 'the 

migr-atol-y stock consist of a single large inter-breeding unit, or are there discrete migratory stocks 

f't~rlct iioning indepenc'lently of' one another? Are these stocks g~)graphically based? Are there 

tlifl'er.eni:t:s in the st>ittrs or- I:,rosl)ects fi)r recovery of each of these srnall units? 

111 the develop~nent of a conservation plan, real-ti~ne answers to the questions posed above are 

11eede:d. 'l'ht: most effective approach would be one that made use of livirlg rrlernhers of the stocks in 

quesuLion, in addition to obtaining supplerl~entary information f'rorn str.andi~~gs. We have employed 

such an approach in detining the population structure of bottlenose dolphins along the central west 

cox1 of' Florida. Using behavioral and genetic data, we have been able to identify stocks, evaluate 

xtock cii:;cr-eteness, and mea.sure vital rates (Iluftield and Wells, 1986h; Wells, 1986; Wells and Scottl 

I (1oO:l. 
Approach: Our current approach involves combining data on the ranging and social 

associal ;ion patterns of i~ndividually-identifiable dolplli~is with genetic data from blood samples from 

many of the same dolphins. During 1970-1976, we began our individual identification ef'forts tlirough 

a capture, tag, and release program. 'I'hirty dolphins were tagged during 1970- 197 1, and 47 were 

tagged with vital tags and/or radiotransmitters during 1975-1976, including 11 from the earlier 

efforts. A number of other individuals with distinctive natural ~narkings were photographed during 

this time in adjacent waters. Repeated sightings of identifiable individuals suggested that at least 

some of the dolphins in Ihe area were year-round residents, and that there was a recognizable 

structure to their social relationships (Irvine and Wells, 1972; Irvine et al., 1981; Wells, Irvine and 

Scott, 1980)1. 

Photographic-iclentificatioli efforts were intensified in 1980, and are ongoing. El'forts have 

been expanded to include: not just the Sarasota area, but also Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, and 

adjacent Gulf of Mexic~o waters. Our photographic identification catalog now includes liiore than 

1,680 dolphins. Most of' these dolphins have been observed repeatedly over the years (up to 330 

times each.; Scott, Wells,, and Irvi~le, 1990; Wells, 1991). In many cases, sufficient ~iumbers of 

repeat sightings have been collected to allow definition of home ranges and social patterns. These 

data have suggested a population structure with a geographical basis. 

[n order to facilirate interpretation of the observed ranging and social patterns, a capture, 

sample, mark, and releiwe program has been conducted since 1984. This program has provided 

opportunities to determine the gender, age, reproductive condition, health, body condition, 

morphomecry, and environmental contaminant body burden, and to mark for future identification 

those intlivitluals lacking individually-distinctive natural markings The capt~~relrelease program has 

provided blood samples Ior detailed examination of the genetic structurc of dolph~ns in Sarasota and 

surrounding waters. A total of 140 individuals have been sampled during the 10 years of the 

program. Additional genetic samples from known individuals have come from the efforts of the Mote 

Marine Laboratory Stranding Program. 

Genetic analyses of our samples are conducted by Dr. Debbie Duffield, Portland State 

U~iiversi.ty, Portland, 0rr:gon. Protein electrophoresis, chromosome ,banding.,# mitochondrial DNA 

(mtDNA,), and DNA fingerprinting have been applied sequentially to the individual blood samples. 

Each technique has provided a slightly different perspective on the population structure (Duffield and 

Wells, 1991). Protein electrophoresis and mtdna analyses have provcri useful in examining stock 

discretenes,~ questions. From electrophoretic analyses, allele frequencies of three of the five 

polymorphic: red blood cc.:Il enzymes examined have been considered informative in evaluating 

differences. Four diffe:rent mtdna haplotypes have been identified; two of these niay be area-specific. 

Chrorntrsort~e banding and DNA fingerprinting have been used to define the genetic structure within 

stocks. 

IRa~ults and Di!sc:ussion: Observational studies over the last 23 years indicate a year-round 

resident population unit o~f about 100 dolphins in Sarasota Bay, Florida. 'Ihe distribution of 

resightin~gs indicates a very long-term, well-defined Iionie range, occupied by the same individuals 

year after ye:ar. 'The frequency of associations betweell irldividuals sharing the waters of the home 

range si1gger;t a social as well as a geographical basis to rllc structurc of the population unit. A 

genetic basi:, to the struclure is indicated by (he observational tracking of rnaternal lineages through at 
least thl-ee generations ~~itlrin the home range. (Ihronlosomal and m~dna analyses indicate a multi 

generat.!~onal association between members of different maternal lineages. 

Observations olf distinctive individuals further indicate the existence of similar Ilo~ne range and 

social patterns in adjacent waters to the north and south. The result is a mosaic of overlapping, longterm ho~mt: ranges. Distinctions in individual membership in different adjacent population units can 

be made on, the basis of differences in enzyme allele frequencies, rntdna haplotypes, ranging patterns, 

and frequer~cies of social associations. 

Behavioral and genetic data both indicate that while most of the activities of the members of 

each of the different population units take place within their own horrie range; these units are not 

socially nor reproductive-ly isolated from one another. Observations of occasional temporary 

movements of males antl, to a lesser extent, females between adlacent population units suggest a 

mechanism that could explain the preliminary results of paternity tests suggesting some amount of 

genetic exchange betw~een these units. Thus, these population units should be considered to be 

comrnu,nitres, rather than totally discrete populations. Each community has its own long-term 

structure and integrity, but some interbreeding occurs with other communities (Duffield and Wells, 

1986; LVellls, 1986b; Wells, Scott, and Irvine, 1987). 

The dolphin communities appear to be extreniely stable over tinie. Calves observed to be 

born into ithe Sarasota community have remained there throughout thr:ir lives. Individuals now 30- 

50+ years old have beex1 observed in the comnrunity for the last 18-25 years. I'ermanent 

immigration and emigration occurs at very low rates. Anecdotal information 011 the stability of 

commu:nity structure comes from the reintroduction of two bottlenose dolphins. Misha and Echo. back 

into their n,ative Tampa Bay waters in 1990 after two years in captivity. Both were released into 

Misha's; original home range. The animals remained tightly bonded to one another through the first 

few months following release, and interacted with the other residents of the range. Within six 

months, however, Echo left Misha's range, and returned to his own adjacent, original home range, 

where he lhas since remained, associating with the same individuals he was with prior to capture 

(Bassos, 1993). In another example, dolphins residing in the waters off San Diego shifted their range 

northward several hundred kilorr~eters in.associatinn with an El Niiio warm water incursion. . Sevesa! 

of tlre dlolphins have been observed together in both regions, suggesting social stability even in the 

absence of site fidelity (Wells and Scott, 1990). The possibility of transience invol\4ng sane of tlre 

members of our photog1,aphic-identification catalog is being examined, hut it is clear that community 

residency is a very strong feature of the population structure of bottle~lose dolphi~is along the central 

west coast of Florida, and perhaps in other parts of the species' range as well. 

Tllt: well-clef~ned structure arid the long-term stab~l~ty ot conrrnunltles suggest that, where they 

exist, communities rn~glrt serve as biolog~cally ~uean~ngful Inan'igement un~ts 

Recon~mendations: In order to des~g~i etfect~ve conwrvatlon plans and understa~~cl the 

potent~,ll ~niplicat~on~ ot the plans, ~t 15 recolnmcnded that '1 plogrnm be ~~npleiilentcd to def~ne that 

structure of the populat~o~~ unlts cornprlslng the "m~gratory {to~k oftile Atlartt~c co,ist,il bottlenose 

dolph~n" 'I he components of such a program mrght ~ncludc 
Iiarge--scale photographic-ide~itification efforts, building upon existing efforts, and 

filling gaps in coverage (spatial and temporal) along the Atlantic seaboard; 

coordiri;itirig the photo-ID programs to standardize level of' effort, ~nethodology, and 

to ellsure timely and accurate colnparisons of dorsal fins across individual efforts; 

establishing a program for processing genetic samples from stranded dolphins. Fresh 

blood and heart ~iiuscle should be collected whenever possible. 

coordinati~ig stranding program and photo-ID project efforts to track the fates of 

known individuals, and to obtain data on the genetics, gender, age, and reproductive 

conditi~on from stranded dolphins that can then be disseminated and applied 

retroactively to observation records to facilitate interpretation of population unit 

structure. A catalog-quality photograph of the dorsal fin of each stranded dolphin 

must ble a top priority for this to be effective. 

initiatinl: capture, sample, mark, and release programs, where it can be done safely, 

with folllow-up monttorlng of marked individuals. Tlie use of telemetry would greatly 

enhance the quality and quantity of the data collected. 

E. Recognizing Two Popillations of Bottlenose Dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, off the Atlantic 

Coast of North America: Morphologic and Ecologic Consideratioxw 

Jarnes (;. Mead and Charles W. Potter 

This study is part of an on-going project concerned with the life history of the bottlenose 

dolphin in the northwest Atlantic. Mead and Potter (1990) published tlie results of 15 years' work in 

which the authors speculated on the existence of two or more populations. 'True (1891) spoke of 12- 

foot specirnens ithat were taken in the fishery for Tursiops at Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Mead 

and Potter (1990) hypotlhesized that those animals might represent a popu4ation of larger Tursiops, 

since the modal length of coastal 'li~rsiops was about 9 feet. 

'/'ursiops lias 1c)n.g been recognized as an exceedingly variable taxon. A glance through the 

Catalog: of 1,ivin.g Whak:s by I lerslikovitz (1966) reveals 24 nominal taxa refer-red to as Tursiops. 

Detailetl studies of parricular geographic localities have often revealed two f'(~rnis present, usually 

differentiated by their distribution (off'sliore versus coastal). 

At first, we [Wlead and Potter] were unable to differentiate the two populations in our ~ilixed 

sample of' stranded anitnals. It was only when we obtained access to specirnens that had been taken 

offshore in fishi:ries operations that we managed to isolate the morphon~etric factors that allowed 

separation of individual specimens. 

13,iied on n iculil)le of 105 dn~rnnlj (33 o!t\liore and 72 coastal), we found that tlie tollow~ng 

relatlonih~pc (1;t.g 5) i-leiween the relatlve diameter of the ~nternal nare5, conipared to eltlier 
condylobaqal length (FI~; 6) or zygomatlc w~dth, are greater In the offshore specimens of western 

North ,4tlantlc of T~rs~op~ 

Condylobasal length vs internal nares width 

NW = 0.129 CBL + 0.84 

Zygomatic width vs internal nares width 

If the observed value is higher than this, the specimen is an offshore animal. This difference 

allows separation of all specinlens and is more pronounced in young animals. Between the late 

summer of 1987 and May 1988 at least 742 bottlenose dolphins were found dead along the east coast 

of the 1Jnited States from New Jersey to Florida. 

Other Differences between coastal and offshore Tursiops: The offshore specimens are 

generally larger, and am infected with the parasites Phyllobothrium, Monorhygma, and Crassicauda 

(Table 4). These parasites have life histories that make them useful as biological tags. The coastal 

specimr:ns ,are smaller and have none of these three parasite species, but do have chronic pancreatitis. 

The offshore spcci~nens also have stomach contents comprised of pelagic squid and fish (also 

see Barros and Odell, this report). The coastal specimens have mainly three species of fish of the 

family ,Sciuenidae in their stomachs. Squid are very rarely found in the stomachs of coastal animals 

and, when they are, they are of the coastal genus Loligo (but see Harros, 1993). 

Heirs11 and Duffield (1990) did a study of morphometrics, comparing samples of Indian River, 

Florida, c~oastal individuals with specimens determined to be offshore animals by the presence of two 

hemoglobi~~ types. They determined a number of characters in both the skull and external 

measurements where tlht: offshore and coastal forms appeared to differ. Their sample of offshore 

animals was sufficiently small (2-4) to preclude statistical verification. They also made the anecdotal 

obscrvation~~ that the offshore forms tended to be larger and darker than the coastal forms. 

Hersh and Duff~eld (1990) hypotllesized that the offshore form dove deeper than the coastal 

forms and (hat the differing structure of the hemoglobin facilitated that. Our finding of relatively 

greater nareal diameter 111 offshore specimens would also seerti to tridicate an increased respiratory 

function. 

The 1987 dolph~~n mortality began to increase during the late summer along the east coast of 

the Unitcdl States. This increased mortality extended from New Jersey to Florida and lasted until May 

1988. During that time period at least 742 animals were found dead. Prel~minary assessments 

concluded that this ~nortality was limited to the coastal population (Scott et al., 1988). Our findings 

confirnl~ t111c conclusion ('Table 5). 
Table 4. Characterization of 11isllore vs. Offshore Forms of Bottlenose Dolphin Found along tlie 

l1.S. Atlantic Coast. 

~istrlbution Modal Length Paras~tes and Co~nmensals - 

COASTAL Wil.hi11 2 miles of the coast 250-260 crn Braunina 

Seasonal distribution to New 

Jersey 

OFFSHORE Mid-shelf to Shelf-Shelf-edge, 290 cm INTEGUMENTand northern edge of Gulf Phyllobothrium (6%) 

Stream No Penella or cyanlids 

DIGESTIVE SYSTEMBraunina (83 %), c.f. 

Campula (55 % ) 

ABDOMINALMorzorhygrna (8 % ) 

CIiANIAL AIR 

SINUSESNrrs~trerna (50 %), 

Crassicauda (27 % ), 

Stenurus (5 70) 

APPENDAGESXer~ohnlanu~s (65 %) 

P1u:fylepa.s (2 % ) --- - 

Table is. Ratio of Co~astal to Offshore Fonns of Bottle~iose Dolphin Prior to, During, and 

Following the 1987/1!388 Die-off (Preliminary Results), Based on Cranial Measurements. 

- Sample Size 

Time-Frame Offshore Coastal liatio 

0513 1 187 (pre-die-off.) 2 1 99 0.2121 

06/01,/87 - 0413 1/88 I 146 0.0068 

(during die-off) 

pre 19h7/po\t 1988 Chi quared - 0 4786, plobdb~l~ty - LJ 0 500 

pre 19h711087 1988 - ('lit cqualed - 22 63, p~ohab~l~ty < 0 005 
I'igurc. 5. M;lllrern;lticl;ll Relationship 1Jclwcvt11 Internal N:~rcs Width ;111d C~lldyIoI):is:~I 

Ixngtll (cnl) for Wc2,tern North Atl;~ntic I'opul;~lions of Bottlchnose I)olphin, Ilitnio[)s tru~zcalus. 

- 

Offshore Coastal 

N - 33 N - 72 

I - Condylobasal length (cm) I 

Figure 6. Diagr:~rn~natic Representation of a Tursiops Skull. 

I-- - 
SIATUS OF RESEAKC11 ANDIOK MANAGEMENT I'ROGKAMS TtIAT MONITOR 

COAS'I'AI, BOTTLENOSE DO1,PIIINS 

A. Survcys of U.S. East Coast Rottle~lose Ilolphin Abundance 

1,arry IIallserl 

Surveys of bottlenose dolphin abundance in U.S. east coast waters have been conducted by a 

~lumbcr of different groups. Most of these surveys were aircraft-based, and utilized strip- or 

line-tra~lsect methods to estimate densities of bottlenose dolphins. This review covers both large-scale 

surveys which covered most or perhaps all of the coastal migratory stock's seasonally fluctuating 

range, and localized survcys which were conducted within a srnaller portion of the stock's range. 

Large-Scale Snrveys: 'I'he first large-scale aerial survey of cetaceans on the U.S. east coast, 

including bottlenose clolphiins, was the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP), which was 

conducted by the University of Rhode Island under contract to the Department of the Interior 

(CE'I'AP, 1982). 'The study area covered waters from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, north to the 

Gulf of Maine, and iricludled water from the shoreline out to about the 1000 fathom isobath, but did 

not include bays or sounds. These surveys were conducted each season during the period 1979-1981. 

Shipboard observations were also collected during the study, but only the aerial survey data were used 

to estiinatt: alii~iial abur~dance. 

The CE'TAP surveys indicated that bottleilose dolphins had a distinct J-shaped distribution 

within the study area. This distribution consisted of an elongate portion along the 1000 fatho111 

isobatl~, and a shorter distribution nearshore. Available evide~lce i~ldicales that.these distributi.on~ 

represent two stocks of bottlenose dolphins, with the nearshore group being the coastal migratory 

stock. Estimates of abundance within the study area varied from a spring high of 8,603 ($.4,307, 95 

percent Confidence Inte:rval, CI) to a winter low of 1,295 ($-1,633, 95 percent CI). The animals that 

were fiou~~tl innearshore waters represented a fraction of the overall sightings, and the abundance 

estin1ai:es for this coast;il distribution varied seasonally from 0 during the winter to a high of 378 

($-723, 95 percent CI) during the summer. Spring and fall estimates of the nearshore distribution 

(202-520, 3 15-787, re:sj?ectively) were not much different from the summer estimate. 

The CE'TAP surveys were replicated during the fall of 1991 by NMFS. Preliminary analysis 

of the 1991 survey indicates that sightings of bottle~lose dolphins were infrequent. Consequently, the 

resulting de~isity estimates will likely be low for both the nearshore and offshore distributions, with 

high coefficients of variatio~~ (CV). 

A second large--scale survey was co~iducted seasonally for one year during 1982-1983. This 

survey, termed the Southeast Turtle Survey (SETS), was conducted under contract to NMFS. The 

survey was flown primarily to provide sighting data for estimation of sea turtle abundance, but survey 

methodolo,gy was co11:jistent with that for the CE'TAP surveys (including recording of data on 

celacea~ns). 'The SET!S study area covered waters from Key West, Florida, north to Cape liatteras, 

North (Carolina, and imclutled waters frorn the shoreline out to approximately the western wall of the 

Gulf Strearn. Hays a~ict sou~lds were not surveyed during this study. 

Arj ,1naIys14 ol' {lie SETS ddtn ~ndic,lte\ tll~tjotllcno\e dolph111\ were distr~buted cont~nuously 

from \ilore out to the offshore edge of the \tudy ale,i Although the dolpli~ns were continuously 

I'lgt~i-e 7. ilistrihution and Kelative Abundance of flottlenose Dolpliins, Tumiops truncc~lus, 

Sigl~ted 1)urirlg the SKI'S Aerial Surveys in the Southcs~st U.S., Spring, 1982. 

Figure 8. Dlistribution and Relative Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tumiops truncdus, 

Sighted During the SETS Aerial Surveys in the Southeast U.S., Surnrner, 1982. 
Figure 9. I)istribut~~on and Relative Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tumiops truncatus, 

Sigl1tc.d 1)uring tilt SETS Aerial Surveys in ttlc. Santhaist U.S., Fall, 1982. A 

Figure LO. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Bottlenose I)olphins, 7'ursiops tru~rcnlus, 

Sighted During the SET'S Aerial Surveys in the Southeast U.S., Winter, 1983. 
I. KesearchINLa~lagen~e~lt Programs and Stranding Networks in Coastal Atlantic Waters 

(by State) 

New Jersey (Dave ,Jenkins): Bottlenose dolplii~is are present in New Jersey coastal waters 

and {he ~nouths of estuaries from late spring to early fall (approxi~nately May through September, 

when water temperatures exceed 60°F). Based on evidence from strandings, New Jersey waters are 

apparently used to some degree as calving and nursery areas. 

In 1993, the New Jersey Marine Mammal Strandillg Center (MMSC) participated in the July 

10 rniulti-state dolphin count, in which volunteer observers were stationed at 1-mile intervals along the 

coast, at land-based observation posts. 

The MMSC responds to strandings and also runs a sighting hot-line. Reports include 

sightings In general, and in back bays in particular. 

I'rior to the 198711988 die-off, recovered bottlenose dolphin strandings averaged about 2 per 

year. Since that time, the numbers have increased to 6-12 per year. It is not known whether this 

increase is due to greater awareness of dolphin strandings (and the need to report tliern) since the dieoff, \vlietlier the do1;pliins have started conling in closer to shore, whether there has been an increase 

in fisheries interactions, or whether there is some other explanation (or some combination of these 

factors). 

In 1992, tlierc were 6 bottlenose dolphln strandings reported to the MMSC. Five were in 

Atlantic County (Brigantine or Atlantic C~ty), and ! was in Delaware. Three appeared to be boa; 

hits, 1 was attr~buted to coniplications with calvi~ig, and the other 2 died of unknown causes. 

In 1993, there have already beeti 6 Tursiops strandings to date. Four of these were in Cape 

May County, 1 was in Ocean County, and 1 was in Atlantic County. Five of these died of unknown 

causes, and 1 was a newborn, or possibly stillborn. 

More detailed infbrmation on strandings in New York or New Jersey may be obtained by 

colltactlng the Marine Manmial Stranding Center, Brigantine, NJ. 

1)elaware (Leon Spence): Currently, Delaware does not have an Atlantic bottlenose dolphin 

morii~.orir~g program., although we do have an organized stranding network. In the past, marine 

police were responsible for responding to stranded marine mammals and sea turtles. A call-list was 

establ;isfit:d in 1986, in order to notify statc officials and other organizations interested in obtaining 

data and tissue samplrs. Dates and locations of bottlenose dolphin strandings along Delaware's Bay 

and Pitla~ltic coastlines are presented in Figure 1 1 

Although Ilelaware does not have a dolphin monitoring program at this tirne, it is hoped that 

a prvgrarn will soon be initiated. 'Ihe Ilelaware Ilivision of Fish and Wildlife currently conducts 

small-I3oa.t surveys for crabs and other f'isheries. We hope to incorporate marine 11i;immal sightings 

I;igure 12. 1)ates iti~d I,oc':~tions 01' liottlcnost Dolphin, Tursiops trunccrtu.\, Sifil~til~gh in I)t~l;~\vitre 

I(;1y, 1993. 

into this program. A l'ew sightings have already been recorded (Fig. 12). All ideas ancl expertise in 

getting such a program underway would be appreciated. 

At this time, all strandings are handled through the endangered species program, although 

sometimes fisheries personnel respond. All data and any tissues collected are managed by tile marine 

niarnm:~l and reptile stranding coordinator. 

Maryland (Dave Schofield): Three years ago, the National Aquarium in Ualti~nore (NAIB) 

implemented a Marine Animal Rescue Program (MARP). 'I'tirough a 1,etter of Authorization with 

NMFS, MARP has responded to live strandings in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. Over the past 

year, this program has slowly become more involved with dead strandings than witti live sightings. 

Workin~g closely with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDLINR), we have received 

reports of clolphins ancl hurnpback whale sightings in the Chesapeake Bay area. 'I'he MARP staff has, 

over the past year, provided the U.S. Coast Guard stationed at Ocean City, Mar-yland, the Ocean City 

Beach I'atrol, and the Delaware Fish and Wildlife Department with stranding and sighting 

information. Since this effort was implemented, we have hat1 overwhelming support from tlie 

Maryl;incI agencies on srghting and stranding reports. In the future, these institutions will continue to 

provitle: valuable intormation required for a more accurate evaluatior~ of the distrihut ion and 

abundaince of marine niam~nals in our area. 

'1'11(- MAKI' is interested in becoming involved in annual coastal ~nigrarory clolpl~in counts in 

the surlimel- ot' 1094. At the disposal of NAl13 is a st[-ong volunteer pr-ogram (500 t volunteet-s), ar~ 
active cornservation program with a conservation coordinator, and the support of special age~lcies as 

well as a volunteer air flight service for surveys. 

The MARP suggests that NMFS provide the methodology for the survey. We need input on 

how data should be recorded and reported to best be interpreted by NMFS. Guidelines for survey 

dates, locations, and methods will help ensure consistent information. The MARP will work with the 

Marketing and Development Departments at the NAlB to acquire public and private support to assist 

in the coordination of this survey program. 

Sightings of ]Bottlenose Dolphin in the Chesapeake Bay: The most notable sighting of a 

bottlen~ose dolphin that involved MARP was that of a lone dolphin i11 the upper Chesapeake Bay 

This clolphin was observeti on a weekly basis from May to mid- July 1992, and occasionally until 

September, when the sightings stopped. This dolphin was found in the Miles and Wye rivers of bhe 

Eastenn Shore of Maryland. In some instances this animal was seen in tributaries and creeks of these 

rivers that were as sh,allow as three feet with salinities of 10 to 15 parts per thousand (ppt). 

'The Marylancl DNR often took MARP Staff and volunteers out to observe this animal's 

behavior. The MAR]' has video and photo-ID cataloged for future reference. Various behavior 

reports were submitted from MARP volunteers, Maryland DNR, and locals who observed this 

dolphin swimming near their private docks. It was particularly interesting that on several occasio~is, 

different groups of anirnals numbering from 4 to 7 would come in close proximity to this lone anilnal 

for various lengths of time, but with no apparent association. 

Current Level of Stranding Response: 'To provldc care for straaded animals, the MARP 

has a 08,500 gallon quarantinelhospital pool, and a medical laboratory and treatment roorn To date, 

MARI' has released two harbor seal pups and an Injured sea turtle back Into the w~ld Our hosp~tal 

area has housed a juvenile pilot whale, Globlcephala, from Virginia, a striped dolph~n, Stenella 

coer~l~coalba, from New Jersey, a pygmy sperm whale, Kogla brevlceps, from New York, and harbor 

seals, Phoca vltulzna from the New England Aquarluni in Boston, Massachusetts. Over tlils past 

year, MARP has also acquired an off-slght fac~l~tyo provlde more space for stranded anlmals Thrs 

area w~ll act as a pre-ajsejsment area before antmals are brought tu~ the quarantlnelisolation pool area 

The MAliP has averaged 10- 15 llve marlne an~nial respon4es per year 

'I'he Marylan,d Dcpartrrient of Natural Resources Marine Mammal Stranding Program 

(Joyce Evans and Frances Cresswell): The Marine Mammal Stranding Program was developed 

under the: 'Tidewater Administration Fish HealthlDisease Unit located at the Cooperative Oxford 

1,alboratory in the fall of 1990. The Maryland IINR (MD IINR) Natural Resource Police maintain a 

24-hour toll-free line (8001628-9944), and contact us when they receive calls concerning marine 

animals. Through the encl of August 1993, our organization Ilad responded to a total of ninety-o~le 

stranded rrlarine animals, including cetaceans, seals and sea turtles. Fifty-three of these strandings 

were 1:narine niarnnials. of which fifteen were 7i~r.viol1.s. 

I+'igure 13 depicts the Maryland coastline and the location of Tr~rsiol~s strarldings. 

Approximately half of Maryland's Atlantic coastline is part of Assateague Island National Seashore 

and State I'ark. Park rangers patrol the area every day and report any strandings to us. 'l'he rest of 

Maryl;ind's coastline contains Ocean City. Procedures for reporting strandings in Ocean City are 
more conlplicated, as here there are city police. the Coast Guard, Natural Resource Police, the beach 

patrol ant1 the [-lun~anc Society - all of whom work with us on the reporting and recovery of 

s~ra~lci~ngs 

Strandings: 1hr:re were two bottlenose dolphin strandings reported in 1990, two in 1991, 

five in 1992, and six In 1993 (through the end of August). The increasing numbers of strandings may 

be due to the network becoming more established and publicized. The greatest number of bottlenose 

dolphin strandings occurs in the spring (mid-May to early June), with another pulse in mid-August 

tlirough September. 'I'l~ere have also been occasional strandings throughout the remainder of the year. 

one aminla1 in January, one in July, and one in October A breakdown of bottlenose strandings by 

year is presented in 'I'able 6. For 8 of the Tiirsiops we necropsied, the cause of death could not be 

di2terrnlned. Of the '7 bottlellose dolphi~ls for which the cause of death &d be determined, three 

were fisheries-related and four were disease-related (Table 7) 

Only one animal has been known to strand within the Bay (it had gone far up a tributary, 

1:igure 14). This is of' interest to a conservation plan, since the lack of strandings in this area may 

indicate a lower incidence of disease in this particular segment of the population, or it rnay be 

attributal>lle to the fact that fishing gear regulatic~ns differ between the ocean and bay waters. 

Alternatively, the lack of reports may simply be because the recreational boaters and vacation 

homeowners in the Bay area have not been educated about the need to report strandings. In an effort 

to inform the public of' our work, posters are being published for the Maryland, Delaware and 

Virginia stranding networks. 

Stranded marine mammal specimens are photograptled .as >part of data cullect~on and 

docun~entat~on. Morldlometric data are collected to the extent that the cond~tion of the animal will 

al~low. 'I'lssues fhr tox~cology, histology, virology and bacteraology are also taken from fresh 

specmiens Gonads, sromach contents and skulls fro111 each bottlenose dolphin are stored for the 

Srnithsonian. Our tissue request list is referred to, and researchers are contacted to clarify sarnple 

handliing methods andl to arrange for transport In this way, we try to max~niize the information 

obtained from each stranding event. A database which includes species, sex, geographic location, 

probable cause of death and samples collected h~s been created for the stranding network. 

Sightings: '1lle Chesapeake Bay colnprises a significant portion of Maryland's marine and 

estuarine habitat. Dolphi~is, sea turtles and occasionally humphack whales are all sighted in the Bay 

In the Chesapeake Bay, siglitings of live bottlenose dolphins usually occur in late spring (May) 

through fall (September). Although most sightings occur below the Bay bridge and in various 

tributaries., dolphins art: sighted as far north as the Magothy River and I'rospect Bay. 

Along the coaft , bottlenose dolphin s~ght~ngs seem to follow the same temporal pattern4 ac 

those In the Ray, exccpt that here, Turtrop~ havc al\o been ob\etved over the wlnter months 

(Deceniber and January) 
In general, we ar-e receiving more sighting reports from the (Itlesapeake Bay each year. Some 

plausible explanations 1i)llow: 

I) 'l'here is nocv (since 1990) an agency to receive reports ot such sightings; 

2) increasing public awareness along the Bay may increase sighting reports; 

3) perhaps these animals are barometers of changing or improved conditions in the Ray (i.e. 

increased food supply andlor better water quality). 

Figure 13. Strandings Responded to by the Maryland DNR Stranding Network, September 

1990-June: 1993. 
Table 6. Bottlenose Ilolphin Strandings Reported in Maryland, 1990-1993 

1990 1991 1992 1993 Total 

Winter 

Spring 

Summer 

Fall 

TOTAL 2 2 5 h 

Table 7. Probable {Car~es of Dolphin Mortality in Maryland, 1990-1993 

Total 

CAUSE 

Unknown 1 1 3 

Disease 1 1 0 

Fishery 

Interaction 

TOTAL 2 2 5 

Vlrginia (Mark Swingle): What Do Wc Know About Coastal Bottlenose Dolphins in 

Virginia?: Bottlenose dolph~ns, Turszops truncalus, arrlve 111 V~rgln~a waters generally somewhere 

between Apr~l 15 and May 15, niovlng from south to north ds arnb~ent water temperature5 lncredse 

The dolphi~is depart V~rglnla waters between Oct~~ber 15and November 15, rnovlng from north to 

south at, water temperatures decrease 

I,arge, tight grloups of 25-100 dolphins halve been sighted in Virginia coastal waters within I .5 

krn of shore in January and February. It is unknown whether these animals represent an inshore 

moven1t:nt of the offsho1.e population, or remnant, isolated cases of the coastal migratory stock. 

'I'here are no true year-round resident dolphins in Virginia. A li~nited photo-111 study 

conducted in 1980-1981 (Bllaylock, 1984) suggest'cd that at least some dolphins returned to Virginia 

waters ill successive ycars. Much more extensive photo-ID work was carried-out by the Virginia 

Marine Scicnce Museuim (VMSM) in 1989. 'I'his study yieltied ~nucli valuable information about 

bottlenose dolphins. 1:'or example, we now know that a ~iurnber of coastal dolphins return annually to 

Virginia waters. Some dolphins have been sighted since 1989 and some individuals are associated 
with the same dolphins t~om year- to year. One dolphin sighted in 1993 hiitl a red tag in the dorsal tin 

lwhich rnatchecl the description 01' dolphins captured and tagget1 in Virginia I3eac11 clur-ing the 1987 dieI )it' (Mcl .ellan, 11er.s. colnm.). 

Early resi~lts of' analysis ot' the Virginia dolphin photo-ID catalog i~rilicate th;it bottlenose 

tdolphins are moving noirth through Virginia waters in spring, and south in frill. Inclivicluals have heen 

sighted in spring and falll, but not mid-summer, sulggesting that they are not spending the summer 

season in Virginia but rather, probably somewhere further north. Othergroups of clolphins appear to 

spend the summer season in Virginia waters, with concentrations of them occurring around the 

Chesapeake Bay mouth. 

Figure 14. Operation Dolphin Photo-ID Study Area and Distribution of' Tursiops trurtcatus 

Strandir~gs in Virginia, 1988-1993. 
Recent evideixce from coriipariso~~s of llle VMSM VA catalog with the Beaufort, North 

Carolina catalog, suggest that some individual>, which are seasonally present in Virginia during 

sumlner may be sea:;onaliy present in Bcauhrt, North Carolina during winter. Further study of 

plloto-11) cati~logs from areas south and north of Virginia will yield more infornlation or1 tlie endpoinls of seasonal migrations. 

1)istribution and Abundance: On the ocean coast, bottlenose dolphins can be seen at almost 

any X~ocation. They are alnlost always within 4 k111 of shore, and often with 1 km. Within the 

C1ies;ipeake Bay, sighting records and aerial surveys indicate a wide distribution, though they are less 

abundant and more dispersed than on the ocean coast. Surveys have identified areas where doiphins 

are ntost abundant, or "hot spots". These are located around the Chesapeake Bay mouth, in the Cape 

Charles/F~isherman Island area to the north, and the Cape Henry area to the south, with the south side 

bernj; the area of h~gtiest density. Routinely, groups of over a hundred dolphins are sighted in the 

Cape Henry and soutl~ Virginia waters. Calves, are present throughout the summer season, with clear 

evidence of Vlrgin~a waters representing important calving grounds for the coastal migratory stock. 

Operation C)olphin: Operation Dolph~n is a research project of the VMSM designed to study 

the coastal nligratory stock of bottlenose dolphins in Virginia's waters. This study was in~tiated 

following the mass mortality of coastal dolphins along the U.S. east coast in 1987188 More than 200 

dolphins died In Virginia during that mortality event (Mead et al., 1988). Still, little is known of 

their population ecology In this region. The study area for Operation Dolphin includes the 

Chesapeake Bay and Atlant~c Ocean coastal waters of Virginia (Fig. 14). Small boat surveys and 

photo-ID work are co~lcentrated in the nearshore waters of V~rginia Beach. Operation Dolphin's 

long-term goals are: 1) The creation of a photo-ID catalogue for coastal dolphins in Virginia's 

waterq,; 2) analysis of the social structure, movements, distribution and abundance of these dolphins; 

and 3) analysis of strandings in Virginia as they relate to the population biology of the coastal 

migratory stock 

The study period frorn 1989 to the present includes five study years. We hase defined a 

study year as the 184-(lay time period from May 1 to October 31. Coastal bottlenose dolphins are not 

prese~lt during all months of the year; this time period approximates their seasonal range in Virginia. 

Photo-lderitification: Photo-ID efforts were initiated in 1989, and have continued through 

1993 (Table 8). We did not undertake any phoio-ID efforts in 1991. In discussing photo-ID, we 

defi~le a s~ghting as a photographic record. 

Multiple-Year Kesights: Sixteen individuals have been sighted in multiple study years and 

Sour have been sighted over the entire five-year span of the study. Analysis of the multiple-year 

resight data indicates several interesting patterns. Dolphins sighted in multiple study years were 

usuall:y resighted during the same general time periods. Seven dolphins were resighted in subsequent 

years wi1.hin 10 days of their initial sighting date. Orie individual, seen in three study years, was 

resighted within four days of the initial sighting date. Another pattern occurred with three dolphins 

which were sighted before May 31 and after August 15, but not between. One cxarnple was Acid 

Wash ('I't92030), which was initially sighted on August 30, 1992, and resighted on May 3 1, 1993. 

Indivitluals like Acid Wash may be migrating north through the study area in May, and south in 

August. We believe ~liese sighting patterns describe a migratory popuiation whose irldividuals [nay 

Sollow silliilar routes bc.)th spatially and temporally from year to year. 
Tat~lc 8. Results of Operattori Dolphin I'hoto-11) Study 

S1.udy NO. of New Within Multiple Individuals 

Year Trip:; Individuals Year year Sighted I'er 

- Resighted Resights Resights Year 

Total 29 258 20 20 27 8 

(1 8 individuals) (16 individuals) 

LVithin-Year Resights: Eighteen individuals have been resighted within a study year (Table 

9). Analysis of within-year resights from 1992: and 1993 provides residency information on dolphins 

within the study area (Table 9). We define a residency resight as a resight occurring within 46 days 

of a previous sighting. Tlte 46-day period equals 25% of a study year, and incorporates at least three 

trips. Using our definition of residency, five dolphins in 1992 and nine in 1993 were resident. Most 

of thcse resident ind,ividuals were sighted only twice within a study .year. Based on these criteria, the 

average residcrlce times describe a dolphin populatiorl which is transient through Virginia waters. 

'I'ablc 9. Residency Patterns of Identified Ilolphins in the Operation Dolphin Study Area. 

Study No. of Average llldividuals Iiesidency' Number of Average 

Yeal- Iris Days Sighted Pel- liesight Residents Days 

I3etween Year Resident 

-- '['rips - 

1992! 12 12 1 98 7 5 22 6 

1997 12 10 5 125 10 9 21 7 

'A re[,~den~y 1e41ght nrusr occul w~tliln 40 days of tlre prevIou4 slghtlng 

1)istribnlion a11c1 Abundance: Throughout our study. dolplrins were concentrated along the 

lower hay and ocean coastlines within 2.0 km of shore. On July 10, 1993, a shore-based survey of 

dolpllins iri Virginia was conducted (Table 10). Operation 1)olpliili Courit 1993 encompassed a survey 

area vvhich included 4 X observatioli posts (OP's) tiistributcd withiri Virgi~iia's borders frorir North 

Caroli~ria lo Marylalid. A best estirliate of 206 dolphins was tallied frorn a one-Iious period. Some 
observers recorded dolphin numbers for time periods of up to four hours. Enlarging our analysis to 

include all survey data, we estimate that Inore tliian 300 dolphins were present in the survey area. 

During the one-hour period, 65% of the dolphins counted were located south of the Chesapeake Hay 

mouth.. North of the bay, dolphins were found in the areas of Cape Charles and again near tlle 

MarylandIVirginia border. 'The Eastern Shore of Maryland had virtually no dolphin activity observed 

betweien the Cape Charles/Fisherman Island are,a and Assateague Island. The virtual absence of 

do1phi.n~ between these two areas was the most surprising result of the survey. Also, no dolphins 

were sighted in areas of highly concentrated jet-ski activity. 

Table 10. Results of Operation Dolphin Count, 1993 

No. of Average Distance No. of Best Estimate of Estimate of 

Observation Between OP's Observers Dolphins Counted Total 

Posts (OP's) (miles) (in I-hour period) Abundance 

Strandings: VMSM is an authorized Letter of Authorization (LOA) Holder under the 

Northeast Regional Siranding Network, and has been collecting data from dolphin strandings since 

1988. The distribution of strandings shown in F:igure 14 corresponds to observed areas of high 

abundance for live dolphins. Areas such as Cape I-Ienry, where large nurnbers of dolphins are 

observed, also have high numbers of strandings. An analysis of nmonthly strarlding frequency since 

1988 (Fig 15) shows that most dolphins strand during the rnonths of May through October. This 

time per~od also represents the seasonal range of coastal bottlenose dolphins as defined by our study 

year. We believe that most of the strandings outside this seasonal range involve the offshore stock of 

bottlerlose dolphins whrch are present in the stranding record year-round Stra~iding data since 1988 

(Fig. 116) indicate that the total ~iurnber of dolphi~n strandings has increased in 1992 and 1993. 

Whether this increase in strandings is a reflection of an increasing population, new natural or hurnan 

induced mortality, or both, is not yet known. 

Summary: Cbperation Dolphin has begun to develop a picture of the migratory population of 

coastal bottlenose dolphins in Virginia. A catalogue of identifiable dolphins, developed using photoID, has yielded valuable information regarding seasonal residency and yearly population movements. 

We believe this information describes a highly transient dolphin population. Distribution and 

abundance data for Virginia dolphins is scarce and represents an area requiring further investigation. 

Result:; from aerial surveys conducted in the earl!y 1980's produced an estimated abundance of 340 

dolphins (Blaylock, 1984). Operation Dolphin Count yielded similar numbers from a shore-based 

coastal survey in 1993. We believe these wrnbt:rs represent only a niininiurn, and that rigorous 

statewide surveys that include all state waters are needed to measure total abundance. The coastal 

migratory dolphins alorrg the U.S. east coast have recently been listed as depleted under the Marine 

Man~m~al Protection Act. Virginia is the southernmost state o11 the coast whose nearshore population 

of dolphins is exclusively coastal migratory stock. The results of this on-going study may prove to be 

invaluable in the consr- vati ion of this depleted population. 
I- JFMAMJJASOND _I 

Figure 16. Nurnber of Tursiops truncat~~s Str;l~~dings in Virginia (Jan 1988-Oct 1993). 
Status of Bolttler~ose Ilolphir~ Research in Virginia: 'I'he following is an outline of 

researchers involved with bottlenose dolphin research in Virginia, i~lcluding their affiliations and the 

status of their studies to date. 

- Research orgaiizations within the state: 

Virginia Marine Science Museum, Virginia Beach: Mark Swingle 

- NMFS Not-tlieast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network LOA holder 

respond to 90 percent of marine mammal strandings in Virginia 

full level i\~ data and necropsy on all animals 

- Operation Ilcolphin - coastal bottlenose dolphin research 

photo-ID study established and ongoing since 1989 

more than 250 individuals in current catalog 

behavioral records established in 1992 in association with photo-ID 

dolphin cou~~ts encompassing all ocean coastal waters and other selected areas 

dolphin watch educational/survey cruises in Virginia Beach 

aerial surveys and collections of sighting reports 

active education programs and exhibits devoted to dolphins 

J;imes Madison University, Harrisonburg: Dr. Ann Pabst, Bill McLellan, Susan Barco 

active participants in stranding network through expertise with necropsy and response 

training 

active support of Operation Dolphin research through direct participation and graduate 

student suppo~rt 

active in cetacean research, particularly functional n~orphology of delphinids 

Christopher Newport University, Newport News: Sherman Jones 

active photo-ID research In lower Chesapeake Bay arid Eastern Shore since 1992 

65 cruises have yielded a catalog of more than 150 individuals 

Virginia Instituie of Marine Science, Gloucester Point: Jack Musick 

stranding network LOA holder 

active in netvvork primarily in 1980's 

graduate st~tdenthesis on abundance and distribution of bottlenose dolphins in 

Chesapeake Bay in early 1980's 

aerial survey!; in 1980's 

Virginia Tech, 13lacksburg: Carl I'feiffer, Larry Freeman 

supported sl.r;anding network in 1970's and 1980's 

repository flor collected data and speci~llens/tissues throughout the existence of the stranding 

network 
Virginia (Lee iVorgan4, John A. ~usick%arld Charles Potter): Temporal and 

Geogr:lphic 0ccurrenc:es of Tursiops trurlcalus Strandings in Virginia, 1983-1989: Examination 

of stra~idecl marine msumnials can provide valuable data on relative abundance, sl~atial and temporal 

distribution, and life 1.1istory. Records of Virginia strandings have been scattered in the literature 

(Bailey, 1946; I-landley and I'attori, 1947; Wall, 1972; and Potter, 1980). Since Potter (1980), 

collection and reporting of marine mammal records have become more complete. This paper analyzes 

Tursiol,~ truncatus strandings from Virginia between January 1983 and December 1989. 

Mothods: Stranding records were collected in Virginia between January 1, 1983 and 

December 3 1, 1989. Records typically contained information on species, sex, total length (TL), 

locatioin of stranding, date of stranding, and notes pertaining to cause of death or to unusual 

circumstances (net scar:;, line marks, etc.). Personnel from several state and federal agencies 

co1lectt:d data on strantdings which were archived at the National Museum of Natural Histor$., 

Sn~iths,onian Institution, and were designated by catalogue numbers prefixed by letters 'SEAN', 

'USNM', or 'MME'. Virginia records that had not yet been archived at the National Museum of 

Natural History were given an identification code with 'MM' preceding the date of a reported 

strandiing. Total length (TL) measurements were taken from the tip of the snout to the notch of the 

tail. Llach stranded animal was considered an individual event, even when more than one animal 

stranded at the same time. 

Re!jults and Discussion: Bottlenose dolphins, T. truncatus, stranded more than any other species 

during the study period, probably because they occur primarily in shallow coastal waters and are 

Virginia's most common cetacean (Blaylock, 1985; 1988). This species comprised 301 (72.7 percent) 

of the total strandings. An additional 38 animals were tentatively identified as Tursiops. Most 

strandings were reported frorn Virginia Beach (n = 184, or 6 1 .1 percent) and from 1 Iampton (n = 17, 

or 5.6 ]percent) (Table I 1). 

Thc greatest number of reported strandings of Tursiops in Virginia in any single year over the 

study period occurred iri 1987, with an order of magnitude greater mortality than in any of the prior 

three years or the subse~quent two years. Two hundred and eleven Tursiops (70.1 percent of the total 

number of reported marine mammal strandings) were recorded from 13 counties or cities during this 

year. The nlajority of these strandings occurred during the rnonths of August and September, with 

99 and 48 reported, respectively. The August total represented 44.5 percent of the 1987 total and 

31.2 percent of the seven-year total. An increase in Tursiops mortality was also reported in 1987 

along the entire eastern seaboard of the United States (Geraci, 1989; Scott et al., 1988; Keinath and 

Musick, 1987), with over 750 dolphin strandings reported from the summer of 1987 through March 

1988 (Geraci, 1989). 111 Virginia, tnonthly rnortalities returned to norrnal levels by November 1987, 

with orlly one stranding reported from that time until March 25, 1988. One additional animal which 

stranded in 1989 (MMI5 JAN89) showed symptoms similar to dolphin pox observed in dolphins 

involved in the 1987 dic-off event. 

I<stirnates of relativt: mortality for the 1987 epizootic have been as high as 50 percent (Scott et 

al., 1988). l Iowever, this estimate may be high, because the authors assumed that a large percentage 

of the clead were unacccliuilted for. Conversely, most Tur.sio11.s that died during the epizootic may 

have been recorded, because the population affected occurs close to shore arid bccause the dominant 

-- 

'VI I (JIIII,~ IS,:;~ LuL <, of Mdr~r~e c;c-~c,r~c,f:, (',)I l<!<jr! CI~ Wll 11~1111 ,111d M:I~ y 
summer weather pat1:erns along the East Coast usually produce brisk onshore sea breezes every 

after~loon. 'rhus, dead and bloated carcasses should have been blown onshore. Aerial surveys along 

the Virginia and Nortli Carolina coasts in 1987 after the peaks of the epizootic found Tursiops 

abundances to be comparable to those found in surveys made in previous years (Keinath and Musick, 

1987). 

The sex ratios of Tursiops strandings in Virginia were not statistically different from a 50:50 

distribution (using a Chi-square test with correction for continuity) during the 1987 die-off (97 males, 

85 females, and 29 u~nsexed animals). This suggests that the epizootic did not affect the sexes 

differentially. For the seven-year period, there were 145 males, 113 females and 43 unsexed animals 

reported. 

L,ength ranges frorn 141 males were 107-303 cm (%=211.8 cm, SD =46.1 cm). Length ranges 

from 107 females were 102-289 cm (%= 196.5 cm, SD =45.9 cm). In the northern hemisphere, 

lengths for sexually mature males and females range from 245-260 cn~ and 220-235 cm, respectivelv 

(Harrison, 1969; Harri~son et al., 1972; Perrin and Reilly, 1984). Using Perrin and Reilly's criteria, 

40 (28.4 percent) of the males and 40 (37.4 percent) of the females were sexually mature. 

Although T. truncrztus occurs in Virginia waters primarily in the warmer months, strandings have 

been reported in all months except February, when sea water temperatures are coldest (Fig. 17). The 

distribution of Tursiops truncatus strandings in Virginia over the years 1983-1989 are presented in 

Figure 18. 
Table 11. Tursiops tnurzcatus Strandings in Virginia by Year and by CityIConnty. 

- Year 'Total by C~tylCounty 

Location 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Tot. ?Tot. Net 

Tot. 

VA Beach 199 

Hampton 

Northarnptan 

Norfolk: 

York 

G1ouce:;ter 

Isle of 'Wight 

Lancaster 

Newport Ncws 

Unknown Locale 

Middlesex 

Northumberland 

Total 5 22 17 15 211 15 16 30 1 

'?Total -- - 3 34 1 38 

Grand 1Total 339 

Number!? in parentheses are animals thought to be Tursiops, but positive identification was not made. 

'I'otals for these anilnala; ;ire designated by a question mark in the "totals" column. 
1;igurc 17. f'rcclr~enc,y 1)istril)rltiorr of 'l'ursioj?.~ trurzcatus Strirndings in Virgirliil, 1983-1989, by 

klonttl. 

I Unconfirmed T. tnmcafuo 

L Jan Fcb Mar Apr May lun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nav Dec - 

rigure 18. Frequency Ilistrihution of 7ursiops truncatus Strandings in Virginia, 1983-1989, by 

Year3. 

7hn;iops truncatus 

150 

' This is (:ontr.it)ution No. 1852 f'r-orn the School of Marine Science, Virgini;i Instit~~te ot 

Marine Science, College 01' William and Mary. 
North Caro1in;d (Keith A. Rittmaster and Victoria G. Thayer): Site-Specific Monitoring 

of Atlantic Coastal Ba~tllenose Dolphins in the Reaufort, North Carolina Area: Long-term studies 

c)f' bottlenose dolph~ns have contributed nnuch to the available informat~on about the animals' holne 

range, cornrnunity size, and seasonal distribution (Shane, 1980a; Wells, 1986a; Scott et a1.,1990). 

rhese slud~es provide a1 framework from which to design and compare investigations of bottlenose 

ciolph~ns, in other areas In 1986, we [Rittmaster and V. Thayer] began dorsal fin photo-identification 

and direct-count boat trainsects in the waters around Beaufort, North Carolina. We intend to produce 

:seasonal and inter-annuall inidices of abundance, residency, movement patterns, and to estimate 

reproductive rates for a portion of the mid-Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin stock(s). 

The three objectives of this research are to: 

I) Use direct counts from boat transects to detect seasonal habitat preferences and annual 

trends in abundance; 

2) express an annual crude reproductive rate as a percent of neonates (calves of the year) in 

the total number of dolphins observed during the summer months, 

3) use dorsal 1Fin photo-ID methodology to track the residency patterns, social affiliations and 

movements of individual animals. 

Methods: Our study area includes the nearshore (up to 2 miles off the ocean beach), coastal 

and estuarine waters between Cape Lookout and the confluence of the Newport River and Core Creek 

near Beaufort, Carteret County, North Carolina (Fig. 19). A direct-count transect on two 

predetermined track lint:^ is conducted by small boat. One transect is estuarine, running 3.6 nm from 

the Reaufort drawbridge up the Newport River to Core Creek. The second transect is coastal. and 

runs 5.5 nm along the sh~oreline of Shackleford Banks, between Beaufort and Barden Inlets. 

The data we collect include number of dolphins observed, pod size and composition (adults, 

calves, ~~uveniles, and neonates), location, and dorsal fin photographs for individual photoidentification, when po,ssible. Transect counts are tabulated by month and by area (estuarine or 

coastal) for comparison[. 

Features used in designating an animal as a neonate (calf of the year) are as follows: 

1) A small dolplhiri surfacing consistently next to a larger dolphin at least twice it's size 

(a requisite feature); 

2) the presence of fetal folds; 

3) a dorsal fin curved to one side; 

4) an indentation posterior to the skull; 

5) dark grey to nearly black coloration; and 

6) extreme buo yancy 

Feature #I, plus any of the other above features observed, constitute a neonate for this study. 

'I'he percent of neonates of the total number of dolphins observed each summer (June - August) are 

calculated for comparison. 

We conduct dorsal fill photography, environ~nental conditions and animal behavior permitting, 

for each sight~ng. Single lens reflex cameras with winders, and fitted with up to 400 lrlm zoom 
lenses a.1.e irsed. Atter l~rozessing the negatives, we mark all clear shots of distinctive tins for 

printing. Llsable print.s are: catalogued chronologically according to fin features (e.g. top notch, 

leading edge notch, 1-11 notches, 3+ notches, scars, bent fins, and epibionts), and assigned an 

identifying number. "New" fins, those presumably not previously photographed, are assigned the 

next sequential number. Mle enter these numbers, and the dates the photos were taken, into a table to 

analyze res~ght patternis. 

Results: To date, 269 survey transects have been conducted during the past five years - 173 

in the ocean and 96 in the estuary. Figure 20 demonstrates the average number of dolphins per 

nautical mile using cornbined data from both transects to show monthly trends in abundance in the 

study area. These data represent approximately 1,300 on-effort miles during the two survey transects 

over thr: past five years. Our data demonstrate that there are dolphins in the study area year-round, 

with higher numbers present during winter months than in summer months. The highest mean counts 

are 2.9 and 3.2 dolphins per nautical mile in February and November, respectively. The lowest 

monthly mean is 1. I dolphin per nautical mile in May and June. Figures 21 and 22 illustrate trends 

in the mean number of dolphins per nautical mile for each month in the estuarine and coastal 

transects, respectively. Habitat preference seems to shift from the nearshore ocean during the winter 

months to the estuarine tidal rivers in the summer. 

Figure 19. Map of the Beaufort, North Carolina Study Area, Irlcluding Both Coastal Oceanic 

and Estuarine Transects 
The reprocluct~ve rates observed to date 111 this area are shown In 121gure 23 After a high 

value of 16.2 was ohserved In 1989, tlle rate tnoderated over the next 3 years before showing a 

constderable Increav: to 10 In 1993 

Since 1986, we have catalogued approximately 1,200 good, usable photos of dolphins with 

distinctive dorsal fins. Our numerical sequence is currently up to 830, but this may represent as few 

as 200-400 individuals, as many numbers have now been eliminated and many resights may yet be 

detected. Patterns th~at have emerged so far are strong seasonal site fidelity, but no evidence of yearround residency. Some individuals have been photographed over successive summers and others over 

successive winters, with no intermixing detected. 

Discussion: The transect data shown in figures 21-23 highlight the seasonal trends in 

abundamce and shifting habitat preferences of bottlenose dolphins within the Beaufort study area. 'This, 

in combination with evidence (obtained from the photo-ID coniponent of the study) for a lack of yearround residency in the study area, suggests that most, if not all of the dolphins that use these waters 

are of the coastal l~lrgratory stock(s). 

The high reproductive rate of 16.2 observed in 1989 may reflect a compensatory response to 

the decreased population size followi~lg the 19871 1988 die-off (Scott et al., 1988). However, 

significant ii~terannu~al variability in reproductive rates has been observed in other studies of localized 

dolphi~i populations (e.g. Scott, Wells and Irvine, 1990). It is possible that by monitoring 

reproductive rates, both variations in population parameters such as die-offs, and the progress of 

recovering populations can be detected. Monitoring reproductive rates may also highlight nursery 

areas and regional variations. We suspect that the confluence of the Newport River and Core Creek 

may be a "nursery area" similar to the nursery areas described by Scott et al. (1990) in the Sarasota, 

Florida area. 

Identifying individuals enables residency patterns,,niigration patterns, and social affiliations to 

be analyzed. Dorsal fin photos of animals from the Beaufort area are compared to photos from other 

areas in order to understand movements along the coast that may represent migration patterns. To 

help scx and track indilviduals, reference frames are photographed after observation of a suspected 

female with calf. In {.his way the calving interval and separation age of the calf from the cow (or 

weaning) may be detected. For example, a cowlneonate pair was first photographed in the summer of 

1988. The mother was observed with a progressively larger calf over the following two years. Sht: 

was tht:n seen without a. calf in 1991, and in 1992 she was not observed at all. During 1993, five 

years later, this ailirnal was photographed with another neonate. Associations of pairs of animals we 

suspect to he li~ales have been photo-documented to persist for at least three consecutive summers. 

Increasled photographic effort locally, coupled with comparisons of photos obtained from other study 

ares, will likely answer questions regarding the range and migratory endpoints of individual dolphins. 

as well as the habitat LISIZ~ by the coastal migratory stock(s). 

Conservation Notes: A sign reading "FOR SALE - WATERFRON'T PROPEII'TY.. . " was 

recently posted a1 the cnnfluence of Core Crcek arid the Newport River. This is rnost lilicly ;I rlursery 

area for bottlenose dolpliins. Any surnmer day, 15-30 dolphins wiih neonates and other- calves can be 

observec.f iri this area within 100 rneters of' the riverbank. 'This appears to bc esserltial habitat 111;tt 

faces irreversible ch;znge with the potential sale and development of tlie adjacent property. 
I>it'lkr.ent inlets uscd hy bottlenose dolphins in the irurnediate vicinity of our stl~dy area, 

13e;tuf'or-1. f3arilcrl ;in(! I)r-rrln Irilets. are presently undergoing various levels of development, dredging 

;i~tivity and I,oat tr-atljc. l'he relationsllip betweer1 level of'dredging and potential hahitat 

~no~lifici~tiorl, and use of' these areas by dolphins warrants tirrther. study. Also, rnost individuals that 

we talked to we[-e ur.~l;l~niliar with any laws that relate to how hoaters should operate around dolphins, 

nor- were they aware (IS the Marine Marnmal I'rotection Act and its intluence upon the regulation of 

these activities. This highlights the need for an educational campaign as part of any bottlenose 

dolphin conservation plan. The development of enforceable regulations, in addition to research, 

shoulti also be priorities. 

Conclusion: Our future research plans include continuation of our direct-count transects and 

analy~iny: the results fix seasonal and inter-annual trends, estimating reproductive rates in other areas 

and hdbitats to identify nursery areas andlor regional variances. and intensifying and expanding our 

photo;;raphic effort outside our current study area and comparing our photos with those from other 

regior~s. 

1;igurce 20. Mean Number of Dolphins Sighted per Nautical Mile During Dirtut-Count Transects 

in the Rcaufort, North carol in;^ Study Area, March 1988-Dc~emher 1993 (Coastal and Estuarine 

'I'ransects Cornbinedl) . 
Ici;gnre 21. Rlleari Numbcx of 1)olphins Sighted per Nauticll Mile During Direct-Count Estu;irine 

'1r;rns~ts in the Heailfort, North Carolina Study Area, March 1988-L)c~emher 1993. 

3.78 . N Is the number of nautical miles surveyd 

3.60 . 

3.25 

3.00 

2.76 

2.50 

2.25 

2.00 

1.76 , 

1.50 - 

1.26 

1.001 . 

0.76, 

0.50) 

0.25 

o,w, N-14 N.2 

Jan F Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aw 8ep OCt Nov DCC 

Figure 22, Mean Number of Dolphins Sighted per Nautical Mile During Direct-Count Coastal 

'I'1ra11st~Ls in the Beaufort, North Carolina Study Area, February 1990-December 1993. 
Figure 23. Percent Neoma1.t~ of the Total Number of Dolphins Sighted During the Strn~nler. 

Months in the Beaufort, North Carolina Study Area, hy Year, 1989-1993. 

Marine Mammal Strandings in North Carolina (Victoria G. Thayer and Keith A. 

Kittmaster): Along the ~itlantic coast of the United States, North Carolina is seconcl only to Florida 

iin the number of marine: ma~mmal strandings each year. This is partially due to the fact that the cold 

L.abrador Current extension and warm Gulf Stream meet here, and because Cape Hatteras, Cape 

l.,ookout and Cape Fear jut out into the Atlantic Ocean, forming physical barriers for sorne species. 

For both tlora and fauna, North Carolina is the southern limit of distribution for some ternperate 

:species, ant1 the northern limit of distribution for some subtropical species. This results in a high 

diversity of rnarine mam~mal strandings of both ternperate and tropicallsubtropical species, including 

:sperm whales, Physrter nracrocephulus, long- and short-finned pilot whales, Glohicc~phala .spp., both 

dwarf and pygmy sperm wh;iles, Kogia spp., Kisso's dolphin, Grampus grisi<us, striped ancl spotted 

dolphins, Sl'enella spp., common dolphins, Delphinus dclphus, and humpback whales, Megaptera 

movaeangl iae, ancl tin whales, Balaenoptr<ru physulus. 

l'he total number of reported strandings in North Carolina was 89 during 1092 (Fig. 24) and 

123 during 1993 (Fig. 25). Bottlenose dolphins comprised 59.6 percent (N=53) of the total nurnber 

of strantlings (N=87) in 119912 (Fig. 24), and 60.2 percent (N=74) in 1993 (Fig. 25) 

l'he monthly distribution of bottlenose dolphin strandings is shown in Figure 26. Peaks in 

:,trandings occur in spring arid fall months, with comparatively few occurring during the summer. 
ilata on strandings anid their potential causes are limited and are only beginning to be 

tlt:veloped in North Carollina. Stranding response and data collection could be irnproved in a number 

o~t' ways: 

I) Decrease tirnt: to respond to reports of strandings; 

2) increase numbe:r of animals examined by experienced personnel; 

3) initiate a prot~ocol for consistent data collection and formatting; 

4) clomplete human interaction sheet (Haley and Read, 1994) for every stranding; 

5) encourage volluntary reporting of fishery interactions (by tisherrnen involved, or by 

others); 

6) provide feedback information to volunteers, from recipients of tissues; 

7) educate stranding network volunteers; 

8) iimprove fundir~g (at least to supply and reimburse volunteers). 

Among the items that should he collected from each stranding, we recommend: 

Skin in DMSO lbr mtDNA; 

skull for morphometrics; 

dorsal tin phottos; 

. tissue samples (s,tomach, gonads at minimum); 

parasites. 

Protocols either e~iis~., orneed to be developed for these collections so that each stranding 

team is plrepared to take samples/measurements in a similar manner and format. 

Figure 24. Percent Bottlenose Dolphin Striindings of Total Marine Mammal Striindings in 

North Ciir(~~lina, 1992 
t;igul-e 25. I'ercerlt Rotller~osc Dolphin Strandings of '1ol;ll hlarine M;inlrn:il Strundings in 

liorth Cirrolin;~, 1993 

- - -- - - I OTHER MARINE MAMMALS ] 

Figure 26. Monthly Distribution of Bottlenose Dolphin Strandings in North Carolina, 1992- 

1003, and Evidence of Ilurnan Interaction 

INTERACTION 
Pvlarine Manirllall Research and Stranding Response in South Carolina 

(Sally Murphy): Ther-e have been no organized statewide surveys specifically for bottlenose dolphins 

in Sou!th Carolina, ~11:hou;gh NMFS has conducted aerial surveys to estimate herd sizes and density of 

the poi~ulations for the Savannah River, Port Royal and St. Helena Sounds (Carew, 1982). 

Beginning in August 1992, aerial surveys were conducted monthly to document stranded sea turtles 

and marine mammals, mainly over the undeveloped portions of the South Carolina coastline, from the 

entrance of Port Royal Sc~und in Beaufort county, to Debidue Beach in Georgetown County. The 

northward leg of the surveys was flown approximately one mile offshore. We used this part of the 

survey to document the seasonal occurrence of sea turtles and marine mammals in nearshore waters. 

The plane was flown at an altitude of 1,000 feet, at a speed of 120 knots. The monthly counts of 

bottler~ose dolphins are prescnted in Table 12. 

C)ur departmen~t was asked by NMFS to conduct aerial pelagic surveys during April and May 

of 1993, to document the density and distribut~on of leatherback turtles along the South Carolina 

coast. Other sea turtle<$ and marine mammals, ~nostly bottlenose dolphins, were also counted on these 

flights. 'The flight path consisted of line transects, perpendicular to shore for eight nautical miles. 

The st(irt and end poiints alf each transect were six nautical miles apart. The return leg to the airport 

was flow,n parallel to shore. The results of these surveys are presented in Table 13. 

Table 12. Nearshore Sightings of Bottlenose Dolphins in South Carolina During Aerial Surveys, 

1992-1993 

Jan Feb Idair Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Table 13.. Sightings of Bottlenose Dolphins in South Carolina During Dedicated Leatherback 

Turtle Aerial Surveys, April-May 1993 

Survey Datc Nurnber Seen on 'Transect Number Seen on Parallel Path 

April 22 

May I 

May !i 

Not Flown 

Not Flown 

Not Flown 

May 12 8 10 

May 20 46 0 

May 27 Not Flown -- 0 
We hope to find fi~nding to obtain a po~nt-in-time index tor the bottlenose dolph~n populnt~on In 

Calllbogue Sound by means of a combination of aerial, boat and land-based surveys. Wlthin the scope 

ojt this project, a determination of actual population numbers will not be attempted. We hope to 

acquire only docurnentatic.)~~ of relative numbers, distribution, and the acquisition of a benchmark 

survey number which can be useful in the long-term monitoring of the population. The use of 

rr~~lltiple indices will enablt: an evaluation of changes in rates of observation for any one method. For 

e~ample, when dolphin feeding by the public alters the behavior of dolphins around boats, one might 

expect boat surveys to show higher rates of observation relative to the other methods. With a 

multiple ratio index, this can be evaluated. All observations will be used to identity areas of 

c~o~ncentranion or high use. 

S1,randing Networks: The South Carolina Marine Mammal Stranding Network was 

established in 1991 undeir the authority of the Wildlife Department. Prior to this time, there was no 

organized network, and coverage was spotty. The number of bottlenose dolphin strandings on the 

coast of Slouth Carolina tiuring 1970-1993 is presented in Table 14. The distribution of dolphin 

stranding:; for 199 1-19931 is shown in Figure 27. 

Figure 2'7. 1)istribution of Dolphin Str;lridings in South Carolina, 1991-1993 

Our network has a state coordinator, a NMFS representative, an archivist at the Charleston 

IUuseum~, and about 30 members. It is divided into two groups: one to respond to dead str-anclect 

;inimals and collect Level A data, and the second, response teams, to respond to live stranded 

;ininials. 'I'here are 22 i~~dividuals in the first group, including 18 volunteers ancl foul- wildlife 

department personnel. Some of' the volunteers also collect jawbories for NMFS. I'r-irir~ing workshops 

(ire held each year for \~c'~lunteers with lxtters of Authorization (LOAS). 'I'he state c:oordinator and 
NMFS representative review the items on the data for~n, sexi~ig techniques, species identification, and 

the techniques used tlo collect measurements. 

There are three response teams, one each for the northern, central and southern sectlons of 

the coast. Each resplorlse team consists of a WildX~fe Llepartnient biologist, one or two veterinarians 

and a col~servation officer. The central response Ream also has a public relations specialist. Response 

team rne~nbers also s~upply jawbones, tissue samples, andlor entire carcasses to the NMFS Charleston 

Laboratory. In 1991, Dr. Joseph Geraci, V.M.D , conducted a seminar and demonstration necropsy 

for the members of the response teams. 

Table 14. Bottlenosle Dolphin Strandings in South Carolina, 1970-1993 

-- - 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May .lun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 

-- - 

1993 2 ll 1 6 3 1 4 0 3 0 7 6 34 

;! 3 2 5 2 3 1 4 1 5 0 

0 1 2 2 i'2 2 I 1 1 3 

NO STANDARDIZED NETWORK PRIOR TO 1991 

i! 3 4 1 1 2 3 

1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

1 1 I I 2 2 2 

2 I 1 4 12 23 17 

1 3 

The Wildlife Department ~uaintains a I-800 nurnber 24 hours a day, so that stra~lding network 

me~nbers or the public can report stranding events and receive an irnlllediate ~respor~se. We have 
upgradcd our equipment in order to salvage larger specimens. This includes a fhur-wheel-drive 

pickup truck with winch, fully equipped for necropsy, and a two-axle trailer for transporting mediumsized whales. 

In addition to the volunteer network, as mentioned previously, monthly aerial surveys are 

tlown to search for carcasses on the more remote sections of the coastline. The aerial beach surveys 

are flown ,at 300 feet and 100 knots, just over the surf zone. Both stranded sea turtle and marine 

mammal carcasses are documented. 

Our newsletter, "Marine Mammal Matters in South Carolina", is distributed quarterly to network 

members auld to other interested parties in government and private conservation groups. The 

newslet~er contains the total number of strandings to date, announcements to network members and 

information from NMI'S on any carcasses that have been necropsied. 

Population antd Behavioral Patterns of Bottlenose Dolphins in Bull Creek, South Carolina 

(Ric Petricig): The goal of this study was to determine the population size, spatial distribution arid 

behavior of free-rang~ng Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, 7hrsiops trzuzcatus. in Bull Creek, Beaufort 

County, South Carolina (Fig. 28). Analysis of dorsal fin photographs has resulted in the 

identification of 67 individual dolphins within the study area. Of these 67 individuals, 22 have been 

determiiiecl to be permanent year-round residents of the study area. Temporal positions of identifiable 

Individuals coupled with associations with other identifiable dolphins were used to determine the 

existence of pods or soc~al units within the population and to track patterns of movements within the 

study areas. 

Dc~lphins within this study area employ an interesting foraging strategy. Groups of two or 

more dolph~ns will, in a sylnchronized effort, force a school of fish onto mud banks, beaching 

the~nselves In the process. While on the banks, the dolphins then pick up and eat the stranded prey 

For purposes of this study, this behavior is referred to as "strand-feeding". Observations during all 

seasons since 1988 have revealed that the "strand-feeding" behavior in the study area was limited to 

those anitnals that were long-term or permanent residents, and that foraging pods were composed of 

relatively stable subgroups within this populat~on. 

Occurrences of the "strand-feeding" foraging technique generally took place within two hours 

of low tide, when the t;lanks were exposed. During the study period, the use of the strand-feeding 

technique was independent of water temperature, which ranged from 9 to 33°C. Turbidity of the 

water variecl, but strancl-feeding only occurred when the recorded Secchi depth was less than 50c1n. 

Light-er~hancing niglit-vision equipment revealed that the dolphin's repertoire of behaviors within the 

study area was independent of the varying light levels that occurred during the day-night cycle. 

Occurrences of strand-feeding, other foraging and sc.)cial behaviors and movements within the study 

area were ]regulated by the tidal stage. 

Detailed sonar prof~les of bottom topography at repeatedly used sites have revealed the 

existence of submerged structures that result in concentrations of prey fish. Tlie selection of strandfeeding sites were therefore determined by prey location, and strand-feeding did not involve herding 

of the prey. 
Figure ;!8. 'I'he Study ArcLa in Bull Crt~k, Bcs~nfort County, South Carolina 

Georgia (Charles Maley): Georgia has a relatively short (150 km) coastline with a series of 

harrier islands separated by deep sounds and rivers. High tidal amplitude (mean range = 2.2m) and 

tlat bottom topography create a vast estuarine system, encompassing over 122,OO ha of salt marsh and 

related marine habitat. Bottlenose dolphins can be found along the coast on a year-round basis, both 

inshore and offshore. 

At present, there is no comprehensive population estimate of the resident or migratory stocks 

of bottlenose dolphins in Georgia. Aerial surveys were conducted by the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources (GDNR) to locate right whales in their calving grounds, from January through 

March in 1993. 'These surveys were exploited to provide information on bottlenose dolphins. The 

surveys coinsisted of 24 km east-west transects flown at 3-minute intervals at an altitude of 0.23 krn, 

and at 160 kmlhr. Similar surveys were tlown in the spring, in order to estimate leatherback turtle 

abundance in the coastal waters of the state, this time with 12.8 krn transects tlown at 0.3 km. In 

both cases, irlciclental sightings of Tursiops were recorded in terrns of numbers and location (Fig. 29). 

'The reports inclicate a peak in abundance offshore during the month of April. This was not, however, 

a directed census of co;sstal dolphins. 

A c:omprehensi~ve survey [The Dolphin Project] is currently underway to obtain photographic 

information and relative abundance and distribution data for dolphins in Georgia's rivers, sounds, and 

creeks. This cluarterly boat-based survey is in the fourth year of a ten-year volunteer program. Up 

to 90 individual dolphirns have been catalogued in an opportunistic photo-1.D. effort (Odell, pers. 

comrn.). Additionally, aerial surveys have been tlown for the past 2- 112 years, with a single line 

transect tlown 1.2 km lt'rom shore, starting at Tybee Lighthouse, or approximately 32"N. latitutle, 

switching to multi-line spot surveys at the sounds, and then continuing south to St. Mary's at the 

I:loricla L3orcler. The return leg north follows the rnain channel of the Intracoastal W;itcrway. 
Stra ndirlg Kwo~rtls: Ilolphin stranding records have been collected in Georg~a since the 

1930's. but standardized surveys have been instituted only recently (Fig. 30). 'I'he Marine Mamlnal 

Stranding Network in Gmrgxa is organized through the GDNR, with assistance from private citl~cns, 

the National Park Servlce, U.S. F~sh and Wildlife Service, Curnberland Island Museurn, the c~ty of 

'I'ybee Islantl. the National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Catherines Island Foundation and Little St. 

Simons Islantl, Ltd. Increased boating activity and public awareness on the coast has resulted in a 

steady increase in the number of reported strandings. Since 1981, GDNR response to reports from 

the public of stranded dolphins has instilled greater confidence that these reports will be investigated, 

even in the ]most remote locations on the coast. 

Based upon stranding reports for bottlenose dolphins, mortality seems to be lowest in late 

spring and autumn, high~er in December and January, and peaking in March and April (Fig. 31). 

This coincides with the highest relative abundance of Tursiops observed during the winter and spring 

aerial surve~ys of 1993 (Fig. 29). 

Figure 29. Sightings of' Bottlenose Dolphins During Right Whale and katherh;lek Turtle 

Surveys in 1993 

u - 

January February April 
l'igure 30. llistoric;~l Stranding Rcxords for 'lirniops truncrrtus in Gabrgia, 1972-1993. 

Figure 31. IMonthly Stranding Trends for Bottlenose Dolphins in Georgia, 1989-1993 

- 

- 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I 
Florida (Gill Brooks): Section 15.038 of' the Florida Statutes (FS) designates the bottlenose 

tlolphin as the Florida state "saltwater" mammal, a~ld states that it is unlawful to catch, atternpt to 

catch, niolest, i~ljure, k:ill, annoy, or o~llerwisc interfere with the normal activity and well-being, of 

mammalian dolphins ($370.12(3) 13). 'I'hel-e are exceptions, related to research and collection, that 

require a permit from t.11e Division of Marine Reso~~rces of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP). The statutes mandate that the FDEP shall develop and implement programs to 

manage, protect, restore, and conserve marine rna~lxmals ($372.7701 FS). 

The FDEP's Marine Mammal Management Program: The FDEP has both a marine 

rnam~nal rnanagernent progran and a marine mammal research program. The Office of Protected 

Species Management (OPSM) oversees the management of the endangered West Indian manatee, 

'I'richec/l~u.r: manatzu, dolphins, and other cetaceans. Current management efforts at OPSM include the 

rmplementation of manatee protection speed zones, coordination of county manatee protection plans. 

protection of marine mammal habitats, and the review of environmental permits in those counties 

where rnar1;ltees occur. 

Marine Marnrnal Research in Florida: The Resource Recovery and Assessment Section of 

the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) conducts research on marine mammals in Florida. 

Although the major emphasis is on the West Indian manatee, the endangered northern right whale, 

Euhalac~rza glacialis, as well as other cetaceans such as bottlenose dolphins, are also subjects of 

research i11 this program. The Resource Recovery and Assessment Section has four major areas of 

research : 

1) I>evelopment of a Geographical Informatio~~ System (GIS) database; 

2) Telemetric and satellite tracking of rnanatees on the west coast of Florida; 

3) manatee and marine rnammal rescue, salvage, and necropsy; and 

4) Assessment of population and distribution of manatees by using data obtained from aerial 

surveys. 

Information specific to bottlenose dolphins is collected as ancillary,data during aerial surveys 

and during the process of recovering, salvaging and necropsying marine manimlals. All marine 

mammal stranding data are provided to the Southeast I1.S. Marine Mammal Stranding Network 

(SEUS). .All survey data are incorporated into the IZMRI's GIS. 

Tlle Aerial Survey Progranl: The Aerial Survey Program staff collect bottlenose dolphin 

data during rnanatee surveys and right whale surveys. We have a minimum of 

I-year's data from aeri,al surveys documenting nlanatee distribution in Florida's Atlantic coast 

counties and a majority of the Gulf coast counties ('Table 15). Coastal, riverine, estuarine, and oceanfront waters were surveyed twice-monthly. This information has been entered into the FMRI GIS 

database. Because manittees are the target species of this research, dolphin data have not as yet been 

evaluated. These data call be used to assess resident populations within the survey areas, and will 

provide information on coastal migratory dolphins as well. For example, in the rnanatee distribution 

surveys of St. Johns, Flagler and Volusia counties, 1,787 bottlenose dolphins were sighted during 44 

flights rnade from March 1991 through November 1993 (Table 16). 'The average number of 

bottlenose tlolphins sighted was 40.6 per survey, ranging from 3 to 95. 
'Table 15. Manatee Aerial Surveys Along the Atlantic Coast of Florida 

- - County Survey Agency -- -- Start Date End Date No. of Flights 

Nassau FDEP 0c; 1986 Oct 1988 5 2 

Duval 

St. Johins 

Flagler 

Volusia~ 

Volusia 

Brevard 

(Indian River) 

Rrevarcl 

(Banana River) 

Brevarcl 

(Banana 

R~ver) 

Ind~an li~ver 

St Lucie 

(Inter Inlet) 

St Luc~e 

Mart~n 

St. 1-ucic 

Pal111 BEACH 

Palm Reach 

FDEP 

FDEP 

May 1988 

Mar 1991 

Apr 1988 

Nov 1993 

USFWS 

USFWS 

Dec 1985 

Dec 1985 

Jan 1987 

Jan 1987 

USFWS Dec 1985 

Jar1 1977 

Jan 1987 

NASA Ongoing 

FDEP Dec 1987 

FDEP Nov 1990 June 1993 

USFWS Jan 1987 

Palm Beach 

County 

Broward County 

FDEP 

Dade County 

June 1993 

Nov 1991 

Jan 1988 

Mar 1990 

July 1993 

Mar 1990 

Ongoing 

Broward 

Broward 

Dade 

FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

lJSFWS == United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

7'1-~e FDEP ca~~lducted right whale surveys along Florida's east coast during the winters 

(Llece~ilbcr - April) o:f 1987-1 988, 1991- 1992, and 1992-1993. The survey area extended from the 

C;eorgia/l;lorida border at the St. Marys River Entrance Channel (Nassau County) to Riviera Beach 

(Palm Reacll County) in 1087-1988, and to Sebastian Inlet (Brevard County) in 199 1-1992 and 1992- 

1993. Sightings of all right whales and other species of concern, for example, hurnpback whales, 

dolphins ('l'able 17), other cetaceans, sea turtles, etc., were recorded. Any observed potential threats, 

a11 vcssels, fishing gear such as gill nets, oil slicks, etc., were also recorded. 

Based upon a preliminary review of the right whale surveys, the nurnber of bottlenose 

dolph~ns documented Increase from February through March, but then decrease by the end of April 

('Table 18) These data were tabulated by latitude, and showed a pattern of increasing dolph~n 
sightings in the southt:rn part of the survey area in February and early March. The ~luniber of 

sightings continued to increase and also shifted in location to the north, in March and early April. 

lhis pulse of bottlenose dolphins rnoved north and out of the Florida coastal waters by the end of 

April. Otliers have also reported a northward migration of bottlenose dolphins from the wintering 

area ot'f of Florida's east coast (Scott, Burn anti Hansen, 1988). 

1993-94 Survey Plans: The FDEP Right Whale Surveys for the winter of 1993-1994 will 

begin earlier than in past seasons, (November 15), and will continue until April 15. Survey efforts 

have been increased from twice monthly to once per week. We are also considering surveying once 

per month from May lo October, outside the right whale season. By extending this survey, the fall 

migration of coastal bottlenose dolphins into northeast Florida waters should be detected. 

Manatee surveys have provided data on the coastal resident dolphin population along Florida's 

Atlantic coast. The FDEF will review these data and extract dolphin information. 

Table 16. Nuniber of Bottlenose Dolphins Tursiops truncatus Sighted During the Florida Marine 

Research Institute's Aerial Surveys of Manatees in the Ocean, Estuarine and Riverine 

Waterways of St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia Counties 

-- Month 1991 1992 I993 

-- -. 

Jan No Survey 9 77 

Feb No Survey 13 15 

24 77 

Mar 30 86 95 

42 

AP~ 14 3 6 4 8 

13 37 

May 39 32 42 

4 1 46 

Jun 40 25 20 

3 9 

Jul No Survey 44 No Survey 

6 1 

August 45 No Survey 24 

47 50 

Sep 13 No Survey 7 5 

30 3 8 

Oct 73 No Survey 76 

27 45 

Nov 16 No Survey 47 

44 

Dec 9 45 No Survey 

3 8 
'I'he Manatee and Marine Mamnlal Kescue/Salvage and Necropsy I'rogram: This 

program isbased at th'e Florida Marine Resource Institute (FMRI) Marine Marnmal Pathobiology 

1,aborarory (MMPL), located on the carnpus of llckerd College i11 St. I'etersburg. 'I'he laboratory has 

a pathobiologist and 3 biologists on staff. All nianatee carcasses are transported to MMPI, for 

necropsy. This facility also has regional field staticn~is in Jacksonville, Melbourne, Tequesta and Port 

Charlotte. Each field station is staffed by a biologist and weekend support staff. The staff at the 

MMPL and the field stations coordinate manatee salvages and rescues for the entire state. The 

MMPL and its field stations are also part of tht: Southeastern U.S. Marine Mamrilal Stranding 

Network (SEUS) in Florida. Staff assist on or coordinate rescues of live, stranded (Code 1) marine 

mammals. Fresh cetacean carcasses (Code 2) are transported to MMPL or oceanaria for thorough 

necropsies. Moderatelly fresh to very decomposed (Code 3 through 5) carcasses are necropsied by 

field staff or staff of other associated organizations. Data are provided to the SEUS Marine Mamnal 

Stranding Network. 

Table 17. Total Nuniber of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, Sighted During the Florida 

Marino Research Institute's Aerial Surveys of Right Whales along Florida's East Coast from St. 

Mary's River Entrance Channel to Riviera Beach in 198711988 and to Sebastian Inlet in 1992 

and 1993 

Month 19871 1988 1991 1993 - -. 

Dec 179 No Survey No Survey 

Jan 24 3 15 

4 8 44 4 8 

Feb 200 63 58 

70 

Mar 275 573 26 1 

316 

Apr No Survey 424 308 

11 1 60 
'I'able 18. Breakdo\qrn of Number of Bottlerlose Dolphins, Tursiops truncutus, Sighted During the 

17lorida Marine Hesearcli Institute's Aerial Surveys of Right Whales along Florida's East coast 

1'rorn St. Mary's River ICntrance Channel to Riviera Reach in 198711988 and to Sebastian Inlet 

in 1992 and 1993, by Date and Survey Leg 

-- -. Survey ~attr- Total Nearshore Leg Offshore Leg 

211 Dec 198;r 179 

12 Jan 1988 

28 Jan 1988 

22 Feb 1988 

16 Mar 1988 

01 Jan 1992' 

02 Feb 1992' 

14 Feb 1992 

03 Mar 19922 

01 Apr 1992 

16 Apr 1992 

01 .Ian 1993' 

29 Jan 1993 

19 Feb 1993 

24 Feb 1993 

10 Mar 1993 

30 Mar 1993 

13 Apr 1993 

30 Apr 1993 

I Southern terminus of survey was Pence De Leon Inlet. 

Survey had navigational problems because local LORAN station was down for a portion of the 

survey. 

' Sout1it:rn terminus of survey was Port Canaveral Entrance Channel. 

IIOW CAN STRANDED ANIMALS I3E MORE FULLY UTII,IZED? 

A. Bottlenose Dolphin Strandings Along the East Coast of Florida: What Do We Know, 

What Can We I,earnT? (Nelio B. Barros and Daniel K. Odel15): Strairdi~igs often provide the only 

available scource for I-nost types of biological data on cetaceans, riot only for poorly known species, 

but also for the lriost common of inshore cetaceans, tlie bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. 

I~lforrnalion on several aspects of natural history can be obtained froin a strarlded dolphin (I-leyning, 

1987; Odell, 1987; hlc1,ellan and Driscoll, this report), particularly if the animal is freshly dead. 

I'll(.: establ~shlnent of the reg~onal niarlnc ~na~nmal stra~ld~ng network$ In tlie U S dates back 

to 1977 (Reynolds and Odell, 199 1) These networks are composed of volunteer ~rldlv~duals of 

variou\ bnckgrounds, and a, a reult, collection ot b~ological data from strand~ngs varles, both 111 
qu;intity and quality. Recornme~idations for improving the efficiency of the networks have recently 

been proposed (Reync:~ltls and Odcll, 1991; Wilki~ison, 1991), hut lack of adequate funding will 

prohably play an iu~portaut role in the impletuentacion of these reco~nmendations. In ten years of 

existence, the Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network (SEUS), operating from 

Texas to North Carolina and extending to Puerto P.ico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, documented 2,381 

cases of strandings and sightings (Odell, 1991). During that period, nearly half (45 percent) of all 

records made were folr the coast of Florida (Odell, 1991). 

Bottle~lose dolphins stranded along the east coast of Florida have provided the basis for 

studies on pollutant burdens (King, 1987), mortality patterns (Hersh et al., 1990a), food habits 

(Barros and Odell, 1990), and external morphology and osteology (Hersh et a]., 1990b), among 

others. Though most studies have concentrated on a resident population of dolphins inhabiting the 

Indian River Lagoon System (IRL) in the central coast of the state (Odell, 1989; Odell and Asper, 

1990; Rudin, 1991; Spellman, 1991), at least three other populations (or stocks) occur in this area: 

dolphins resident in nearshore waters, dolphins seasonally present in the area (members of the 

migratory stock), and dolphins occurring in offshore waters. The nearshore and the offshore stocks 

can be distinguished by external morphometrics, hematology, food habits and parasite load (Hersh and 

Duffield, 1990), but most of these tools are not useful in distinguishing between the nearshore stocks 

(see Table 19). Genetic variation among localized nearshore populations in the U.S. Atlantic coast 

Table 19. Characters Distinguishing the Various Stocks: of Bottlenose Dolphins along the East 

Coast of Florida 

--- - 

Nearshore Offshore 

Indian River Coastal Oceanic 

Lagoon 

ECTC)PARASITES 

Barnacles XXX1 XXX XXX 

Cyamids XXX 

ENDOPARASITES 

'Trematodes 

Nematodes 

Cestocies 

MORPHOMETRY 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

SHARK (Isistius) RI'TES XXX 

FOOL) I-IABlTS Fish Fish, Neritic Pelagic Cephalopods 

Cephalopods -- - -. 

'A single case in 18 years of stranding coverage 
has been recently reported (1)owling and Brown, 1993), thereby suggesting that ~uitocho~ldrial DNA 

samples may be useful i11 determination of stock identity. 

In the central east coast of Florida, Barros (1993) found differences in food habits between 

resident IRL, dolphins, dolphins occurring in nearshore ocean waters, and offshore dolphins. 

Dolphins belonging to these stocks prey primarily on fish, fish and squid, and squid, respectively 

(Table 19). Data pertaining to dolphins stranding 0x1 open-ocean beaches probably refer to both the 

resident and migratory stocks, and more samples art: needed to investigate whether these can be 

separated on the basis of food habits. On-going analysis of carbon and nitrogen isotopes, a longerterm inclicator of dietary preferences (Ostrom et al., 1993), collected from stranded animals in this 

area may support additional evidence of the usefu1nt:ss of food habits data in distinguishing among 

stocks of bottlenose doliphins. 

The 198711988 mortality event along the Atlantic coast of the United States involved 

primarily the migratory stock of bottlenose dolphins, and may have caused a depletion of 50 percent 

or more of the stock (Scott, Burn and Hansen, 1988). Bottlenose dolphin strandings in Florida 

increased significantly during that event (Table 20). Differences in stranding figures between preand post-~~iortality event (e.g., Nassau and Duval counties) are likely explamed by the increase 111 

stranding network participants and a heightened awareness of dolphin strandings. For most counties 

along the east coast of Florida, the number of strantlings has remained relatively constant in years 

subsequent to the mortality event (Table 20). 

Whereas the southern distribution of the mortality event may have reached St. Lucie and 

Martin counties in 1988 (Table 20), very little is known about inter-annual variability of the southern 

limit in the latitudinal distribution of the migratory stock. Also unknown is the nearshore distribution 

of migrating dolphins als it relates to existing resident populations along the coast. 
On-going studies along the east coast of Florida to better understand the presence of the 

migratory stock include: continuation of the food habits study, analysis of carbon and nitrogen 

isotopic ratios, determirlatior~ of pollutant loads (pesticides, Iieavy metals), examinatio~l of internal and 

external parasites, studies of mortality patterns and reproductive biology, and of population dynamics 

in the area. Tl~ese arc: part of a multi-disciplinary effort to study the natural history of bottlenose 

dolphins occurring in 'Florida waters. 

Table 20. Strandings of Bottlenose Dolphins Along the East Coast of Florida, by County 

(Listed Geographicallly from North to South), 1983-1993 

-- 

1983 

-- 91 92 

Nassau 0 

St. Johns 3 2 1 4 

Flagler 1 3 1 1 

Volusia 2 2 3 8 

Rrevard 13 10 12 17 

Indian 2 2 1 3 

River 

St. Lucic 2 1 0 3 

Martin 1 0 0 0 

Palm 1 0 0 1 

Beach 

Broward 1 2 0 0 

Dade 2 2 0 0 

Monroe -- 4 2 3 1 

TOTAL 3 2 26 2 1 3 9 

Acknowledgement: This is Sea World of Florida Technical Contr~but~on No 93 1 1 -I7 

B. Strandings in the context of bottlenose dolphin c:onservatio11: What should we collect'? 

(Williarn A. McLellarl and Cindy Driscoll): 'The epi:~ootic event of 198711988 that lead to the 

mortality of approximately 50 percent of the coastal migratory stock of bottlenose dolphins, Trtr.sio/~s 

sp., was probably the most intensively investigated stranding event in I1.S. history. This was 

predominantly due to two factors: (1) the qualities {.hat the stranding tearn brought to the investigation 

and (2) the mandate requiring the tearn to determine cause of death for the event. During the 

198711088 epizootic, all carcasses recovered were necropsied arid data were collected on a wide suite 

of characters ranging from viral inclusion bodies to agc: and reproductive status. All of these data 

were required from each carcass to adequately describe: how that anirnal had "made its living", and 

what eventually had le,ad to its demise. It can 1)e argut:d today that all of thesr: data are equally 
in~portar~t and needed to adequately describe the healill and reproductive pote~itial of the depleted 

coastrrl nltgratory stock of bottlenose dolphin. 

Sirandings of I~ottlenose dolpl~ins provide excellent (and one of the few) sources of biological 

data needed to build a picture of what is happening intrinsically (with) and extrinsically (to) the 

coastal migratory stock. Data and tissues should be c:ollected from stranded bottlenose dolphins that 

can be used to address specific needs of the conserval.ion plan, including: Who's there?, when are 

they there?, why are they there?, and, what are we doing to them? During the following 

discussion of each section, tissueldata collection necessary will be printed in bold-type, and a 

suIiilnary (Table 21) will be provided at the end. It should be noted that this text is not an exhaustive 

treatmenl. of this subject. Recent publications (Marine Manlnlals Ashore: A Field Guide for 

Strandings, by Geraci and Lounsbury, 1993; and Marine Mammal Strandings in the United States, by 

Reynolds and Odell (eds.), 1991) add greatly to this field. 

Who's there? - species/subspecies/populatio~t~ status of bottlenose dolphins in the western 

North Atlantic: The first and most basic question to answer in a conservation plan is "do we know 

who we are conservir~g?". Bottlenose dolphins have remained a taxonomic problem since they were 

first described (see Mead and Potter, this report). Recently, Mead and Putter (in prep) presented skull 

characteristics that clearly separate the offshore stock of western north Atlantic bottlenose dolphins 

froni the inshore stock, the latter of which includes balth coastal migratory and coastal resident 

stock(s). Now that we can definitively assign bottlenose dolphin strandings into coastal or offshore 

categories, it is imperative that data collected from strandings also be assigned to the appropriate 

category. To do this we must collect skulls from all strandings as a voucher to identify the carcass as 

an offshore or coastal animal. Additionally, because live strandings are invariably offshore animals. 

while coastal animals rarely live strand, it is important to carefully determine and record the 

condition code of the animal when it first stranded, i.e., 1 = alive, 2 = freshly dead, 3 = 

moderately decomposed, 4 = severely decornposecl (no organs remaining), 5 = skeletal re~nains only. 

All along the east coast there are a liutiiber of ,photo-.identification projects currentiy 

underway. These studies rely almost exclusively on dorsal fin scarring and shape patterns to identify 

individuals and determine subsequent resights (Scott et al., 1990). When a carcass hits the beach, it 

is vital to collect a quality photo of both sides of the ~dorsaY fin. As a dorsal fin catalogue begins to 

build, tlicrt: is a great potential to niatcli photos taken of strandings with those taken while the animal 

was alive. Data from these "terminal" mark-recapture events will prove vital in determining mortality 

and migratory patterns of all bottlenose dolphin stocks. These and other data collected frorn 

strandi~igs will also help us identify the coastal ~nigratolry stock. Coloration patterns have proven 

valuable in distinguishing coastal and offshore stocks (IMercer, 1973). There is at present a 

generalized consensus on the color patterns of coasl.al/of-.fshore dolphins - with coastal animals being 

light gray above and fading to creamy white below, while offshore animals are dark gray above with 

a distinct deniarcation to bright white below. 

Parasite & food habits data: Coastal and offshore specimens can be separated by parasite 

loads a~ld food habits (Barros and Odell, 1990; Mead and Polter, 1990; Barros, 1993). As a general 

rule, offshore anirnals hiive Monorygrr~n grirnnlciii in tlic mesenlerics of the reproductive track and gut 

wall, and i~'lryl1ohothriur~ delphini in the blubber, while: coastal anirnals do not; coastal dolphins have 

Brtlrtrrirl~ c.or(f1forrni.s in the main and pyloric sfonlach chambers, while offshores do not. 
Tis,sue sanples: 'Tissues for genetic analysis, including blood, skin & heart, have shown 

great value in separating species and stocks (Duffield, Ridgway and Corilell, 1983). Mo~lit(~ring of 

pollutant loads has also shown potential for separating stocks (Aguilar, 1987; Kuehl, I-Iaebler and 

I'otter, 1991). Ideally, the data described above should all be collected from the same carcass. This 

would allow a Inore coillplete picture of the animal's life to be re-constructed frorn each stranding. 

In an effort to more systematically collect these data, a collection protocol has been developed 

(Kommel el: al . , 199 1). This protocol is designed to systematically sample body compartments, 

describe lt:s;ions, collect blubber, muscle and organ welights, and tissues for histology, in a 

quantitative and repeatable manner. Samples for histailogy on fresh animals must be collected for 

disease monitoring. For example, the recent finding of morbillivirus in Gulf of Mexico bottlenose 

dolphins was diagnosed through histological exam. The goals of the collection protocol are to: (I) 

Determine in what ways stranded animals differ from healthy animals; (2) build a baseline for 

determining the genera.1 health of dolphin populations; (3) collect tissues and data pertinent to 

distinguishing species and stocks; (4) archive tissues that can be used to monitor environmental 

contamlnantslhealth status over time; and (5) provide tissue banks for researchers around the world. 

Wh~en are the.y there? - temporal and spatial distribution of bottlenose dolphins in the 

west err^ North Atlantic: Strandings of delphinids takc place along the east coast in all months of thc 

year. Strandings of pelagic delphinids, i.e. common or saddle-back dolphins (Delphinus delphis) and 

Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) generally indicate the presence of that species in the 

local region. Similarly, bottlenose dolphin strandings can tell us a great deal about temporal and 

spatial segregation of the coastal migratory, offshore, and potentially, coastal resident stocks. Now 

that we have osteologi~sal characters that separate coastal from offshore stocks (Mead and Potter, in 

prep.), ~t would be interesting to look at bottlenose dollphin strandings in the Northeast Region from 

the winter months. If we accept the hypothesis thalt tht: coastal migratory stock(s) migrates south out 

of the nor~theast waters during the winter, then the remaining bottlenose strandings should only be 

offshore animals. Alternatively, it would be interesting to look at bottlenose dolphins stranded in the 

waters from Florrda to North Carolina during the summer months. Employing the same hypothesis, 

i.e. that the coastal migratory stock should be in northern waters in the summer, one could assume 

that the sou~thern strandlngs are either coastal residents or offshore specimens. By using this "back 

door analysi~", we might better understand the offshort: and coastal resident stocks and potentially 

weed thesl: \trailding events from the pooled bottlenose dolphin stranding data base. With this 

accomplisht=d, the remaining stranding data will start giving us the life history and human interaction 

data that is necessary to conserve the coastal mlgrarory stock. 

Why are they there? - resource requirements of bottlenose dolphins in the western North 

Atlantic: IFor reasons that we yet do not fully understand, the coastal migratory stock(s) of 

1,ottlenose tfolphins apl7:irently undergoes a migration of several hundred miles from the winter to 

summer grounds. Conversely, the coastal resident stock is only found in discretely defined regions of 

the southeast throughout the year (Caldwell and Golley, 1965; K. Petricig, pers. cornrn.). The 

question rernains, what is driving these stocks to vary {.heir distribution from syrnpatric in the winter 

to generallli allopatric in the summer? Strandings offeir a glimpse into some of the biological 

pressures that are potenl.ially "driving" these aninials. 

'Tile niost obvious migratory data that can be gdthered from strandings is from stomach 

contents (Ilarros and Odell, 1990; Mead and Potter, 1'990; Barros, 1993). Are the animals m~grating 

to h~gher lla~titudes in tlhe summer to exploit fish resources that for some reason are not available to 
them in the winter months? Again, the question remains, vvhat resources are both stocks of bottlenose 

dolphlns targeting on while they are syiilpatrically distributed'? These questions are extremely hard to 

answer by simply watching the anirnals at the surface. The collection of stomach contents from 

strandings along their entire distribution could answer these cluestions rather quickly. 

One of the Inlost important aspects of bottlenose dolphin conservation is monitoring the 

calving inlterval and crude reproductive rate. 'These values determine the number of offspring 

entering ~tlie populatialn and therefore tell us if the population has the potential for growth. We know 

that calving is potentially one of the most difficult periods for adult females, and contributes greatly to 

their mortality. Neonate mortality is quite high as well (Hersh et a]., 1990a). With this in mind, we 

need to pay extra attention to reproductive tissues collected from our primary source of these 

materials - our stranding networks. Postpartum females can tell us a great number of things about a 

population, including when they would first be expected to calve, tiow often they will calve, and how 

many calves they niight have in their lifetime (Mead and Potter, 1990). With these data, along with a 

good estimate of the population, we can determine how rnany calves will be delivered each year to the 

next generation. 

All of the above data are of greater value if one can correlate them to a specific age for the 

animal. To determine the age of a bottlenose dolphin, teeth must be collected, processed, and 

examined to determine the number of growth layer groups ((3LG) (Hohn, 1980). The current method 

for collec~ting teeth frolni carcasses is to take three from the ~niddle of the tooth row from the left 

mandible. To date, there exists a reasonable data record of age in western north Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins (Sergeant et al., 1973; Hohn, 1980; Hersh et al., 1990a; Mead and Potter, 1990). With the 

present understanding of stock distinction (offshore, coastal migratory, coastal resident), a re-analysis 

of these data, including stock distinctions, would prove valuable. 

Along with reproductive data from mothers, data gathered on stranded neonates tell a 

number of things about the next generation. One of the f~rstypes of data that we can gather fro111 

stranded neonates (and possibly the most important aspect of the conservatton plan) is where calving 

grounds exlst for bottlenose dolphins. A stranding of a condition 2, 120 cm bottlenose dolphin, with 

folded dorsal fin and clear fetal folds, would imply that the animal was born within a very short 

distance of the stranding site. Review of the existing stranding record, specifically for strandings of 

neonates, c;ould prove extremely valuable in determining localities of calving grounds, and in turn, 

focusing on these areas as essential habitat in the conservation plan. 

What are we cloing to them? - potential irrlpacts caused by llurllan activities: 

It is safe to say that coastal bottlenose dolphins come in contact with hurllans with greater frequency 

than any oither cetacean in the northwest Atlantic. With the continuing growth in recreational boating, 

fishing, an(d more rece~itly, jet skis, there would appear to be no lessening of human itnpact on 

l>ottlenose dolphins in the near future. Commercial fishing operations, including gill nets, pound 

nets, and trawls all operate within the known distributioln of coastal bottlenose dolphins. All of these 

fisheries have the potential to impact resident and migratory stocks of bottlenose dolphins. At 

present, there are no observer programs monitoring tllese fisheries, and there are little or no data 

relative to incidental mortality from these stocks. 

Most of the data gathered concerning human Impacts on Atlant~c coastal bottlenose dolpl1111 

stocks Ii'ivc come from stranded carcasses. Fron~ these carcasses we have Inferred ~nortality from 
evlde~ice ot 1iuma11 Illteract~on such as prolxller cuts, ma\slve t~hint trauma, cuts on the leading 

edge of ithe dorsal fin and flukes suggesting rnorlofilanient fishing gear, and abrasions where the 

impression ot braided line remains In the skin and blubhe~ 

MLany, if not most, strandings occur for reasons no1 attributable to human interactions. 

Occasionally, though, there will be some evidence of human interaction gathered from the carcass. 

Unfortuna~tely, our understanding of these human interactisins will remain tenuous if we do not have a 

systematic approach Ifor recording and characterizing them. The new Human Interaction Form 

(Haley ainld Read, 1993) is a data sheet designed to quantify objective observations on the condition of 

a stranding or fisheri~es-take animal. This data sheet should become an integral part of each stranding 

response. 

Humans have produced and used an immense quantity of chemicals, including heavy metals, 

organoch,l~orines, and pesticides, in agriculture and industry These chemicals regularly end-up in 

river run-off or are dumped directly into the world's oceans. As bottlenose dolphins feed high in the 

food chaiirl and are very long-l~ved, these chemicals end-up constantly accumulating in the tissues of 

these ;inialals, even if delivered at relatively small doses. This situation is exacerbated in coastal 

bottlerlose dolphins, due to their close proximity to sources of human-made pollutants. Tissue 

samples collected from coastal bottlenose dolphins during the 198711988 epizootic were shown to 

have extremely high levels of PCB and DDE (Geraci, 1989, Kuehl, Ilaebler and Potter, 1991). 

Systematically collectirlg tissue samples from blubber, muscle, liver, and brain are necessary to 

continue monitoring these compounds in coastal bottlenose dolphins. 

Clollection Pr*otocol: The collection protocol (Rorrunel et al., 1991) can also be used to gain 

insights into which bottlenose dolphins may have been involved with fisheries or other human 

activities. By system,atically weighing the body compartments (i.e. blubber, muscles, organs, 

skeleton), one can identify variations in the carcas:j condition. Comparing the conditions of stranded 

animals with those of known takes from fisheries will help us identify a "healthy" animal. These data 

will help us discriminate a healthy stranding from one that was chronically ill. This sort of 

information will help us identify animals that may come to the beach because of illness versus those 

that have riot suffered disease, but have rather bee11 victims of human interaction. Veterinary 

involvement, if available, can be useful in identifying the health status of stranded animals. This 

protocol, in combination with that described by I-Ialey and Read (1993), provides an excellent 

platform from which to perform a comprehensive patholob' J~C exan. 
Table 21. List of Tissues, Collecting Media, anti Potential Uses for Sanlples Collected from 

Stranded Sottlenose I[)olphi~is 

A 

'Tissue 'Type Cond~tion Codc Medium Value & Usage 

I3lood: 

Serurn 

Whole 

Blood 

Skin 

Heart 

Idistology 

Serology} HealthIDisease Monitoring 

Ilematology} " " " 

Genetic Analysis 

Genetic Analysis 

Genetic Analysis 

Health Indicators, Pathologies 

Frozen 

Refrigerated 

DMSO 

DMSO 

DMSO 

10% B. 

Fornlalin 

SwabICulture 

Fresh Frozen 

Tissues 

(pref @-70°C) 

Disease Monitoring 

Disease Monitoring 

Pollutant Loads, Stock Distinction, 

Health Parameters 

Reproductive Condition 

Tissue Samples Frozen 

(Whirlpacks) 

10% B. 

Forrnalin 

10% B. 

Formal in 

Frozen 

Testis Samples 

Reproductive Condition (Imperative for 

Pollutant Load Samples) 

Food Habits, Distribution, Fisheries 

Interaction 

Ovaries 

Stomach Contents 

Frozen Voucher Specimens, Systematics, 

Morphology. PathologylHealth 

Parameters 

Species ID, Stock ID, Systematics, 

Voucher Specimens, Tooth Samples, 

Morphology 

Age Determination, (Potential Genetic 

Analysis) 

Human Interaction, Photo-ID 

Species ID, Stock ID, Human 

Interaction 

I~eaithlDisease Monitoring 

Skeleton 

Skull Frozen 

Teeth Water 

Dorsal Fin Photo 

Lateral Photo 

Color Slide 

Color Slide 

Gross Necropsy - Data Sheet 

De~criptiv~e 

Species ID, Growth ParameterslCurves, 

Health Parameters 

StrandingsIFisheries Take 

Lleter~nination 

StrandedIHealthy Iletermination, Body 

Compartment Data 

Data Sheet 

Data Sheet 

Protocol Data 
FAC'I'OKS POTENTIALLY AFFECTING COASTAL BO'I'TL,ENOSE IIOLPHINS IN 

COASTAL, Al1,ANTIC WATERS 

A. I~itcr~actions with Comnlercial Fisheries 

New Jersey (IIave Jenkins): In exploring potential interactions with marine fisheries, we 

need to examine when, where and what types of fishing gear are used. Of the gear that may 

potentially threaten bottlenose dolphins, most fish in Wew Jersey waters are taken by either the otter 

trawl or the purse seilne (Table 22). 

Table 22). Relative .[~nportance of New Jersey <:ommercial Fisheries Gear (Based on 1992 

Landings) 

Gear Pounds Landed -- - 

Percent of Total 

Otter l'r;twl 

Purse Seine 25,889,828 12.84 

Gill Net 4,347,476 2.16 

Other (low 

potential for 

interaction) 

Gill Net: Gill nets are used In near-shore waters and are potentially the most dangerous 

fishing gear to bottlenose dolphins. The fish species taken include bluefish arid weakfish. Also, the 

season wlhen gill nets are most used in New Jersey waters cioirlcides with the time when dolphins are 

present. The weakfish fishery occurs in Delaware Ba:y from April to June, and off Ocean and 

Monrnourh Counties dur~ng the spring and fall. The bluefish fishery occurs in New Jersey waters in 

the spring and fall llowever, the mesh size used In t,argeting for these particular fish species may 

not pose ,a h~gh risk to dolphins. 

Oltter Trawl: Most fish captured in otter trawls are taken well off the New Jersey coast, 

during thc winter rnoiiths. Regulations do not allow otter trawls to be used closer than 2 miles from 

the New Jersey sl~oreline. Thus, there is little potential for interaction with coastal nligratory 

dolphins and this fishery; however, it is possible that interactions with offshore dolphins occur. 

Purse Seine: Purse seine nets are used alrnoslt exclusively for menhaden. This fishery occurs 

beyond 1 6 rniles offshore and the vast majority of fish caught In this fishery are taken during the 

scason when bottlenose dolphins are present in New Jersey waters. If dolphins are feeding on, or 

otherwise associated vliith menhaden, some potential for interaction exists. 
Skipjack and yellowfin tuna are also taken with purse seines, as are Atlantic mackerel and 

bluefisl~. 'There may hie higher potential for dolpliin/fishery interactions here than with the ~ne~lhaden 

fisheries; however, these fisheries occur offshore and do not likely interact with the coastal ~lligratory 

stock. 

Lor~gline: The primary species taken in the loilgline fishery is yellowfin tuna. Longlines are 

used predorninantly during the season when dolphins are present in New Jersey waters, and are used 

throughouit coastal and offshore waters of this state. A summary of this fishery and the other major 

commercial fisheries in New Jersey waters that havc potential for interaction with coastal bottlenose 

dolphins, as outlined above, is provided in Table 23. 

Table 23. Surnmary of Major Commercial Fisheries in New Jersey Waters that have Potential 

for Interacction with Coastal Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops trurzcatus 

Gear Landings % of % of % of Target 

Type (Ibslyr) Total Ibs Total Ibs Total Ibs Species 

Landed Landed Landed 

May-Sep' Oct-Apr2 - - 

Gill Net 4,347,476 2.16 55.73 44.27 Bluefish, Smooth- Dogfish, 

Dogfish, American Shad, 

Menhaden, Weakfish, Spiny 

Dogfish 

Otter 58,409,047 28.97 36.48 63.52 Illex and 1,oli~o Squid, Mackerel, 

Trawl ITerring, Scup 

Purse 25,348,814 12.84 90.48 9.52 Menhaden 

Seine 

Longline 2,364,60 1 1.17 60.96 35). 04 Yellowfin Tuna, Swordfish, 

Sharks, Bigeye Tuna 

1 Months when Coastal i'ursio~~s are Generally Present in New Jersey Waters 

2 Months when Coastal firsiops are Generally Present in New Jersey Waters 

Delaware (Leon Spence): The fishery of most concern wid1 respect to niarine n~amrnal 

interactions in Delaware waters is probably the fixed gill net fishery. In 1992, there were also 

reported incidents of harbor porpoise deaths attributable to fixed gill nets. This fishery occurs in the 

late winter ,and early spring in coastal waters. The target species within Delaware Bay during the late 

winterlearly spring fixed net season are white perch, shad, striped bass and herring. Then, beginning 

in late April, through Ma,y 10, the fishery targets sea trout or .weakfish. 'I'he timing of this fishery 

precludes it from being ]much of a threat to the coastal n:~igratory bottlenose dolphin stock(s). 
1111 tlie waters off Delaware, oceanic fisheries probably have the greatest potential for 

interaction with Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, although presumably not the coastal stock(s). Similar to 

the coastal fisheries, tlhe primary target species at this time are striped bass and shad. The mesh sizes 

in this oceanic fishery range from 5 to 6 inches (stretch mesh). From late April until May 10, the 

target species change to weakfish or sea trout. 'I'hc mesh size changes also, ranging from 3- 118 to 5- 

112 inches. 

Each year, all fixed net gear must be removed from Delaware waters by May 10. This 

excludes fixed recreattonal gill nets (less than 200 feet) which are permitted north of the Broadkill 

River witlhin one-half mile of shore. In the case of severe weather, a grace-period Inay be granted. 

Drift nets probably do not pose as great a threat to coastal dolphins in Delaware as do fixed nets. By 

law, driftnet fishermen are obligated to stay with their nets the entire time nets remain in the water; 

this may minimize impacts on marine mammals. 

The menhaderl purse seine fishery in Delaware Bay has been eliminated. We have no data to 

substarttiate whether or not this fishery was a threat to dolphins in Delaware state waters. There is 

also an off-shore trawl fishery off Delaware, but currently there is no evidence of impacts to marine 

mammals from this pa,rticular fishery. However, it is known that this fishery does take turtles; 

therefore, it should be monitored for possible marine rnamn~al interactions as well. 

Finally, about 40 ~niles up the Delaware River, then: is a sniall, local fishery for bluefish, sea 

trout and occasionally black drum. This is about as far up-river as dolphins have been reported. 

Dolphins have been observed near nets in this fishery, but so far no interaction problems have been 

reported. 

M[aryland (Joyce Evans): To determine the extent of commercial fishery operations in the 

Chesapealte Bay and Atlantic Ocean, a number of reports were reviewed, including tlie Maryland 

DNR's 15192 Laws and Regulations Concerning the Harvest of Finfish, Snapping Turtles, and 

Terrapin and Crabs in 'Tidal Waters; the Chesapeake Elay Program Annual Program Reports; and 

Fishery Management ]Plans (FMPs) for a number of species. These laws are extremely detailed and 

complex, and need to be consulted in order to clarify questions concerning fishing areas, gear types 

and season. Tables 24 and 25 reflect gear types, date:;, location, mesh size and target species for 

cornrnercial fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean, respectively. In addition to these 

factors, there are however, other concerns when consi~dering, fishing activity. The sheer number of 

boats engaged in both recreational and commercial fishery activities is extensive and could potentially 

lead to death or injury 1.0 bottlenose dolphins. Fish aggregating devices may also pose a hazard to 

dolphins, by attracting them to an easy meal in locations where dense concentrations of fishing boats 

are likely. 

Fishery interaction cases have comprised a large portion of strandings in Maryland, not only 

for fi~rsioyx, but for other cetacean species as well. 'l'ltiese interactions were determined by thc 

presence of attached gear and/or carcass condition, line marks, ~nissing appendages, etc. For 

example, 5 pilot whales stranded on Maryland beaches between May and June, 1992. One of these 

l~ad ropes attached to its caudal peduncle. We have recovered nionofilan~ent line attached to marine 

mammal appendages, and a tangle of 7 crn of rnonofil;tment linc attached to ttic caudal peduncle of a 

skeletoniz.ed harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena). 11-1 niosit instances, we are not fortunate enough 
to recover an anir~ial with the gear still attached, so wc:: must rely on such indicators as rnissing teeth 

and fluke:.; in order to attribute the cause of such strandings to liumai~ actions, if not fisheries 

interaction 

'I'able 2,4. Con~~ilcrcial I7ishing in Chesapeake Bay. Prolhihited Forms of Fishing Gear: Gig, Gig Iron, 

I'urse Net,, Bear11 Trawl, Otter Trawl, 'Iramniel Net, Troll Net, Drag Net and Monofilament Gill Nets 

Gear Type Dates Location h4esh Size Target Species -- -- Gill Nets ~Gv-~pr Tributaries, 2.5"--3.5" Bluefish 

(Tended) Excluding 

Striped Bass 

Drift <;ill Nct Oct-Apr Spawning 2"-3.5" White Perch, Catfish, Herring 

Tributaries 

Anchor, Stake 6i Jun-Sep Northern Bay 4"-6" Bluefish 

Drift [;ill Net 

I'ound Nets Sprrng-Fall Restricted in >a 1.5" Baitfish (Alewife), Bluefish, 

Head Waters Summer Flounder, Striped 

Bass, Weakfish, Spotted Sea 

Trout 

Hook KL L,ine Nov 16-Dec 7 Chesapeake: Ba:y Striped Bass 

Ocl 1-3 1, Nov 6-8, Chesapeake Ba:y Recreational Striped Bass 

13-1 5 & 20-22 

Purse Seil-~c Pr~ohibitcd Chesapeake Bay 

Hard Crab Pots M,ay-Dec Chesapeake Bay Wluc Crab 

Trotline 

Dip Nets, 

Trap.s, 

(collapsible) 

Scrapes, 

Skimming 

IIydraulic L>redge Spiring-Sumrner Chesapeake Bay Softshell Clams 

Hydraulic Dredge Year-Round Chesapeake Bay Razor 81 White Clams 

Tongs, Drcdge Fal I- Winter Chesapeake Bay Oysters 

Diving Ralces Fall-Winter Chesapeake Bay Oysters 

Spear Gun, Bow Jur-I IS-Dcc 31 C1iesapr:ake Bay Carp, Garfish, Skate, Shark, 

& Arrow, Toadfish, American Eel, 

Snagging Stingray 

Ecl Pots Spri~~g-Fall Chesapeake Way Eel - - 
'I'able 25. Commercial Ocean Fishing in hlarylar~d 

-- (;car Type Dates 1,ocation Mesh Si~e Targct Species -- - ---- 

Bottom Trawls Wlnter-Early May > 1 Nautical Mile Summer Flounder, Sea Trout, 

BeamIOtter Weakfish, Other Bottom Fish, 

American Shad 

Gill Nets Fcb 4 - Apr 30 Within 2-5 Miles 2.5" American Shad 

567 Registered ,~;~11 & spring 3 "-3.25" Weakfish, Spot, Croakers in MD lDcc 8-19, Jan 4 - Striped Bass 

Feb 28 

Anchor & Stake Spring Atlantic Coastal 

Gill Nets Bays, Behind 

Assateague & 

Assawoman Islands 

Hook & lme '(car-Round 

Longlinc )(car-Round Exclus~ve 

Economic Zone 

Hook & Ime PJov 16 - Dec 7 

Mixed Species 

Pelagics, Bottom Fish 

Shark, Swordfish, Tuna 

Striped Bass 

Purse Seirie Not Operative 

Pots Year-Round > 3 miles Lobster 

Hydraulic Dredge Hardshell Clams, Quahogs -- - ---- 

Virginia (D. ,4nn Pabst): Preliminary data on fisheries in Virginia were obtained from the 

Virginla Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). These data were gathered by VMRC field 

personnel from interviews with fishlseafood dealers. On a volu~ltary basis, dealers reported the 

amount of a given species received from fishermen, the 1ocatio11 where the fish had reportedly been 

caught, arid the gear t:yl)e used. 

Until 1993, dealer reporting was strictly voluntary and no fishermen were directly queried. 

Wegin~lillg in 1993, the VMRC instigated a mandatory declaration of all catch frorn commercial 

fishing operations. It is expected that while this will strengthen the Virginia fisheries data base in the 

long sun, there may be initial problerns with compliance. 

For the purposes of the workshop, I queried the VMRC for records of target and non-target 

species reported frorn fisheries that operate within zero to three ~liiles from shore for 1992. The data 

collected by the VMRC indicate that the commercial gear types used in Virginia waters in 1992 were 

conch dredges, hook and line, gill nets (both anchored and drift types), fish pots, and scallop dredges 

(Table 26). Gill nets were the most common type of gear used. While at the workshop, I spoke with 

Mark Swiulgle (Virginia Marine Science Museum), who has first-hand knowledge of fisheries in the 

Virginia M,each area. According to him, crab pots, haul seincs, and purse seines are also used in 

Virginia waters. Mark. dlso mentioned that the pound net fishery in the hays and estuaries was an 

irnporta~it fishery to consider for potential human interactions with bottlenose dolphins. 
An important fishery that is not included in the state records is the menhaden purse seine 

fishery. This fishery is apparently monitored by NMFS, and is not categorized as a coastal fishery. 

A number of people in the VMRC, as well as Mark Swingle, suggested that large ~nenliaden seiners 

can be seen in Virginia Beach quite close to shore. 1 can attest to havirig seen seiners operating less 

than one-hadf mile offshore of Virginia Beach. 

Table 26. Commercial Gear Types Used in Virginia Wateirs in 1992 

Gear TG Pounds Value ($) Target 'species 

Landed 

Hand lG, 14,379 23,706 Bluefish, Black Sea Bass, Tautog 

Other 

Otter, Bottom, 7,132 7,475 Anglerfish, Bluefish, Butterfish, Red 

or Fish Trawl Drum, Sunlrner Flounder, Witch, King 

Whiting, Black Sea Bass, Sheepshead, 

Spadefxsh, Conch, 1,oligo Squid 

Gillnet/Simk or 445,945 223,445 Amber-jack, Blut:fish, Butterfish, Croakers, 

Anchor, Other Black & Red Drum, Red I-lake, 

Harvestfish, Herring, Mackerel, King 

Whiting, Pompaino, Black Sea Bass, Grey 

Sea Trout, American Shad, Smooth 

Dogfish, Sharks. Spanish Mackerel, Spot, 

Northern Puffer, Tautog 

GillnetIDrift, 859,817 280,836 Bluefish, Bonito, Butterfish, Cobia, 

Other Croakers, Black Drum, Summer Flounder, 

Retl Hake, King Mackerel, King Whiting, 

Scup, Ijlack Sea Bass, Grey Sea Trout, 

Anierican Shad, Sharks, Smooth & Spiny 

Dogfish, Spanish Mackerel, Spot, Tautog, 

Albacore, White Perch 

Scallop Dredge 46,456 193,220 Anglerfish, Summer Flounder, Black Sea 

Bass, Sea Scallops 

Pots and Traps 21,283 18,015 Summer Flounder, Black Sea Bass, 

Northern Puffer, Tautog 

Conch Dredge 4.500 5.000 Corich 

Total 1,31)9,5 12 75 1,697 
Potential Interactions Between Fisheries and Bottle~~ose Dolphins in North Carolirla 

Waters (Victoria G. l'hayer arid Keith A. Ritt~riaster): t2s previously stated [in the section on 

marine mammal strandings in North Carolina], North Carolina is second only to F;lorida in the 

number of marine mamnmal strandings cach year. What are the causes of mortality'! In most cases, 

the cause of death cannot be determined since not all stranded animals are examined by experienced 

personnel, and we are: unable to examine some animals. Causes could range from biotoxins and 

pollutants to mortality from fishing and boating interactions. 

Many examples of human interaction have been notcd for stranded marine ~nammals in North 

Carolina ('Table 27). E.vidence of human interactions include net or monofilament line scars, 

entanglement, imbedded hooks, cleanly severed appendages, ingested litter, and crushed bone. For 

example, a 215.9 cm female bottlenose dolphin washed-up with 70 lb test monofilament line wrapped 

around the head, mandlble (more than 20 wraps) and pector,al fins. The line had been there long 

enough for the tissue lo callous and the skin to grow over the line. One female, 234.3 cni long, with 

flukes cleanly severed, was pregnant with a near-term fetus. Another female, 165.2 cm long, washed 

up with line around the peduncle, cutting into the vertebral bone. Most strandings attributed to 

human inleractions had evidence of monofilament line that had cut into the skin and blubber around 

the "neck" region. I also know of three bottlenose dolphins which were caught in a haul seine and 

escaped, apparently unharmed. In another incident, two dolphins were discovered in a haul seine; 

one animal escaped al~ve, while the other died. 

Of the 53 bottlenose dolphins that stranded during 1992, 15 (28.3 percent) showed evidence 

of interaclion with hurnans, 19 anirnals showed no evidence (of interaction arid 19 animals were too 

decomposed to make a determination of interaction or were not examined (Fig. 32). During 1993, 26 

animals (35.1 percent) showed evidence of human wnteractiori (Fig. 33), 20 animals showed no 

evidence of interaction, and 28 animals were either too decomposed to evaluate or were not 

examined. Thus, there appears to be a trend of' increasing interaction with humans from 1992 

through 1993. Because of the deterioration of son~c: carcasses, and the lack of examination of others, 

this trend may be more apparent than real. 

The peaks in strandings occur in spring and fall nnonths, with comparatively few occurring 

during the summer. During the spring, ocean gill nets are in operation, while stop nets are in heavy 

use during the fall. It is possible that increased strandl~igs observed are related to these commercial 

fishing activities. A birief description of common types of cominercial fishing operations, seasons of 

greatest use, location of common use, and target species In the ocean are prov~ded In Table 28, and 

for the bays and sounds in Table 29 
I;igure 32. 'lhe f'erceilt;~gr~ of Strandings of Bottlenose Dollphins in North Carolinik that Could 

hc Attril~uted to IIurnan Interi~ction, or Could Not Be I)etermined, 1992 

HlJMAN INTERACTION L:: 1- --:--I 1 

I 1 NO EVIDENCE I ---L"--"-Y 

Figure 33. 'The Percentage of Straildings of Bottlenose Dollphins in North Carolina that Could 

he Attributed to li-luman Interaction, or Could Not Be Determined, 1993 
Table 2'7. Descriptiion of Tursiops truncutus Interaction Mortality in North Carolina from January 

1992 to Ilecember 1993. F= female; M =male, W =yes; IVE =no evidence; CRD =could not be 

determined; *=anirn<dl(s) caught in net, released alive 

-- - -. - I;v~dence of Type of I:vide~lcc 

Sl,ecirnen Lbate Lxngtll Sex Ilurnan - (m~d-y) (cm) Interaction Mutilation Missing Voucher Gear Scars 

Number 

-- - Appendages Samples 

2-1 -92-HNS-P 1-'7-92 147.32 M C I3 I> Y 

5-;!-92-BRC-P 

8-2-92-NHC-P 

12-2-92-11 NS-P 

14-2-92-IINS-P 

15-2-92-CRC-P 

VT92003 

16-3-92-IINS-P 

VT92007 

18-3-92l-INS-P 

23-:1-92IINS-P 

VTO20 11 

24-3-02-IINS-P 

25-11-921-LNS-P 

KK003 

26-4-92-(:CC-I' 

VT92012 

27-4-92-PEC-P 

VT020 13 

29-4-92-CIJL-P 

3 1-4-02-IINS-I' 

VT020 14 

33-~l-92-IJEC-P 

VTC)20 16 

36-dl-92-ldNS-l' 

37-4-92-NIIC-P 

30-5-92-1-NS-P 

KRO07 

40-4-02-1)AL-P 

42-5-92-I'E(1-P 

\'TO 20 1 7 

44-5-02-CCC-I' 

46-5-92 -I)AI--P 

47-5-02 -rrAL--> 

VT020 I0 

50-5-02 DAI*-P 

54-6-92 -C'CC-P 

VT92022 

56-6-92 I INS-I' 

57-6-92 .IINS-P 

58-6-02 -1.NS-P 

V'S9;!024 

50-7-92-BKC-I' 

CHI) 

N I.. 

CBL) 

CBD 

CUD 

N E 

N E 
-- Evidence of Type of Evidence 

IIa1c L.ength Sex I Wuman 

(~n-d y) icm) Inlcract~ol~ Mutllatltrn Missing Voucher Gear Scars 

112'2 232.00 U CBD 

11-23-02 173.50 F Y Y Y* 

12-6-92 0.00 U YYY 
57 -4-93-NlIC-I' 

58-4-93-LNS-I' 

V GTi:)73 

61-4 93-[INS-P 

62-5 93-PEC-P 

64-5-93-OC(:-I' 

VGTOX2 

65.5- K-I~C(:-P 

68-5 03-1.NS-P 

KRI 0 

60-5-03-l31;('-1~ 

70-5-03-0C('-1' 

VGT076 

71-5-93-[.NS-P 

VGT075 

-- -. 

Ev~dence of 'l'ypc of C\,idcncc 

Date 1,ength Sex IIunl;tr~ - (m tl-y) (cm) I~~terait~clt~ Mut~latlon MIS\IIIS VOIICIIL.I (~C~II SC;II.S 

Al~perid;~pe Sample\ 

3-4-93 223.50 F Y Y Y 

3- 17-93 264.00 11 CBI) 

3-23-93 236.20 M CRD 

3-25-93 246.50 F Y Y 

3-26-93 185.00 M CUD 

4-2-93 6.0 M Y Y 

4-2 -93 160.60 F VRl> Y 

4--993 188.00 M CBD 

4-13-93 182.6 M CUD Y 

Y 'I' 
73-5 03-0('('-1' 

VW07X 

74-5-03-DA1,-P 

75-5-93-LNS-P 

77-5-93-IiNS-I' 

78-5-93-IINS-P 

70-5-93-1 INS-P 

80-5-93-lJR('-P 

CRD 

CHI) 

CBD 

CRD 

c'nr) 

mr) 

(' I3 D 

('13D 

Y 

XI: 

('BD 

('I311 

CBD 

N I: 

N i: 

C131) 

N E 

('RI) 

<'I311 

C'BII 

Y 

00~6-03-1)AL-P 

01 -6-93-I'CC-P 

92-6-03-CCC-I' 

03-6-03-PAC-1' 

94-7-03-CtJL-I' 

96-8-03-CCC-P 

9%-')3-DAL2 

90-8-03-DAL-I' 

10 1 -0-93-1)AL-I' 

102-0-93-1 INS-I' 

V(X085 

104-10 03-CCC-P 

V(;TOX6 

107-10 93-CCC-P 

V(;1'087 

108-1 1 93 CCC-1' 

VGT088a,-8811 

110-1 1 ").1--CCC-I' 

v(;ToSo 

I1 I I I 03-PI?C-I> 

1 12-1 1~93-MCD-I' 

I 13-1 l-O3-I'f<V-l~ 

NI: 

N I. 

N 1- 
Table 28. Conlnlon Types of Commercial Gear, Seasons, Locations, Target and Bycatch Species in North Carolina Ocean Waters 

Gear Type Dates Location Mesh Size Target Species Occasional Species 

(Srretch: 

Gill Nets Oct-May Oregon Inlet-Cape Fear 2.5 "-6" Weakfish, Croakers, Mullet 

(sink) Spot, Bluefish, Dogfish 

Gill Nets Jan-Mar Hatteras, Ocracoke 8" Bluefish 

Trawl Oct-Apr Beaufort Inlet-VA 3"-5.5" Flounder, Bluefish, Dogfish, Scombrids, 

Croaker, Weakfish, Spot, Loligo Squid, Striped Bass 

Scup, Black Sea Bass 

Trawl May-Sep Shelf Edge Same Squid 

Trawl Mar-Oct (S. of New River) Ocracoke Inlet-SC Line 1.5"-2" Brown, Pink & White 

Shrimp 

Trawl/Dredge Jan-Apr Cape Lookout 1.5" Calico Scallops 

Trawl Oct-Feb Cape Lookout-VA 3.5"-5.5" Flounder,Scup,Black 

Sea Bass 

Longline Y ear-Round Shelf, Gulf Stream N/A Shark, Tuna 

Longline Year-Round Cape Hatteras-SC NI A Reef Fish 

'loatiz- " '6 Late Spring-Summer/Fall N.~/VA Line-Cape Fear 3 " -6 " Spaiiish & King Mackerei Weakfish, Biuefish 

Gill Net Mesh 

Hook & Line Year-Round Gulf Stream 710-910 Pelagics (Tuna, King Wahoo, Dolphin, Spanish 

(Troll) Hooks Mackerel, etc.) Mackerel, Bluefish 

Hook & Line Year-Round Oregon Inlet-Cape Fear NIA Bottom Fish, (Flounder, 

(Drift or Anchoi) Trout, Mullet, etc.) 

Hook & Line Year-Round Hard-Bottom Areas NI A Reef Fish 

Fish Traps Winter Cape Hatteras-SC Black Sea Bass 

Stop Net (Not a Fall Bogus: Banks 8"-10fl Slows Fish for 

Fishery; Part of Subsequent Reach Seining 

Beach Seine) 

Beach Seine Fall NCtVA Border- cap^ 3 " Mullet, Spot, Bluefish Red Drum, Spotted Sea 

Fear Trout, Striped Bass 

Beach Seine Spring NCIVA Border-Cape 3" Blues, Mullet, Spotted 

Hatteras Sea Trout, Spot 

Menhaden Purse Year-Round, Mainly Apr-Jan Entire Coast 1.25"-1.5" Menhaden 

Seine 

-- 
Table 29. Common Types of Commercial Gear, Seasons, Locations, Target and Bycatch Species in North Carolina Baysj Sounds & Estuaries 

Gear Type Dates Location Mesh Size Target Species Gccasiond Specics 

Shrimp Otter & Spring-Fall Sounds. Large Coastal Rivers 1.5" Pink, Brown, White Sciaenids, Flounder, 

Skimmer Trawls Shrimp Blue Crabs 

Shrimp Channel Nets 

Long Eaui Seine 

(Includes Swipe Kets) 

Pound Nets 

Pound Nets 

Pound Nets 

Gill Net 

Gill Net 

C.il! Net 

Hard Crab Pots 

Peeler Crab Pots 

Trawl, Dredge 

Dredge (Toothless) 

Hq draulic Dredge, 

Trawl (Kicking) 

Hand, Rakes, Tongs 

Toothed Dredge 

Tra~b 1 

Trawl 

Purse Seine 

Summer & 

Fall 

~pr-Oct 

May-Sep 

Late WinterSpring 

Sep-Dec 

Year-Round 

Fall (Peak) 

Year-Round 

Spring 

Year-Round 

Spring 

Winter 

Winter-Spring 

Dec-Mar 

Oct-Mar 

Nov-Mar 

Winter 

Spring 

Apr-Dec 

Sounds 

Pamlico, Core ~olunds 

Pamlico Sound 

Albemarle Sound Area 

Core, Pamlico, & Aibemarie Sounds 

Parnlico & Albemarle Sounds & 

Adjacent Waters 

Pamlico Sound, Adjacent to Outer 

Banks 

Albemarie Sound 

SO. ,, ,,a1 -.. Sounds & Tributaries, Cape 

Fear River 

Core & Parnlico Sounds, Neusr River 

Cape Lookout & Southuard 

Hatteras-Neu River 

Core Sound Area. New River, 

Intracoastal Waterway in Pender Co 

Croatan Sound-SC Border 

Pamlico Sound 

Pamlico Sound 

Core Sound. Parnlico Sound 

Core Sound 

6" 

(2" bunt net) 

2"-6" 

1.5" 

NIA 

NI A 

Ni A 

NIA 

Pink, Brown, White 

Shrimp 

Croaker, Spot, 

Weakfish 

Spot, Spanish Mackerel, 

Butterfish, Weakfish, 

Croaker, Bluefish, 

Harvestfish 

River Herring, White 

Perch 

Flounder 

Flo~nder 

Spotted Sea Trout, 

Mullet 

American Shad 

Blue Crab 

Blue Crab (Softshell) 

Whelks 

Bay Scallops 

Hard Clams 

Oysters 

Oysters 

Blue Crabs (Hardshell) 

Blue Crabs (Softshell) 

Menhaden 

Biuefish, Sported Sea 

Trout, Menhaden 

Spadefish, Ribbonfish, 

Flounder. Menhaden 

Striped Bass, American 

Shad, Catfish, Gizzard 

Shad 

Butterfish, Hamestfish 

- Wiped -- Bass, Red 

Drum 

Weakfish, Croaker, 

Bluefish, Red Drum 

Striped Bass 

Whelks 

Whelks 

Southern Flounder 
South Carolina (Sally Murphy): There are numerous co~nrnerc~al f15h1ng actlvrtles wh~ch occur 111 

South Carol~na state waters (Table 30) and In the I<xclus~ve Ecor~on~~c Lone (Ef3Z) off South Carolina 

('l'dble 3 1) There arc flve commercial f 15herle\ tllat potentially ~ould or, In fdct have, a1 fectcd 

bottlenose dolp11111s 

Grill nets set for Atlantic sturgeon: This fisliery has not been in operation since 1986 

because of declines in sturgeon stocks. It was centered in the Winyah BayISantee River area on the 

north central coast of South Carolina. Large mesh gill nets were set in the ocean during early spring. 

Large numbers of sea turtles were drowned and an undocuniented number of dolphins also stranded 

dead on nearby beaches. In 1983, the season was shortened and sea turtle strandings declined about 

50 percent. In 1986, the season for Atlantic sturgeon was closed entirely and sea turtle strandings 

were close to zero in this area. Although not documented, it is reasonable that dolphin strandings 

probably follow this same pattern. 

Gill nets set fbr sharks: These nets are legal in state waters provided that: 1) They are no 

longer than 100 feet; 2) they are attended at all tinies by the fishermen; and 3) multiple nets are at 

least 200 yards apart. 'These nets are usually fished in the suriimer season. Our conservation officers 

have confiscated illegal nets 500-600 feet in length. 

Gill nets set for shad: These are also ocean nets that are fished in early spring, but these 

nets cannot be anchored. They must be fished as drift nets and attended at all times. They can be 

hundreds of yards long and are perpendicular to thc shoreline. There is no accurate docurnentatioil of 

dolphin rn~ortality from these latter two types of' nets, although a few carcasses have washed ashore 

entangled in monofilarnent netting. 

Crab pots: Since the stranding network was set up In 1991, we have documented three 

dolphin carcasses with crab pot ropes around the tall stock and three occurrences where l~ve dolph~ns 

were entaingled in crab pot llnes. One had a line tangled around ~ts tall ~tock, and was released by 

the public. Two were juveniles that had put their head throulgh a loop of the rope near the float 

(crabbers will son~etirr~es tie a slipknot loop to determine if someone 15 steal~ng the~r crabs, or to a~d 

in catching the line to haul the trap aboard) We were able to free one of these with the help of 

another boater, because the pot was still attached 'The other was not so fortunate The loop was 

around its head with about four feet of line trail~ng behind This an~mal was \een frequently in a 

locatio~i with the habituated, feeding dolplnns In Calibogue Sound, near H~lton Head Island It 

apparently nilgrated out with 1t5 mother In the fall, but was seen agam the follow~~lg spring w~th the 

rope cuttlng more deeply ~nto 11s head. Its fate 15 unknown 

Shrinlp trawlers: During the summer and fall, dolphins are often seen following behind 

shrimp trawlers while they are towing, and are also observed! milling around the boats as the bycatch 

is pushed lover. 'l'his has been documented in the literature by 13arros and Odcll (1990). This is likely 

a positive interaction for the dolphins rather than a negative one, since they have their pick of an 

ample supply of fresh fish. The effect on dolphins of feeding on by-catch is under-documented. 
Table 30. Xlajor Commercial Fisheries in South Carolina Inshore, Territarial Sea Waters 

Fishery Dates Location Gear Specifications Target Species Bycatch Species 

Shrimp Trawling May-Dec Statewide. Offshore Only No Restrictions White, Brown & Sciaenids. Flounders, Sea Turt!es. 

Pink Shrimp Crabs, Occasions! Sturgeon 

Shrimp Channel Nets Sep-Dec 15 Winyah Bay. North Santee 80' ~Max. Stationary White Shrimp Sciaenids. Menhaden, Anchovies. 

Bay Net Crabs, Herring, Flounder. 

Butterfish & Mackerel; Possibly 

Sea Turtles 

Blue Crab Trawling Jan-Mar Statewide, Offshore No Kestrictions on Blue Crabs Flounders, Whelks, ciae~ids. 

Net Size; 4" Min. Horseshoe Crabs 

Stretch Mesh 

Whelk Trawling Mid-Jan -May 2-3 Miles Offshore >4" Stretch Mesh Knobbed & Crabs, Flounders, occasion all!^ 

Nets Channel Whelks Sturgeon 

Crab Potting Year-Round Statewide, Primarily in No Restrictions Blue Crabs Channel Whelk, Stone Crabs. 

Estuaries Flounders, Whiting, Catfish. 

Diamondback Terrapin, Bottlenose 

Dolphins 

iiorseshoe Crab Year-Round Stateivide, Offshore Only 8" Min. Mesh Horseshoe Crabs 

Trawling 

Shellfish (Manual Mid-Sep -May Estuarine Creeks Hand Rakes, Oysters, Clams Whelks, Stone Crabs (Occasionally) 

H anrest) Tongs, Forks 

Shellfish (Hydraulic Mid-Sep -May Estuarine Creeks Maryland-Type Clams, Oysters, Flounders (Rarely), Whelks 

Escalator) Head with Cross-Barred (Occasionally) 

Conveyor Venus Clams 

Shad Fishery Mid-Jan -Apr Statewide, within Coastal Drift & Stationary American Shad Gar, Carp, Catfish, Hickory Shad, 

Rivers & within 2-3 Miles Gill Nets; Primarily Striped Bass, Atlantic ei Shortnose 

of Shore 5112" Stretch Mesh Sturgeon, Possibly Dolphins 

Haul Seine Sep-Nov Konhern Area of State 2" Min. Stretch Mullet, Spot Pompano, Weakfish, Spanish 

(Grand Strand), Beaches Mesh Mackerel 

Fish Trawling Winter-Early Statewide, Nearshore 4" Min. Stretch Flounder, Sciaenids 

Spring Mesh Whiting 

Gill Nets Year-Round Primarily On or Near 100' Max. Net- Spot, Pompano, Red Drum, Spotted Sea Trout, 

Beaches L.ength; 3" Min. Croakers, Sharks Spanish Mackerel, Possibly 

Stretch Mesh Dolphins 
a 1. Major Cornrnercial 1;i~heries in South Carolina, in Exclusive Economic Zone (EM) Waters 

-- -- -. r 15hei y II'tles 1,oc~t ion Gear Target Bycatch Species 

Spec~f icat~ons Speclev -- -- -. 

Black Se,l Ye'tr-Round, 60 125' On Llve Rectangular Black Sca Bank 6i Rock 

Bass Pots Prirnar~ly Bottom Wire Traps Bass Sea Bass, Scup, 

W~nter - < 24"Islde; Red Porgy, 

Escape Panels Grunts 

Required 

Vertical Year-Round 90-300' On Live No Restrictions Snappers, Squirrelfish, 

Hook & Bottom & Rocky Groupers, Sharks, King 

Line Ledges Porgies, Mackerel 

Grunts, 

Triggerfish 

Bottorn Year-Round 300-900' Around No Restrictions Deepwater Black-Bellied 

Longll~ies Rocky Ledges or Groupers, Rockfish, 

CiayIMud Tilefish Sharks, 

Bottoms Possibly Sea 

Turtles 

Trolling Year-Round; 60-200', Best No restrictions King Little Tunny, 

Most Areas Associated Mackerel Baracuda 

Product~lve with Live Bottorns 

May-Dec or Artificial Reefs 

Shark Jan 1-Jun 30 & 30-200' No Restrictians Large Occasional Red 

Longline Jul 1 -Dec 3 1, Coastal Drum, 

Until 6-Mo. Sharks Grouper, 

Quota is Possibly Sea 

Reachedl Turtles 

Swordfish Year-Round 900-2,000' No Restrictions Swordfish, Billfish, 

Longlincs Tuna Wahoo, 

Dolphinfish, 

Barracuda, 

Possibly Sea 

Turtles 

<;,corgia (Cha~rles Maley): Fisheries interactiorls with bottlenose dolphins occur 011 the 

Georgia Coast as in otl~er coastal areas, though tht: level may be sotnewhat lower due to one factor: 

the major gear threats implicated in other states' fisheries are much less of a threat in Georgia's state 

waters (;ill nets have been outlawed i11 Georgia since 1973, except for hand pulled seines less than 

300 feet in length, ant3 shad and sturgeon netting ('Table 32). 

Sturgeon fisheries in Georgia target the Atkantic species and are highly restricted. This 

fishery is carried out with large mesh set and drift gill nets linlrted to a ~ninimum of 30.5 cm 

stretched mesh webbing, which is not to occupy more than two thirds of the width of the stream it1 
which it is deployed. ]However, most fishermeri tend toward the use of 35 or 36 cni stretched mesh 

webbing in order to target the more valuable, cav~ar-bearing feniales. The season is restr~cted to the 

tlrne period between February 15 to April 15 each year. Due to the nearly art~sanal nature of the 

fishery, interactions with dolphins are probably very ~nfrequerlt 

Shad fisheries in Georgia primarily target fcmale American shad during the legal season from 

January 1 to March 31. Certain areas are further restricted during the season, and the season may be 

extended by the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), but this has 

not occurred since the mid-1980's. Minimum net size is 11.43 cm stretch mesh, but most fishermen 

use mesh sizes closer to 13 ctn, in order to target the more valued female shad. Nets nlay not be 

deployed in such a fash~ion as to restrict more than one half the width of the stream. Set nets may nor 

exceed 30.5 meters in head rope length, and drift nets may not be longer than 305 meters. To date, 

there has only been onc: dolphin entanglement mortality reported in Georgia. 

Table 32. Types of C~ommercial Fishing in Georgia with Potential Impacts for Dolphins 

Gear Season Location Mesh Size Target Species Occasional 

Type (Stretch) Species 

Gill Nets Jan 15-Apr 15 Inshore, 30.5-36.0 Atlantic Striped Bass 

(sink) Coastwide crn Sturgeon 

Gill Nets Jan 1-Mar 31 Inshore - 11.5-13.0 

Fresh Rivers cm 

Trawl Fed Waters: Nearshore - 3-5 cm 

Y ear-Round Offshore: 

State Waters: Coastwide 

Jun-Dec 

Crab Pots Year-round Inshore - 

Offshore 

American Shad Carp. 

Shortnose 

Sturgeon, 

Striped Rass 

White, Brown 

& Pink Shrimp 

Blue Crabs Stone Crab, 

Sheepshead, 

Flounder 

Shrimp trawling operations in Georgia do interact with bottlenose dolphins, but the net effect 

of this rnay be a beneficial one for dolphins, as the trawls disturb and disorient fish and shrimp. 13ycatch of shrimp trawling consists largely of fish, and when thrown overboard, these fish become an 

easy meal fior dolphins and other species nearby. There is one: account of a dolphin caught in a fast 

~noving fish trawl, but trawlers are typically slow moving when fishing (3-6 kmlhr), and the threat of 

incidental capture of dolphins is probably negligible. 

At least 3 dolphins have been entangled in crab pots over the last ten years in Georgia. 

Ilolphins m,ay recognize the fish used for bait as a potential food source, and attempt to turn the pot 

to reveal the bait compartment at the bottom of the trap, thereby becorning entangled in the line. 

Some crabbers feed dolphirls the fish they use as bait, and thus may encourage this behavior. 
The increasing popularity of shark meat ha:(; resulted i11 more intense exploitation of this 

resource. In the last three years, the Federal waters offshore of Georgia (beyond the 3-mile limit of 

State jurisdiction) havt: been the scene of drift gill [letting for small coastal sharks and larger pelagic 

species. 'The seasons ;are limited by a NMFS quota, and mesh sizes vary fron~ 3" to 15" stretched 

mesh. The nets may not be longer than 2,743111. There is a report by fishernlen in 1992, of a 

dolphin with net marks, and an accompanying photograph showed patterns on the skin of the dolphin 

consistent with large mesh net. 

FLORIDA (Bill Brooks): Of the many corllnlercial fisheries in Florida's Atlantic coastal 

waters, several can have either a direct or indirect effect on lbottlenose dolphin populations (Tables 33 

and 34). 'The same fisheries are found in Georgia and South Carolina, but their seasons of 

availability are somewhat different. 

Table 33. Commerci,al Fishing Along the Atlantic Coast of Florida in Estuaries, Lagoons, Bays, 

and Sounds 

-- - -. -- Gear 'Type Dates Location Mesh Size Target Species 

(Stretch) 

Otter 'Trawl, Skimmer 

Trawl 

Gill Net 

Hook & Line, "Splatl.er 

Pole" 

Live Bait Traps 

Crab I'ot,s 

Bull Rakes 

Spring - Fall Nassau & Duval 

Counties 

Year-round Nassau - Dade 

Counties 

Spring - Summer 

Spring - Summer 

Year-round 

Year-round 

1.5" Shrimp 

3 - 6" Shad, Sea Trou~ 

Mullet, Spot, 

Pompano 

Spotted Sea Trn 

Pigfish 

1.5" Blue Crab!; 

I-Iardshell Clam 

At a 1988 workshop to review and evaluate whale watching programs and similar activities 

that nlay affect wild populations of marine mammal!; (Atkins and Swartz, 1989), the participants 

recommentled that NMFS issue regulations establislling a rnir~in~un~ distance for anyone approaching 

whales and prohibiting activities such as feeding wild populations of marine rnanirnals. 'Ihe 

participants expressed concern that the public's increasing interest in observing, approaching, and 

feeding marine marnma~l!; may cause biological problems for the marine mammals, and these activities 

may be a violation of the Marine Mammal I'rotection Act (MMT'A) and the Endangered Species Act. 

On August 29, 1990, NMFS published a proposed rule (55F;K 35328) to amend the definition 

of "take" to include feeding marine mammals in the wild. The comment period cnded 
'Table 34. Commercial Olcean Fisliing Along the Atlantic Coast of Florida Within State 

.lurisdictional Waters 

- - -- 

Gear 'I'ypc Date; Location Mesh Size Target Species 

- -. (Stretch) -- Gill Nets ~rohibhd All State Waters 

(Drift) 

Gill Nets Year-round. Tended, Must Nassau - Dade 3" - 6" Spanish & King 

be Gathered Within 1 hour Counties Mackerel, Trout, 

after Deploying Daylight Flounder, Croaker, Spot, 

Only, from Sebastian Inlet to Pompano, Mullet, Shark. 

Jupiter Inlet. 

Purse Seine Year-round, Seasonal Brevard -Dade 2" Bait Fish, Menhaden, 

Co~~nties Herring, Lady Fish, 

Sardine 

Ballyhoo Nets Oct - Fcb Ballyhoo, Flying Fish & 

Other Bait Fish 

Beach Seine Year-round, Effort Vanes Nassau - Palm 3" Bait Fish, Mullet. Spor, 

Seasonally. Beach Counties Croaker, Sea Trout. 

'I'rawl Effort Varies Seasonally, Nassau - Indian 1.5" - 2" Shrimp 

Year-Round, Except Closed Rivcr Counties 

Apr 1 -Jun 1 

Trawl Dredgc Cape Canaveral Scallops 

Long line Prohibited No More Reef Fish, Tilefish, 

'Than 10 Snapper, Grouper, 

J?onks in Shark, Tuna, Spanish & 

State King Mackerel. 

Waters 

Hook & 1,lne Apr - Quota I$ Reached Nassau - Dade Spanish & King 

Counties Mackerel, Cobia, & 

Other Pelag~cs 

l-look & Line Year-iound Naslau - Dade Reef Fish 

Counties 

Fish Pots Nas5au - Dade Black Sea Bass 

Counties 

Sp:ar 1<1\hlng Year-round Nassau - Dade Grouper, "reef fish" 

Count~es -- - - - 

November 8, 1990. Public hearings on the proposed rule were held in Pananla City, Florida; Ililton 

liead Island, South Carolina; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Silver Spriiig, Marylaild. In the same issue 

of the I--kderal lliegister (55 FK 35336), NMFS published its policy regarding applications for public 

clisplay pennits to approach, harass, and feed Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in the wild. NMFS 

concluded that the potential adverse iirlpacts on the populatioils or stocks of Atlantic bottlenose 
dolphins ;ind the marine ecosystem outweigh the potential benefit of the proposed activities. NMFS 

concludecl that issuing ii perrnit authorizing an activity intended to directly or indirectly alter the 

natural ancl feeding behavior of groups of wild animals is not consistent with the purposes and policies 

of the MMPA. $2 16.13 of the MMPA, which outlines definitions under the Act, defines "take" as 

follows: 

means to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill any marine mammal. This includes, 

without limitation, any of the following: The collection of dead animals, or parts thereof; the 

restraint or detention of a marine mammal, no matter how temporary; tagging a marine 

mammal; the negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or vessel, or the doing of any 

other negligent or intentional act which results in disturbing or molesting a marine mammal; 

and feeding or attempting to feed a marine mammal in the wild [emphasis added]. 

These regulations became effective in April 1991, but in October 1992, a Texas district court, 

ruling in favor of a Corpus Christi couple running a dolphin feeding operation, issued an injunction 

against NMFS's feeding regulations, as applied to bottlenose dolphins. Thus, when NMFS held the 

workshop on coastal stock(s) of bottlenose dolphins in September, 1993, this injunction was still in 

place. However, on October 29, 1993, The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted the 

injunction, stating that it was clearly reasonable for NMFS to prohibit feeding as a potential hazard to 

dolphins. lJnder this ruling, it is again illegal to feed any wild marine mamnials, which includes 

dolphin feeding activities by commercial cruise-boat operators and recreational boaters. 

Apparent Irn~pact of Cornnlercial Dolphin Feeding Operations on Bottlenose Dolphins in 

South Carolina (Sally Murphy): A commercial enterprise that may affect bottlenose dolphins, not 

related to fisheries, is dolphin feeding. In South C:arolina, this activity is concentrated at Hilton Head 

Island. 1 collected information on this activity froim three sources: Nancy Weckhorst, a volunteer on 

our marine mammal :stranding network, interviewed ten boat captains who are involved in feeding 

cruises; Torn Doyle, who has conducted Commander Zodiac's nature cruises for the past seven years, 

provided information on the number of dolphins involved and the food supply; and our own 

observations are included. 

IIistory: In atidition to the food associated with shrimp trawlers, it is believed that crabbers 

first began to offer dolphins some of their frozen bait as amusing "popsicles". The first documented 

feeding (with photos) was in 1981 or 1982. Captain Fuzzy Davis was fishing with friends near the 

marshes inland of Calibogue Sound. They had caught 8 trout. A pod of dolphins was heading 

toward their fishing spot and the men were concerned that the dolphins would ruin their fishing. 

They beat on the side of the boat to scare the dolphins away. To their surprise, one dolphin came up 

to the side of the boat They offered it one of the trout, which it took. They then gave it the rest of 

the trout. Capt. Davis told this story to others, b~ut no one believed him. 

14t about this same tirne, there were several old dolphins north of IIilton Head in Port Royal 

Sound and the Colleton River that had apparently been fed by crabbers. In 1987, one of these 

animals launched itself onto the gunwale of Tom Murphy's boat while he was pulled up onto the edge 

of the marsh to observe an eagle's nest. 
During the mid 11980s, there were two charter boats out of Harbor Town at Hilton Head Island 

that began to feed dolphins. Over the years this number has increased, and today, there are 14 

groups that actively advertise dolphin feeding cruises. 

Current Situatican: The number of "friendly" dolphins has increased each year. Now there 

are about 30 in Calibogue Sound and five in Port Royal Sound. Table 35 shows the various types of 

boats involved and the numbers of each. The dolphin feeding occurs primarily from March to 

October. The "slower" months are March through May, and September through October. During 

this time, cruises may make only one trip per day. The "busy" months are June, July and August, 

when several trips are m~ade per day. 

These vessels operate out of five marinas: Harbor Town, Shelter Cove, Palmetto Bay, South 

Beach, and Skull Creek at Hudson's Seafood Restaurant. Using four trips per day during the busy 

months and one trip per day during the slower months, we get 521 "trip days" per year. If we 

multiply this times the niinimum number of passengers per trip, then 114,099 people view dolphin 

feeding per year. The cost per person is about $12.00 for large boats and $24.00 for snialler ones. 

lJsing the minimum fee, this activity generates in excess of 1.3 million dollars per year. At each step 

in these estimates, the rn~inirnum number was used. A more realistic estimate might be 125,000 

persons and close to 2 niillion dollars in revenue per year. 

Quality of Foodl, and Behavior Patterns: Most of the boats catch fresh menhaden or 

mullet, which are abundant during the summer. Some have frozen cigar minnows. Tom Doyle has 

been keeping a journal and believes that he has photo-IDS of 25 individual dolphins that are habituated 

to dolphin feeding boats. There may be another five habituated individuals that are using the northern 

end of the island and Port Royal Sound. Not all of the pods are habituated and not all of the 

members of a pod are habituated. The "friendly" animals appcar to be adolescents, and seem to be 

increasing in number, although some dolphins that ate from dolphin feeding boats as adolescents no 

longer do so, now that tlney are adults. There are also two motherlcalf pairs that now corne to the 

t~oats. The same dolphiins are not seen in the sanie place each day. Since practically no feeding takes 

place during winter, dolphins are not totally dependant on this source of food. 

Problen~s: There was concern expressed by all of the boat captains who were interviewed. 

According to these boat captains, the primary problern is with the rental boats and the waverunners. 

'The people who rent therri are not operating them safely; they chase the dolphins, and someone in this 

group was observed pouring beer into the mouth of a dolpliin. Others have been seen trying to feed 

pickles, potato chips, and pretzels to dolphins. 

The second concern expressed by the boat captains was in regard to the quality of the fish 

t~eing fed to the dolphin:;. They questioned whether the fish were fresh enough, whether some of 

them were being re-frozen, and whether the fish buckets were routinely washed before another batch 

of fish was placed in them. Three dolphins have now been observed with green sores along their 

gums. Is this related to their diets? And most important of all, how are these feeding programs 

affecting the behavior ot the social groups that live iri~ that area? 

A new concern is the practice of petting the clolphins. This IS becorning more prevalent and 

may be rough at times. All of the people interviewed believed that thi4 practice should be banned 

outright, or at least regulated in sorne form. At the moment, it is totally out of control. 
Acknowledge~~~e~~ts: 1 would llke to thank Nancy Weckhorst dnd Ton1 Doyle for therr Input 

on dolphln feedlng, Davld Cupka for ~nforrnat~on or1 cotnmerclal flsli~ng dnd 'I'om Murphy for revlew 

dnd conunent\ 

Table 35. Vessels Involved in Dolphin Feeding at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 

- -. Type of Vessel Number TripsIDay PASSENGERS/TRI~!- 

HeadICn~ise Boat 4 4 150 

Fishing Charter 24 ? 30-40 

Sailboat Charter 6 4 3 0 

Nature Charter 14 4 4-6 

Rental 

Power 20 2 4-6 

Waverunners 15 r, 

- - 1-2 -- TOTAL 83 14 (minimum) 2 19 (minimum) 

Private B'oats 25 1 4-6 - -- 

Some Thoughts on the Practice of Feeding Bottlenose Dolphins in South Carolina - 

Another Perspective (Tom Murphy): Currently, ;in extensive part of South Carolina's waters are 

involved ill dolphin feeding operations. There are at least 14 conlrncrcial dolphin feeding operations 

at Hilton Ilead. It is conservatively estimated that ilt least lU0,OC)O people pard to feed dolphlns at 

Hilton Head during 1993. This doesn't include part-time operators, sport flshing charters or private 

boats. It is likely that in excess of 125,000 people were involved in dolphin feeding at Hilton Head 

over the past year. 

There are several features which are unique to this operation at Hilton Head. First, the 

quality of fish fed is gi:nerally high, as all commercial operajors in the area buy from the same 

supplier. The fish are flash-frozen at the time of capture. This is not to suggest that all feeding is 

controlled, but a large portion is self-regulated. The operators know they are under scrutiny. 

Second, the feeding operation is seasonal. 'There is little or no feeding of dolphins from IlecernberMarch. Thus every year, the dolphins return to natural patterns of feeding. 

1 have been working to photo-ID as Inany feed boat-habituated dolphins as 1 can at Ililton 

Head. I am working with Ton1 Doyle, who has kept daily journals for the past 7 years while 

operating a cornrnercial dolphin tour. Torn knows most of tlle habituated dolphins on sight and has 

annual histories on rnat1:y. His cooperation has beer1 invaluable and has rllade rapid progress possible 

These dolphin:; ,appear to be facultative feeders at boats. There have heen times when known 

habituated dolphins did not come to the boat when involved in social activity or natural feeding 

behavior. We have also seen two long-term habituated dolphins successfully breed and calve for their 

first time, this year. Tllese two cowlcalf pairs are seen regularly at the boats. We also regularly see 

some members of a pod which are habituated and other ~nenabers which are not habituated. Our 
rough estimate is that 30-50 out of a total populatio~~ of 200 dolphins are habituated, but this number 

rnay be increasing rapidly. 

[ have listed sevt:ral possible pros and cons of dolphin feeding below 

Ilolphin Feeding - Potential negative impacts: 

e. 

f'. 

g. 

May alter the natural foraging behavior of older juveniles and adults, leading to dependency; 

feeding of conta~ninated (non fresh) fish may lead to disease; 

may result in feeding inappropriate fisli that lack adequate nutritional value; 

habituation may Icad to indiscriminate feeding. This could result in ingestion of totally 

inappropriate food items such as pickles, bread, or foreign objects. Placement of food or 

ob-jects deep into Ithe mouth Inay produce a gag response; 

may result in injury to those feeding the dolphins and/or to swinlmers in the general area, or 

in other areas along their migratory path; 

may result in ii1cre;ised injury and mortality of' dolphins in sport fishing, as dolphins "learn" 

to take dead fish used as bait and habituate to t~oats; 

may increase negative interactions between dolphins and corn~ilercial fisheries such as 

crabbing, as dolphins seek out bait inside crab pots. This nlay be exacerbated by crabbers 

who feed hait to clo~lpliins; 

there niay be an iincreased probability of disease transmission between dolphins and people as 

physical contact inc:reases. Many habituated dolphins now allow %physical contact such as 

petting and touching; 

feeding rnay result in unnatural and stressful social pressure on subordinate..anirnals. H,a~ld 

feeding is a predictable and very localized situation with no fringe feeding benefits for 

subordinates. Thus; an excessive amount of social pressure niay be inflicted on subordinate 

anirnals with no nutritional benefits to them; 

unhat~ituated dolphins are impacted as boaters frequently approach "wild" dolphins to offer 

food. This is of particular concern when wild dolphins are feeding in social groups on 

schooled fish. Both dolphins and fish are dispersed by unknowing boaters who wonder why 

the dolphins didn't come to their boat; 

habituated dolphins Inay be subjected to greater risk of being struck by boat propellers. 

Ilolpliin Ft:eding - Benefits: 

a. Dolphin viewingllfeeding provides a positive conservation message to tens of thousands of people 

each year. 'This is a positive environmental experience brought not only to actual participants, 

but also to those to whom they discuss their experience; 

t dolph.in feeding har;; grown into a significant part of ecotourism and represents an industry that 

grosses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year; 

c. provides an opportunity for the close observation of dolpliins tor scientific observation or 

collection of data; 

d. may ;lctually enhance survival of dolphins, if other species such as eagles, deer, or passerine 

birds are used as a model. 
Co~iclusions: Although there are 11 detrimental factors listed and only 4 beneficial, it should 

be pointed oilt that all ~Jctrimental effects are hypotl~~esizcd and have little or no supporting 

documentation under actual field conditions. There has been no reported increase in strandings 

acljacent to feeding arei.1:;. Remember, the significant increase in the "normal" stranding rate during 

198711988 is what was used to determine depleted status for the coastal migratory stock(s). Nor 

could one argue that the number of dolphins involved in current feeding situations represent a threat 

to the stocks if all were killed as a result of feeding. On the other hand, 3 of the 4 beneficial aspects 

of dolphin feeding are real and documented. NOTE): I am not condoning or recommending a 

continuation of dolphin feeding programs. I am, however, suggesting that restrictive regulation of an 

industry should not be based on innuendo, but rather, on sound scientific information. 

The existence of a group of "wild" dolphins which are habituated to being hand fed provides 

unique opportunities for the study of bottlenose dolphins. There is currently a group of 30-50 

habituated dolphins that may easily be observed at close range for photo-identification, signs of 

disease and parasitism, and behavior. Further, there are additional animals which are conditioned to 

the close approach of boats because of the very high interaction between boats and dolphins, but are 

not habituated to hand feeding. Although not intentled for research, this site is the product of many 

years of habituation and an enormous expenditure of labor and funds. 

The value of t11i:i area for the study of dolphins appears to be 3-fold. First, as an area to 

study the effects of handl feeding dolphins on the health and well-being of the population. Although 

there are Inany reasons lo believe this practice call 1-)e detrimental, must of the information is based on 

inference and conjecture. It could also be argued that because of the long and intense habituation of 

dolphins to feeding, the effects of a ban on ,feeding may be deleterious. Second, these animals 

represent a population in which habituated dolphins may be treated as "marked" and can be "resighted" (recaptured) easily. Thus, if we know thp size of the habituated population and the ratio of 

habituated to unhabitua~ted dolphins, we can estimate: the total population and evaluate survey 

techniques. And last, this population represents an intermediate condition between captive and wild 

dolphins. We have tht: opportunity to observe, at close proxwmity, basically free-ranging dolphins to 

compare behaviors and the etiology of diseases. 

There is a need to photo-ID habituated dolphins in order to: 1) Determine annual 

survivorship of habituated dolphins; 2) determine nhininiuln mururbers of habituated animals; 3) 

determine the d~stribution and frequency of sightings of habituated dolphins; 4) monitor changes in 

the health and behavior of habituated dolphins; and 5) document habituated dolphins which become 

strandings. 

Multiple surve:ys should be conducted of the: entire area within which habituated dolphins 

range, to determine the ratio of known (identifiable) dolphins to total habituated dolphins seen. 

Calculations of mark-recapture ratios can then be used to estimate the total population of habituated 

dolphins, and over time., to determine annual increases or decreases in the sociable population. 

Flnally, multlplc aer~al and boat survey5 should be conducted to determine the ratio of 

habituated io un1iabituat1:d dolphins Mark-recapture ratios can then be wed to e\tunate the entire 

populat~on of dolphins in the area (Callbogue Sound) 'I'his populdt~on est~mate could then be used to 

evaluate the etfect~veness of aerlal and boat census technlquej 
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources (FPR) and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 

Beaufort Laboratory, sponsored this workshop, and invited workshop participants. Several people 

played significant roles throughout the development and completion of this workshop, and deserve 

recognition: Bud Cross and Don Hoss (Beaufort Laboratory) agreed to convene the workshop and 

provided time, staff and funding; Gail Cannon of the Duke Marine Laboratory, helped organize the 

logistics and running of the workshop including setting up the conference room, organizing lunches 

for the participants of thle workshop, and obtaining visual equipment including overheads and 

projectors. Staff of the: North Carolina Maritime Museum, especially Keith Rittmaster, helped set up 

a reception which added considerably to the success of the workshop by facilitating the development 

of friendly working relationships among the participants. The compilers of this report would like to 

thank all of the workshop participants for their contribut~ons and assistance both during the workshop 

and during the completion of this workshop report. Finally, Marcia Butler incorporated the edits and 

comments from the Scientific Publications Office inlo the final version of this report. 
Literatrlre Cited 

Aguilar, Pi 1983 Org:inochlor~ne pollution In sperm whales, 1'lzy~ctc.r mcrc-rocephrrllc~, trorn the 

temperate waters of the Eastern North Atlalritic Ma1 Pollut Bull 14(9) 349-352 

Aguilar, A. 1987. Using organochlorine pollutants to discriminate marine mammal populations: a 

review and critique of the methods. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3:242-262. 

Allen, K.R. 1976. A rnore flexible model for baleen whale populations. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. 76:24;'-263. 

Atkins, N., and S.L. Swartz (editors). 1989. Proceedings sf the workshop to review and evaluate 

whale watching programs and management needs, November 14- 16, 1988, Monterey , 

California. Cen. Mar. Conserv. Wash., D.C., 53 p. 

Baden, D.G. 1983. Marine food-borne dinoflagellate toxins. Int. Rev. Cytol: 82:99- 150. 

Baden, D.C;., and T.J. IMende. 1982. Toxicity of two toxins fro~nthe Florida red tide dirloflagellate 

- Ptychodiscus brc:vis. Toxicon 20: 457-462. 

Baden, D.C;., T.J. Mentle, G. Bikhazi and I. Leung. 1982. Rronchoconstriction caused by Florida 

red tide toxins Toxicon 20:929-932. 

Bailey, J.W. 1946. The mammals of Virginia. Williams Printing Co. Richmond, Va. 416 p 

Barros, N B. 1993. Fleeding Ecology and Foraging Strategies of Bottlenose Dolphins 011 the Central 

East Coast of Florida. IJniv. Miami. Coral Gables, Fla. Ph.D. dissert., 

328 p. 

Barros, N B., and D.K.. Odell. 1990. Food hab~ts of bottlenose doipl-rins In the southeastern United 

States. Irz S. 1,eatherwood and R.R. Reeves (Editors), The bottlenose dolphin, p. 309-328, 

Acad Press, N.Y. 

Bassos, M.K. 1993. A behavioral assessment of tlre reintroduction of two bottlenose dolphins 

Urliv. Calif., Santa Cruz, M.S. thesis, 84 p 

Blaylock, K.A. 1984. The distribution and abundance of the bottler~ose dolphin, Tursiops trnncnfus, 

in Virginia. Coll. William Mary, Williamsburg, Va., M.S. thesis, 56 1,. 

Blaylock, R A 1985 The marine mammals of V~rginia VlMS Educ Ser 35, VSG-85-05, 

35 1' 

Blaylock, K A 1988 'The distrrbut~o~l and abundance of the bottlenow dolpllin, lirr\rop\ Irlctrt atu\ 

(Mlontagu, 182 1 ), 111 Virg~rl~a Fish Bull 56 797-806 

Bonaventura, J., and C'. Bonoventura. 1987. C:arolina fish may be toxin carriers Envir 

lOl(3): 1 . Duke lJniv Mar. Lab., Beaufort, N.C. 
13orison. H. I ,. , Ellis, S. and I-,. E. McCarthy . 1980. Central respiratory and circulatory effects 

of C;yt?lilotiit~rtm brevetoxin in anesthetized cats. Brit. J. Pharmacol. 70:249-256. 

I3urn, 1). M. 1988. NOAA/Smithsonian cooperative: mid-Atlantic bottlenose dolphin aerial survey 

program: final report. NOAA/NMFS/SEF!SC/Miami Lab., Coast. Resour. Div. 

Contrib. ML-CKD-87/88-22, 17 p. 

Burn, D.M., and G.P. Scott. 1988. Synopsis of available information on marine mammal-fisheries 

~nteractions in the southeastern United State?,: preliminary report. 

NOAA/NMFS/SEFC/Miami Lab., Coast. Fl~sh. Resour. Div. Contrib. CRD-87/88-26, 10 p 

Burn, I1.M ., G.P. Scott, R.E. Owen, and L.J. Hansen. 1987. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops 

truncatus distrilbution patterns in the southeastern United States. Poster presentation at the 

Seventh Biennial Conference 011 the Biology of Marine Mammals, Miami, Fla., U.S.A. 

December 5-9, 1987. 

Caldwell, ID.K., and F.EI. Golley. 1965. Marine n~~ammals from the coast of Georgia to Cape 

Hatteras. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Society. 81(1):24-32. 

Carew, R.J. (1982). Aerial surveys to estimate herd size and density of populations of 

bottle~lose dolphlns in the area of Savannah River, Port Royal and St. Helena Sounds. NMFS 

Filial Contr. Rep. NA-8 1-GA-C-00008. 

CETAP. 1982. A characterization of marine mani~nnals and turtles in the mid- and North Atlantic 

areas of the U.:S outer continental shelf. Final report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program. U.S Dep Inter., Washington, D.C., Bur. Land Management Contr. AA55.l-CT8- 

48. 450 p. 

Clark, W.A., D.G. Hollis, R.E. Weaver and P. Riley. 1984. Identification of unusual pathogenic 

graini-negative aerobic and facultatively anaerobic bacteria. U.S. Dep. Health Human 

Serv., Cell. Dis. Contr., Atlanta, Ga. 

Ilowling, T.E. and W. N[. Brown. 1993. Population structure of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops 

truncarus as determined by restriction endonuclease analysis of mitochondrial DNA. 

Mar. Manim. Sci. 9:138-155. 

rluffield, TI .A., S. H. FLidgway, and L. tI. Cornell. 1983. I-Iematology distinguishes coastal and 

oftshore forms of bottlenose dolphins, fi~rsiops. Can. J Zool. 61 :930-933. 

Iluffield, [>.A,, and R.S. Wells, 1986. Population structure of bottlenose dolphins: Genetic studies 

of bottlenose dolphins along the central west coast of Plorida. Contr. Rep. to Nat. Mar. 

Fish. Serv., Southeast Fish. Cen. Contr. 45-WCNF-5-00366, 10 p. 

Duffield, i1.A. and K.S. Wells, 199 1 . The conlhined application of clironiosorne, protein and 

rnc~lecular data fc,r the investigation of social, unit structure and dyna~nics in Tursiops 

rrurrcratus. In A.R. Hoelzel (Editor.), p. 155-169, Gerictic ecology of whales and dolphirls 

Rep. Int. Whal. Comrn., Spec. Iss. 13, 
Fowler, C. W. 1981a Density dependence as related to life history strategy. Ecology. 1981: vol. 

60:!-5 10. 

Fowler, C' W 198lb Comparative population dynanilcs In large mammals In C W Fowler and 

T D Sm~th (I,dltors), Dynamics of large irkammal populat~ons, pp 437-45 1 John Wiley and 

Sons, New York, N.Y. 

Fritts, T.l-I., A.B. Irvine, R.D. Jennings, L.A. Collum, W Hoffman, and M.A. McGekee. 1983. 

Turtles, birds and mammals in the northern Gulf of Mexico and nearby Atlantic waters. An 

overview based on aerial surveys of OCS areas, with emphasis on oil and gas effects. 

Minerals Manage. Ser. Final Contr. Rep. 14-16-0009-8 1-949, 455 p. 

Gaskin, D E., R. Frank, M. Holetrinet. 1983. Polychlorinated biphenyls in harbour 

porpoises, Phoc-oena phocoena (L), in the Bay of Fundy, Canada and adjacent waters, with 

some information on chlordane and hexachllorobenzene levels. Arch. Environ. Contam. 

Toxicol. 12:211-219. 

Gaskin, D.E., M. Holdrinet, and R. Frank. 1971. Organochlorine pesticide residues in harbour 

porpoises froin the Bay of Fulldy region. Nature 233:499-500. 

Geraci, J.R. 1989. Clinical investigation of the 1987-88 mass mortality of bottlenose dolphins along 

the U.S. Central and South Atlantic Coast. Final Rep to Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser. and U.S. 

Navy, Off. Nav. Res., 63 p. 

Geraci, J.Ii., and V.J. Lounsbury. 1993. Marine mammals ashore: A field guide for strandings. 

Tex. A & M Sea Grant Publ., Galveston, 'Tex., 305 p 

Geraci, J K., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Tirnperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early, J.H. Prescott, and C.A. 

Mayo. 1989. Humpback whales, Megaprera novaeangliae fatally poisoned by dinoflagellate 

toxin. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 1895--1898. 

Geraci, J I<. , B.D. Hicks, and D.J. St. Aubin. 1979. Dolphin pox: a skin disease of cetaceans. 

Can. J. Complete. Med. 43:399-404. 

Geraci, J .R., D.J. St. Aubin, 1.K. Barker, R.G. Webster. 1982. Mass mortality of harbor seals: 

pneumonia associated with influenza A virus. Science. 215: 1129-1 131. 

Gunter, C; , R.H. Williams, C.C. Davis and F.G. Smith. 1948. Catastrophic mass mortalities of 

~riarine animaNs and coincident phytoplankton bloom on the west coast of Florida, November 

11946 to August 1947. Ecol. Monogr. 18,309-324. 

Haley, N.J., and A.J. 1Read. 1993. Workshop on harbor porpoise mortalities and human 

interactions. L1.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-FINER-5, 32 p. 

Ilaildley, C.D. Jr. and C.P. Patton. 1947. Wild ~nam~nals of Virginia. Va. Comm. Came Inland 

Fish., Richmond, 22 p. 
1 Iansen, I,. J . , and M. D . Scott. 1989. Bottlenose dolphin densities in five selected southeastern 

United States areas during 198 1-83. NMFSISEFC, Miarni Lab., Coastal Resour. Div., 

Contrib. CRD-88/89-08. 

IHarrisori, R.J . 1969. Reproduction and reproductive organs. In ?'.I!. Anderson (Editors), The 

biology of marinc: mammals, p. 253-342. Acad. Press, NY. 

I-Iarrison, R.J . , R. L. Bi:ownell, Jr., and R.C. Boice. 1972. Reproduction and gonadal appearances 

in some odontocetes. In R.J. Harrison (Editor), Functional anatomy of marine mammals. 

Vol. 1, p. 361-429. Acad. Press, NY. 

I-Iersh, S.L. 1987a. Sl.ock structure of bottlenose dolphins (genus Tursiops) in the southeastern 

U.S : a review and management considerations. Final Rep. to NOAAINMFSISEFC, 

Contr. 40GENFS100715, 35 p. 

I-Iersh, S.L. 1987b. Characterization and differentiation of bottlenose dolphin populations (genus 

Tursiops) in the southeastern U. S. based on mortality patterns and morphon~etrics. Univ. 

Mimi, Coral Gables, Fla. P.hD. dissert., 21 3 p. 

Hersh, S.L. 1987~. Mlalrtality, natality, migration, and orga~~isn~ic growth rates of bottlenose 

dolphins (genus irursiops ): a review and management considerations. Final Rep. to 

NOAA/NMFS/:SIEFC, Contr. OGENF7007 15, 27 p. 

Hersh, S .L. , and Duffield, D. A. 1990. Distinction between r~orthwest Atlantic offshore and coastal 

bottlenose dolphins based on hemoglobin profile and morphometry. In 

S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves, (Editors), The bottlenose dolphin, p. 129-139 Acad. 

Press, N.Y., 

I-Iersh, S.L., D.K. Odell, and E.D. Asper. 1990a, Bottlenose dolphin mortality patterns in the 

IndianIBanana River systems. In S. Leatherwood, and R.R. Reeves (Editors), The 

bottlenose dolphin, p. 159-164, Acad. Press, N.Y 

Hersh, S.L., D.K. Odell, and E.D. Asper. 1990b. Sexual dimorphism in bottlenose dolphins from 

the east coast 01' Florida. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 6:305-315. 

Ilershkovitz, P. 1966 Catalogue of living whales. U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 246, 259 p 

Heyning, J.E. 1987. Skanded cetaceans -- what the biological data are telling us. Cetus 7(2):7-9. 

Ilohn, A.A. 1980. Agt: determination and age related factors in the teeth of wcsterri North Atlant~c 

l~ottlenose dolphins. Sci. Rep. Whales Kes Inst I'okyo 32.39-66 

Ilolt, S.J. 1985. The classification of whale stocks and the determination of catch limits under the 

new rnanagemerlt procedure with limited information. licp. Int. Whal. Comm. 35:487-49.1. 

Honda, K , K 'Tatsukawa, K Itano, N M~yazak~, and 'l' 1;ujlyarna 1983 Heavy metal 

concentrations ~n rrluscle, I~ver, and k~dney tlssue of st1 ~ped dolpll~n, St~nelln coerrrlcocrlbtr. 
and their varia1:ions with body length, weighit, age and sex. Agric. 13iol. Chenl. 

47: 1219-1228. 

Irvine, H., and R.S. b'ells. 1972. Results of atten-lpts to tag Atlantic bottleiiose ciolpliins, 7irrsiol1.s 

truncatus. Cetology 13: 1-5. 

Irvine, A.B., M.B. Scott, R.S. Wells and J.H. Kauf~nann, 1981. Movements and activities of the 

Atlantic bottlericlse dolphin, Tursioys truncotus, near Sarasota, Florida. Fish Bull. 

79:671-688. 

Keinath, J.A., and J.A. Musick. 1988. Population trends of the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiop~ 

truncatus, in Virginia, 1980-1987. Final Rep. to NOAAINMFSISEFC Miarrii Lab. 

PO #40GENFE;80564, 36 p. 

Kennedy, S., J.A. Smjith, P.F. Cush, S.J. McC:ullough, G.M. Allan and S. McQuaid. 1988 Vira! 

distemper now finund in porpoises. Nature 336:21. 

King, C.A. 1987. Organochlorines in bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops trunccrtus, and pygn~y sperm 

whales, Kogia hreviceps, from southeastern Florida. IJ~iiv. Miarni, Coral Gables, Fla., 

M..S. thesis, 92 lp. 

Kuehl, D., R.W. Haeblt:r, and C.W. Potter. 1991. Chemical residues in dolphins from the U.S. 

Atlantic coast in~cluding Atlantic bottlenose obtained cluring the 1987188 mass mortality. 

Chemosphere 22(1): 1071-1084. 

Lipscon~b, 'T.P., F.Y. Schultnan, D. Moffett, and 5;. Kennedy. 111 press. Morbilliviral disease in 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from the 1987-1 988 epizootic. Journal of 

Wildlife Diseases. 

Mahy, B.W.J., T. Barirett, S. Evans, E.C. Anderson and C.J. Bostock. 1988. Characterization of a 

seal ~i~orbillivirus. Nature 336(10): 115. 

de la Mare, W.K. 1986. The sensitivity of MSY to the para~neters of the baleen whale model. 

Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 36:425-427. 

Martineau, D., 1'. Beland, C. Ilesjardins and A. Lagace. 1987. Levels of' organochlorine chemicals 

in tissues of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leurus, from the St. Lawrence Estuary, Quebec, 

Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. 'loxicol. 16: 137- 147. 

McFarreri, E.F., 1-1. T~I-labe, F.J. Silva, W.B. Wilson, J.E. (lampbell, and K.13. 1,ewis. 1965. 'rhe 

occurrence of a ciguatera-like poison in oysters, clams, and Gymnoriirziurn breve cultures. 

Toxicon 3:111-123. 

Mead, J.G. 1975. Preliminary report on the formcr net fisheries for 7i~rsiops 1rmncutu.s in the 

western North A.tlantic. J. Fish. Res. Boarcl Can. 35: 1 155-1 162. 
Mead, J G and C W Potter 1990 Natural history of bottlenose dolphin\ along the centrdl Atlantlc 

co,l\t of thc IJ111ted State\ 111 S I,catlirrwood and K R Reevec (Ed~tors), The bottlenose 

dolphin, 13 16'1- 195 Acad ]'re\\, N Y 

Mercer, M1.C. 1973. Observations on distribution and intraspecific variation in the pigmentation 

palterns of odon~tocete cetacea in the westeriri North Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 

30:1111-1130. 

Muir, D.C.G., R. Wagemann, N.P. Grift, R.J. Norstom, M. Simon, and J. Lien. 1988. 

Organochlorint: chemical and heavy metal contaminants in white-beaked dolphins, 

I,agenorhynchu.s alhiro.stris, and pilot whales, Globicephala nzelaena, from the coast of 

Newfoundland, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17:613-629. 

O'Shea, T.J., R.L. Brownell, Jr., D.R. Clark, Jr., W.A. Walker, M.L. Gay, and T.G. Larnont 

1980. Organochlorine pollutants in small cetaceans from the Pacific and south Atlantic 

Oceans, Novernt~er 1968 - June 1976. Pesticides Monitor. J. 14(2):35-46. 

O'Shea, T.J., G.B. Ra~tl~~bun, R.K. Bonde, C.L. Buergelt and D.K. Odell. 1991. An epizootic of 

Florida manate~es associated with a dinoflagc:llate bloom. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 7: 165-179. 

Odell, I1.K 1987. The mystery of marine mammal strandings. Cetus 7(2):2-6. 

Odell, 1l.U 1989. Dolphins of the Indian River Lagoon. Focus on the Sea 10(2): 5-6 

01 1 1991. A review of the Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network: 

1978-1987. In JIIE. Reynolds, 111, and D.K. Odell (Editors), Marine mammal 

strandings in the United States, p. 19-23. U S. Dep. Comrner., NOAA Tech. Rep., 

NMFS 98. 

Odell, I1.K , and E.D. Asper. 1990. Distribution and movements of freeze-branded bottlenose 

dolphins in the Indian and Banana Rivers, Florida. In S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves 

(Editors), The t)ottlenose dolphin, Acad. I1ress, N.Y. 

Osterhaus, A. D. M. E., , and E.J. Vedder. 1988. 1dc:ntification of virus causing recent seal deaths 

Nature. 335:20. 

Ostrom, P.H., J. Lien and S.A. Macko. 1993. Evaluation of the diet of Sowerby's beaked whale, 

Mr~~so~~lodon bidr~ns, based on isotopic comparisons among northwestern Atlantic cetaceans. 

Can. J. Zool. 71.858-86 1. 

Perrin, W F. and S.B. Reilly 1984. Keproductive parameters of dolphins and srnall whales of the 

farnily Delphiniclae Rep. Int. Whal. Cornn~n (Spec. Issue) 6:97-133. 

I'iercc, R.KI. 1986. lied tide, 1'1yc~llodisc~ri.s hrevis, toxin aerosols: review. Toxicon 24:955-966 

l'oli. M.A. 1988. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 71 : 1000-1002 
Poli, M.A., C.B. Tern,pleton, J.G. Page, and 1I.H. Hines. 1989. Detection, metabolism, and 

patliopliysiology of the brevetoxins Pb'Tx-2 and l'b'l'x-3 In S. Hall (Editor), Natural toxins 

Ron1 aquatic and marine e~lviron~nents. AI~. Clieni. Soc. Symp. Ser.., Washington, DC. 

I'otter. C. 1980. Mammals - the marine fauna. Xn I,inzey, (Editor), Endangered arid 

threatened plants and animals of Virginia, p. 595-602. Va. Polytech. Inst. State Univ. 

Blacksburg. 

Reilly, S 13. and J. Barlow. 1986. Rates of increase in dolphin population size. Fish. Bull. 

84:527-534. 

Reynolds, J.E. 111, and D.K. Odell. 1991. An assessment of the accomplishments of the regional 

niarine mammal stranding networks and some recommendations for enhancing their 

productivity iin the future. In J.E. Reynoltls, 111, and I1.K. Odell (Editors), Marine 

rriamnlal strandings in the United States, p 1-6 NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98. 

Roberts, B.S. 1979. Occurrence of Gymnodinium breve, red tides along the west and east coasts of 

Florida during 1976 and 1977. In D.1,. Taylor and H .W. Salinger (E:ditors), Toxic 

dinoflagellate blooms. ElsevierJNorth Holland, N .Y. 

Romrt~el, S.A., W.A. IvlcLellan, C.W. Potter, J.Ci. Mead, and D.A. Pabst. 1991. Characterizing a 

whole dolphin: a new protocol. Poster Pres. at Ninth Biennial Conf. on Bio. Mar. Marnm. 

Chicago, Dec. 5-9, 1991. 

Rodgers, K.L., 1I.N. C:hou, K. Ternma, T. Akera, and Y. Shi~nizu. 1984. Positive inotropic and 

toxic effects of brevetoxin-B on rat and guinea pig heart. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 

76:296-305. 

Ross, G. J. B., and Cocltcroft, V .G. 1990. Comments on Australian bottlenose dolphins and the 

taxono~nic status of Tursiops aduncus (Ehrenberg, 1832). In S. Leatherwood and R.R. 

Reeves (Editor:;), The bottlenose dolphin, p. 101-128, Acad. Press, N. Y. 

Iludin, M . 199 1. An assessment of distribution, group con~position and behavior of bottlenose 

dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, through photoidentification, in the Indian River Lagoon System. 

Fla. Inst. Technol, Melbourne, M.S. thesis, 40 p. 

Safe, S. 1985. Polycl-~lorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBB): 

brochemistry, toxicology and mechanism of action. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 13:319-395 

Schulman, L.S., 1,.E. Roszell, T.J. Mende, and D.G. Baden. 1990. A new polyether toxin from 

Florida's red tide dinoflagellate Pt~chodisclus brevis. In B. Graneli, B. Sundstrom, I,.Edler, 

and D. Anderson (Editors). Toxic marine phytoplankton, p. 407-4 13, Blsevier Sci. Publ., 

Amsterdam. 

Scott, G.P. 1990. Management oriented research on Tursiop.~ truncatus by the Southeast Fisheries 

Center. In S. ILeatherwood and R.R. Reeves (Editors) 'The bottlenose dolphin, p. 623- 

639, Acad. Press, N.Y. 
Scott, G.1'. , and D.M. Burn. 1987. The potential impact of the 1987 mass mortality of the midAtlantic off-shore stock of bottlenose dolphins. NMFSISEFC, Mia~ni Lab., Coast. Resour. 

Div. Contrib. R/II,-CRD-87/88-10, I I p. 

Scott, G.ll., D.M. Burn, and L.J. I Iansen. 1988. The dolphin die-off: long-term effects and 

re:covery of the population. Oceans '88 Proc. 3:8 10-823. 

Scott, G.P., L.J. Hanse:n, and D.M. Burn. 1988. Preliminary report on status of the bottlenose 

dolphin stocks, U.S. Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. NMFSISEFC, Miami Lab., 

Coast. Resour. Div. Contrib. ML-CRD-87/88-23, 1 1 p. 

Scott, M.D., R.S. Wells, and A.B. Irvine, 1990. r9 long-term study of bottlenose dolphins on the 

west coast of Florida. In S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves (Editors), The bottlenose 

dolphin, p. 235-244, Acad. Press, N.Y. 

Scott, M. D., R.S, Wells, A.B. Irvine, and B.R. Mate. 1990. Tagging and nlarking studies on small 

cetaceans. In ,S. Leatherwood and K.R. Reeves (Editors), The bottlenose dolphin, 

p. 489-514, Acad. Press, N.Y. 

Sergeant, I).E., D.E. C'aldwell, and M.C. Caldwell. 1973. Age, growth and maturity of bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursic,ps truncatus, from northeast Florida. J Fish. Res. Board Can. 

30: 1009-101 1. 

Shane, S.IH. 1980a. Occurrence, movements, and distribution of bottlenose dolpliins, Tursiop~ 

truncatus, in southern Texas. Fish. Bull. '78:593-681. 

Shane, S.1t-l. 1980b. Occurrence, movements, and distribution of bnttienose dolphins, TU~S~O~J 

truncatus, in the Aransas Pass area of Texas,U.S. Dep. Commer., Nat. Tech. Inf. Serv., 

Springfield, Va., DB-283 393, 130 p. 

Shane, S.H., R.S. Well,s, arid B. Wiirsig. 1986. Ecology, behavior, and social organization of the 

bottlenose dolphin: a review. Mar. Manin]. Sci. 2:34-63. 

Spellman, A.C. 1991. A study of the distribution, identity and activities of the Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, based on 

photoidentification. Fla. Inst. rl'eclinol. Mclbourne, M.S. thesis, 40 p. 

Steidinger, K.A., and D1.G. Baden. 1984. TOXIC marine dinotlagellates. I11 11. spector (Editor), 

Dinoflagellates, p. 20 1-26 1, Acad. Press, IVY. 

Steidinger, K.A. and K. Maddad. 198 1. Biologic and hydrographic aspects of red tides. Bioscience 

31(11):814-819. 

lanabe, S., 14. Tanaka and R. Tatsukawa. 1984. I'olychlombiphenyls, r311DrT, and 

hexachlorocycloliexa~ic isomers in the western North I'acific ecosystem. Arch. Environ. 

Contam. Toxicol. 13:73 1-738. 
Taruski, .A.G., C. E. Olney, and II .E. Winn. 1975. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in cetaceans. J . I'ish 

Iks. Board Can. 32:2205-2209. 

True, I:.\Y. 1891. Observations of the life h~story of the bottlenose porpoise. 0.S. Nat. Mus., 

Proc. 13(1890): 197-203. 

Vedros, N.A., A. W. Smith, J. Schonwald, G. Migaki, and R. Hubbard. 197 1. Lej)tosyirosis 

epizootic among California sea lions. Science 172: 1250-1 25 1. 

Walker, W.A. 1981. Geographic variation in morphology and biology of bottlenose 

dolphins, Tursi(?ps in the eastern north Pacific. NOAAINMFS Adn~in. Rep 

LJ-81-OOOO~C, 21 p. 

Wass, M.1,. 1972. A checklist of the biota of lower Chesapeake Bay. Spec. Sci. Rep. of Va. 

Irtat. Mar. Sci., No. 63, 290 p. 

Wells, R. 1986a. Strluctural aspects of dolphin societies. Univ.Calif. at Santa Cruz, P1i.U 

dissert., 236 p. 

Wells, R.S. 1986b. Population structure of bottlerlose dolphins: Behavioral studies of bottlenose 

dolphins along Ithe central west coast of Florida. Contr. Rep. to Nat. Mar. Fish Serv.. 

Southeast Fish. Cen., Contr. 45-WCNF-5-00366, 70 p. 

Wells, R.S. 1991. The role of long-term study in understanding the social structure of a bottlenose 

dolphin cornmunity. In K. Pryor and K.S Norris (Editors), Dolphin societies: 

discoveries and puzzles, p. 199-225, Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, 39'7 p. 

Wells, R.S., A.B. Irvine, and M.D. Scott, 1987. 'The social ecology of inshore 

odontocetes. 111 L.M. Herman (Editor), C'etacean behavior: mechan~sms and functions, p. 

263-317 J. Wiley and Sons. N.Y. 

Wells, lZ.S., and M.D. Scott. 1990. Estimating bottlenose dolphin population parameters from 

individual identification and capture-releast: techniques. In P. S. I-la~nrnond, S .A. 

Mizroch and (3.P. Donovan (Editors), Individual recognition of cetaceans: Use of photoidentification artd other techniques to estimate population parameters, p. 407-4 15, Int. Wlial. 

Comm. Spec. I~s. 12. 

Wells, R.S., M.D. Scott and A.B. Irvine. 1987. 'The social structure of free-ranging bottlenose 

dolphins. In H. Genoways (Editor), Current ma~nrnology. Vol I, p. 247-305 Plenurn 

Press, N.Y. 

Wilkinson, D.M. 1991. Prograrn review of the rrtarine mammal stranding networks. Report to 

NOAA Assistant Adn~inistrator for Fisheric.:~, 171 p. 
Appendix I: Discussion 

Conservation Planning and Managerncut Needs: 

The final sessllon of this workshop was an open forum where the participants summarized 

what had been stated during the previous sessions, and made conservation and management 

recomme~~dations based on information that is now available to NMFS. This session also focused on 

gaps in our understanding of coastal bottlenose dolphins that need to be addressed in a Conservation 

Plan to successfully conserve arid manage coastal bottlenose dolphins. 'The following is a summary of 

topics and points of discussion that were raised by ithe participants of the workshop at this open forum 

session. 

In~troduction ttol Session: It has become apparent from information presented at this 

workshop that there are information gaps in our understanding that relate specifically to the Atlantic 

coastal nligratory stock(s) of bottlenose dolphin. What we do know, in way of summary, is that for 

the 111ost [)art at least, there are no coastal dolphins found north of Hatteras in winter. The coastal 

migratory stock moves past Watteras sometime between March and April. From early May to June, it 

moves from Cape Hatteras to at least as far as Delaware Bay. 111 mid-summer, some dolphins move 

up the coast and into the bays as far as New Englar~d. A few have even been seen up in Cape Cod 

Bay. In S~epternberIOct~ober, they begin rnoving southward again. By NovemberIDecember, the 

coastal stc~ck has rnoved south of the Chesapeake Bay, and then, south of I-Iattcras. This seasonal 

distribution pattern has been verified by sighting data as well as stranding data. This movement 

occurs primarily in state managed waters. 

At the present time, we do not have enough data to separate the coastal nligratory doiphins 

from the resident stock(s), except during the months when the former are north of Hatteras. 

Therefore, a Conservati~onIManagen~ent Plan shouldl focus on coastal bottlenose dolphins, with an 

ultimate goal of being able to distinguish and manage these stocks separately as their biology becomes 

better understood. 

Recommendation: To Determine arid Monitor the Status of the Population 

La~rry E-Iansen: As an introduction to the subject of population monitoring, it might be 

helpful for rrie to outlii~c what the Southeast Center has schetluled in the way of bottlenose dolphin 

surveys over the next few years. Currently, we have plans to conduct aerial surveys of the entire east 

coast, concentrating on areas where sightings of coastal dolphins are expected. These surveys will 

replicate the coastal part of the CETAPISET surveys, with the addition of bay surveys and alongshore transects (in order to supple~nenthe perpendicular CE'TAPISET survey replicates). The alongshore surveys will consi,st of parallel transects f1ow1.1 from roughly one-half mile to 1.3 km offshore. 

'These surveys should accomplisll the goal of obtaining a minimu~n count of coastal dolphins for the 

east coast. They will be: carried out f'rorn Ilatteras northward in the summer of 1994, and then from 

I latteras southward in winter of 19941 1995. 

M~ike Payne: 'l'he aer~al surveys need to hc' ground-t~uthed Could the states do this part? I 

u~~derst,ind the value of !lie summer survey We w~ll be able to comp~lre the pre5erit results and 

,ibundance estimates w~tli those of CI?'TAP arid the 1991 NMII:S survey Ilut why the wlnter survey, 

cspec~ally g~ven Ilic~t \lnr e the wlntcr d~str~but~on 1s ~;oritlnuouls across the shelf off I;lorlda, you wlll 
not bc at~le to separate stocks fro111 ae11al surveys, and you know that the offshore stock is not 

completely represented south of Cape llatteras In the winter'? I do not understand how we can use the 

estimate that you obtdin to determine abundance, or to separate stock structures. 

Sally Murphy: Doing a survey in the south in winter is meaningless unless it's done in 

summer too. Why is IVMFS conducting a winter survey? 

Jim Mead: Historical data suggest that there are offshore animals in coastal areas off 

Hatteras in the winter. We need a concentrated survey effort in the Hatteras area to determine where 

the stocks split and the extent of intermixing at this location. 

Cindy Driscoll: As a suggestion, we could use an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

survey, data collected since 1989, as a start [this i,s a coastal survey that operates north of Cape 

Hatteras throughout the year and records everything along a trackline parallel to the coastline]. 

Perhaps {he states collld also use the Civil A~T Patrol (as does EPA, for inexpensive flight-time) to 

obtain distributional information, and perhaps fishery interaction information as well. 

Dave Schofield: The National Aquarium in Baltimore has over 100 volunteers. With their 

help and possibly supplementing with Air Corps surveys, Maryland could put together a minimun; 

count-type program sirnilar to Mark Swingle's program in Virginia. Currently, the Beach Patrol 

keeps the ocean side pretty-well covered, but coverage inside the Bay is a problem. However, fishery 

interaction problems are minor within the Ray. 

hqark Swingle: Virginia needs aerial surveys and continued photo-ID work in addition to the 

present ground and boat surveys. These programs need to be coordinated. Our dolphin count was 

done in coordination with several states (all surveys took place on July lo), but there was not 

comprelicnsive coverag,e in all cases. In Virginia, we do not see dolphins year-round, but we have 

isolated strandings even in winter months. 

Sally Murphy: The Center for Marine Conservation organizes a beach sweeplbeadl week 

each year around September 18th. Could we coordinate with this? 

Hkith Rittn~astter: In North Carolina we Itnow that dolphins are present year-round, but we 

don't yet know whether any of the individuals that we see in the summer are the same as any of those 

we see in the winter. We need to do Inore photo-ID work, to expand the present coverage. In 

addition to our research, some work is currently being done by Guy Stephanski and his group (Day of 

the Dolpliin). 

Bill Bowen: 1 have some old ferry survey data. 

S,ally Murphy: Those were for turtles. 

Bill Bowen: Yes, but thcy counted dolphins too. We need to look at the historical data. 

Vicky Thayer-: We need to do tagging anal biopsy of the animals we've identified through 

photo-ID. 
Sally Murphy: South Carolina will cor~tinue the present surveys for leatherback turtles. Six 

flights are flown, starting in April, and going through late Maytearly June. Also, we do monthly 

flights to sight strandings. Again, these are parallel flights flown to a mile offshore on one leg, and 

then alongrshore on the other leg. I also wanted to (lo a study comparing the effectiveness of various 

census techniques, but it did not get funded. 

Tom Murphy: A study of this sort could be conducted, for example, in the Sarasota area, 

where the population number is approximately known. Telemetry would be a good method of 

obtaining a1 lot of the data we need. 

Larry Hansen:: But telemetry really requires too much effort, and it's expensive. 

Mark Swingle:: There are a lot of studies h,appening right now, with very little funding 

Mike Payne: How much of the required funding could come from the prtvate sector? Have 

the private-sector researchers in this group exhausted or begun to look for funding outside of state or 

Federal sources? 

Shlerman Jones: The statellocal level is a good level for photo-ID work 

Ka.thy Wang: \Ye need to develop coordination of all the photo-ID work that's taking place, 

and to implement centralization of the photos. 

Tom Murphy: Individual identification is riot what is needed for state--level management. 

Sallly Murphy: The states are most interested in protecting the~res~dent animals, and then 

also determining the number and distribution of dolphins within state waters. 

Randy Wells: My research group could give a workshop for anyone interested, in order to 

facilitate coordination an~d standardization of data collection methods. 

Charles Maley: Since southern Georgia-Central Florida is the southern tern~i~ius of 

distributior~ for the coastal migratory stock, perhaps we could start working in this area this-coming 

winter. The dredger hoppers operate in the cold months. There are observers out there for the right 

whales, bult there are also numerous dolphins sightetll in the area. 'The problern is that the Georgia 

coastlint: is so variable (in depth, topography, etc.), and there are so many embaynients. However, 

we do have a state airplane available to us that's used for the leatherback turtle and the right whale 

surveys, that could also he used for doing dolphin surveys. Also, The Dolphin Project is working to 

catalogue tlheir photo-ID collection, and they've conclucted 16 quarterly surveys over the last 4 years. 

Bill Brooks: I'd like to mention that we shiuuld look at the New England Aquarium data 

(from their right whale surveys along the Southeast Coast). Presently, they are do111g one survey per 

week, fron~ November tl- rough April. Also, the Inaxlatee surveys may incorporate some dolphin 

sighting data. 

Lalrry Hansen: 7'he South Carolma, Georgia and Florida state right whale surveys should be 

coordinatecl. 
Nelio Rarros: We (the Southeastern L1.S. Stranding Network, or SEIJS) have data that could 

he used to determine if stocks can be separated based on their pollutant loads, hut we need money to 

do it. The Sea World research carried-out so far has focused primarily on dolphins in the Indian 

River Lagoon System, which we believe is a residcnt population. 

Ton1 Murphy: While aerial surveys are particularly useful when censusing large areas, there 

is considerable variation due to observers, aircraft type, sea state, glare, time of day, weather, 

surfacing behavior, sampling nlethodology and data manipulations. It would therefore seem prudent 

to use a canbination of survey techniques. Perhaps conducting an aerial trausect survey on a nearshore parallel flight line which is replicated the same day by boat would be useful. You may find that 

observed itriinimum dolphin densities seen during a 10-hour boat survey may greatly exceed calculated 

densities obtained for a I-hour flyover. Given new GPS technology, the transect can be maintained 

by boat anti the distance from the transect to dolphin observations Inay be recorded for area surveyed, 

or for calculation of sighting extinction curves. The validity of either technique could be evaluated 

even further if the surveys were coilducted in an area of "known" populatioll size such as Sarasota 

Bay. 

Additional land based surveys should also be considered as further verification of densities 

and perhalps intensive survey sites in areas of known concentration or ~nig~ation (e.g. Cape Hatteras 

during migration). An east coast annual dolphin census period should be considered, sirnilar to west 

coast grey whale watches or the national midwinter eagle survey. It has the added advantage of 

involving the public andl the media. 'The use of a c~ombination of independent techniques to establish 

populatior~ trends greatly enhances reliability. 

There is a need to: 

1) Coordinate a,ll state surveys and re-evalnate census techniques; 

2) conduct telemetry studies; 

3) compile and analyze existing survey data; 

4) reference all known data (both published and non-published) on T~rrsio/~s tr141lr-crfus 

5) coordinate all other Atlantic bottlenose dolphin research efforts. 

6) identify stoclks. 

Recommendation: Minimize Fishery Interactions and other IInman-related Mortality 

Mike Payne: Since the coastal migratory stock of bottlenose dolphins has been listed as 

depleted, NMFS needs to re-exarnine fishery interactions with this stock(s). This is also necessary 

because of recent information that indicates that haribor porpoise and marine turtles are also affected 

by many a~f the same fisheries in the same locations, as arc bottlenose dolphins. There is an 

immediate need for Fishery Managernent Councils a~nd protected species agencies to work together 

towards a mid-Atlantic rnanagernent and conservatic-~n plan. 'The conservation plan lor thc coastal 

migratory bottlenose dolphin should make recolnnicndatio~is tor reducing sources of llunian impacts, 

such as bycatch. 'I'hese should be taken to the Fishery Managernent Councils, and addressed within 

the contex~t of a Fishery Management Plan, as well ,as a larger, more comprehi:nsivc nlanagemellt and 

conservation plan for the region. 
Larry IIansen: We will have observers on various gillnet fisheries, but most of these are 

offshore fisheries anyaiay, so there s11ould11't be n~uch if any impact on the coastal animals. The 

problem is that a lot of' boats are too small to acctrmmodate observers. 

To111 Murphy: We could provide fishernien with radio tloats to attach to entangled dolphins 

for collection by state1:stranding people. 

Mike Payne: When boats are too snlall to accolnmodate observers, observer boats have been 

sent out to monitor grc~ups of f~shing boats, in areas of high fishing concentrations, with moderate 

success. Also, the stranding record needs to he examined more closely and used, where possible, to 

amend fishery categories; coastal gillnets, for example. We need to better examine co-occurrence of 

strand~ngs of dolphins and turtles, and fisheries. 

Susan Barco: We need to create a good master list of fisherieslareasltimes, and correlate it 

with st randings. 

I.,arry ItIansen: We can do that retrospeclively , with the data at hand. 

Ton1 Murphy: Probably the most significant source of direct niortal~ty to dolphins is in gill 

nets. Quantification of the extent of this problem is crucial to understanding the status of dolphin 

stocks. 

There is a need to obtain better data on what fisheries interact with dolphins in what areas and 

over whal time-periods, in order to have enough information at hand to implement appropriate gear, 

seasonal, andlor areal restrictions, if necessary. 

Reconiniendation: Determine Ecology an~d Life History Paran~eiwh of Coastai Buttierlose 

Dolphi~ls 

Mike Pay~le: Life history parameters can Ibe obtained through stranding data, and from 

biopsy and telemetry studies. It is becoming nlore and more obvious that we need to standardize 

protocols for stranding response, at least to obtain a certain minimum set of samples taken from 

strandings. Bill McClellan and Cindy Driscoll discussed this in a presentation in an earlier session. 

.Jcff Brown: The nature of the stranding network and the quality of the data collected in the 

southeast is highly variable due to the largely volunteer status of the participants. Also, only a dozen 

or so animals are directly attributable to fishery interactions, out of several hundred per year. 

Kathy Wang: Yes, but that doesn't mean that we cun'r do our best to educate the volunteers, 

and try to impress upon them the importance of taklng as many of the samples we need, as they can. 

Jilt11 Mead: Wt: should organize a workshop on life history, and examine "What do we 

know" from Tl~t~iops stranding data. 
Mike I'ayne: Can the Smithsonian handlc such a workshop? I think you've just volunteered, 

Jiril. 

Sally Murphy: Something along the lines of the stranding workshop Geraci gave at the last 

Biennial should be dotl~e for dead animals. 

Susan Barco: The Duke University marine program offers a good course developed in 

cooperation with Randy Wells, that is a great intro'duction to everything having to do with marine 

~namrnals . 

Larry Hansen: We already have a lot of samples that need to be worked-up. 

Ann Pabst: 'Yes, we already have a lot of stuff frozen, that could be used for genetic studies, 

among otlher things. .Along with all the other stranding data, we need to get this worked-up. There's 

already a wealth of data out there. 

Mike Payne: 'I'liis is probably one area where graduate students could be used very 

effectively 

Larry Ilansen: We already have some genetic studies underway at the SEC, using skin from 

strandings, biopsies done from boats, and from captured animals. We've started sending copies of 

the lab reports to the individuals who responded to the strandings. This is good feedback for them, 

although there is a considerable time-lag. 

Nelio Barros: We really need to get the nl~ost complete information possible. I'd like to 

emphasize: again, that siomach contents can be used to separate animals, perhaps stocks, on the basis 

of food preferences. Variations in external parasite types can also be utilized for this purpose. These 

things can be takentrecorded from fairly deteriorated animals. 

Larry Hansen: We could incorporate the harbor porpoise stranding workshop data sheets 

(that demonstrate how to recognize evidence of fisli~ery interactions on stranded animals) in the SEUS 

newslel ter. 

Clharley Potter: Where will all these tissues go? Who will work them up? There is a great 

need for communicatio~-I between researchers, concerning who is doing what. 

Tom Murphy: If you have a free voluntet:r force working, it is best to request data rather 

than expect or demand II~ just because you want it. The stranding network coordinators should be 

involved in decisions relating to carcass and data acquisition. Information must flow in both 

directions. This doesn'it meall that only the submitting agency, in our case the Charleston Lab, is 

informed hut also that the individual volunteer receives the information in a timely fashion as well. 

With ever:y request for samples goes a responsibility of a timely response. Tissues that sit for months 

or years or sa~nples collected for a project that ended years ago are inappropriate. We are 

encouraged by the current protocols and goals of th~e stranding networks. With proper nurturing, they 

should provide much needed information at a mininrial cost. 
'I'here is a need to organize workshops in order to: 

1) Determine what we currently know, collectively, about bottlenose dolphin life history; 

2) assess what datalsamples are already available, arid what can be learned from the~n; 

3) educate strartding network volunteers coincerning what kinds of information can be 

obtained from the various data and samples they are irequested to collect. 

Recommendation: Learn More About Diseases and Mass Mortality Events (Can we do 

anything ;about them?) 

Cindy Driscoll: All stranded animals need to be collected, and at the minimum, the 

information outlined Iby Vicky in her presentation yesterday, should be collected: i.e. samples for 

life-history information, including teeth, stomachs, and gonads; tissues for analysis of heavy metals, 

pesticides, and other pollutants; skulls, dorsal fin photos for comparison with photo-Ids; and also, the 

human interaction forrris should be completed for each animal. And, now that Morbillivirus has been 

confirmed from dolphin:; in the Gulf of Mexico, samples for detection of this should be collected. All 

that's needed is to take small samples of lung and brain tissue, and preserve them in 10% formalin. 

Talm MurphJy: The current stranding networks which are in place seem to be adequate for 

monitoring and sampling of tissues for contaminants, if procedures outlined in Geraci and Lounsbury 

are adhered to. On tlie other hand, it is unlikely that correct veterinary diagnoses will be made in the 

cases of disease or parasitic infection because those collecting tlie samples are frequently unqualified 

in tlie fielcl of veterinary pathology. This certainly includes myself, allhougll I have performed postmortem examinations on many animals, from alligators to eagles, as well as marine turtles and marine 

mammals, over the past 20 years. Whereas a tumor or cyst sampled from an otherwise healthy lung 

or liver may represent d~sease pathology to a clinical pathologist who has access to no other 

informatioin, it may be of little consequence to the f~eld examiner who has seen the entire organ and 

the entire organism and *surrounding circumstances. The die-off of 198'7/1988 would never have been 

diagnosed by the current protocol. Thus, additional veterinary pathologist involven~ent will be needed 

for strandings in general, and in larger mortality episodes especially. 

There is a need to encourage veterinary involvement in strandings whenever possible, in order 

to learn more about disease pathology in these animals. 

Recommendation: Minimize IIarassment of Dolphins 

Mike Payne: Do we need to address teedi~l~g? We discussed this a lot yesterday. NMFS 

already has; regulations that prohibit feeding. A co11:;ervation plan can support these regulations, and 

provide another statenlent against feeding if that is considered appropriate. 

Sherman Jones: Recreational vehicles need to be controlled as well, and we need to educate 

people about the harm they can inflict upon dolphin;. 
Dave Jenkin~: We also need to educate thr: enforcernent people 

Mike Payne: The right whale recovery eSf;,~rts have focused on education, to be provided by 

the states, in the southeast portion of their range. The education of enforcernent agencies is the 

responsibillity of each stiite. 

Dave Jenkins: It's important to educate boaters as well. Boater safety course materials are 

developed on a national level. These should also address marine mammals. 

Charles Potter: What about the huge jetty construction projects that have been planned for 

the Oregon Inlet area (North Carolina)? What about acoustic: harassment from all this construction? 

Not to mei~tion the obstruction those things will be. We should get the Corps of Engineers i~lvolved 

in this conservation planlning process. 

Susan Barco: Yes, and what about all of the explosives testing carried out by the military off 

Virginia'? 

Arin Pabst: Jack Musick is presently conducting studies on turtles in that area, with respect 

to acoustic harassment 

Randy Wells: ,4coustic harassment is definitely something that NMFS should examine. This 

has not yelt been done with respect to Tursiops. The amount of noise produced by just local boat 

traffic alone is quite substantial. 

Summary 

Th~ere is a need to learn more about the degree to which dolphins are being affected 

(especially in terms of r~zproductive potential) by humans in ways other than fisheries interactions, and 

to educate the public concerning ways in which these effects can be minimized. 

Recommendation: Ensure Existence of Suitable Habitat and Improve Upon Conditions of 

Existing Habitat 

Miike Payne: Under the MMPA, when a c~:)nservation plan is developed for a species having 

a depleted clesignation, the operative word in terms of habitat is essential habitat, as opposed to 

critical habitat. Critical habitat is ESA terminology. Keith, you discussed high-density habitats in 

your study area yesterday. Can you summarize the physical features that constitute essential habitat 

for coastal dolphins in your area? 

Keith Kittmaster: Areas with a steep chan~nel edge seem to be nursery areas. Also areas 

within about a mile of S,nartina marshes. 

Vicky 'Thayer: Yes, areas in the shallows ]next to the channels seem to be important 

Charley Potter: We should compile the existing data, and also survey researchers, asking 

what constitutes calving/'nursery areas in their regiom. 
Sally Murphy: We (the state of South Carolina) need to know this kind of information in 

terms of restricting jet skis. 

Randy Wells: Aerial surveys should be useful in isolating calf-use areas 

Larry IIansen: Any surveys that are done should record neonate sightings. 

Mike Payne: 1 recommend that the conservation plan focus on this important question as part 

of its content. 

Ton1 Murphy: The long-term impacts of pollution and depletion of fish stocks also need to 

be addres:;ed. 

There is a need to determine areas being utilized as calvinglnursing areas and focus upon 

these areas as essential habitat in the Conservation ~Plar.. 

K~ecommcndati~on: To Coordinate and Implement a C:onservation Plan 

A Conservation Plan delineates reasonable actions to protect a depleted species under the 

Marine Ma~nmal Protection Act (MMPA). Plans are prepared by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), sometimes with the assistance of IeaIns, contractors, state agencies, and others. 

Approved plans are sub-ject to modification as dlctafed by new findings, changes in species status and 

completioin of implementation tasks. Goals and o'bjectives will be attained and funds expended 

contingent upon agency appropriations and priorities. 

This workshop report may serve as a preliminary guide that delineates those actions believed 

necessary to conserve and protect the coastal rnigira~tory stock of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins. 

Oine of the obje~:tives of this workshop was to determine what research needs to be conducted 

in order to effect rational management of coastal bottlenose tlolpliins. This is consistent with the 

following two objective:s of any conservation plan, ns described in the Northern Fur Seal 

Conservatio~i Plan: 

Objective I 

Continue and, as necessary, expand researcti or management programs to monitor population 

trends andl detect natural or human-related causes of n~ortality, and habitats essential to its (the 

species] survival and relzovery. 

Objective I1 

Assess and avoid or mitigate possible adverse effects of hunian-related activities on or near 

habitat considered csscntial to [the species] throughsout their range. 
Responsibility :for implementation of any clonservation plan lies with the NMFS Office of 

Protected Kesources, and the NMFS regional offices and science centers. However, recovery actions 

generally need to be co~ordinated among these NMIFS offices, and other resource management 

agencies and user groulps. Changes and updates to the Conservation Plan need to be made upon 

periodic review. Interagency coordination, especiallly with a species whose range occurs throughout 

multi-state waters, is essential in order to implemelit an effective conservation program. Education 

and enforcement are al:jo critical components of the overall recovery effort. 

Because fishermen in many areas may interact with bottlenose dolphins on a regular basis, it 

is particullarly important that they be made aware of and kept informed about conservation and 

management efforts. Information needs to be distributed as part of ongoing regulatory/information 

prograrns (e.g., in logbooks and regulation books), as well as through media directed specifically at 

the fishing industry (e.g., trade magazines). Mail-louts to permit holders and signs posted in boat 

harbors may also be effective. Materials and trained personnel should be made available to assist 

industry in developing its own educational programs. Fishermen and their representatives should be 

encouragcxi to become rnvolved in the development, evaluation, and implementation of a bottlenose 

dolphin conservation plan. A conservation plan implementation team will need to be developed, 

either as a separate entity or as part of several on-going organizations (i.e. Mid-Atlantic States 

Fishery Comnlission or Fishery Management Councils) whose members can address the issues 

discussed in this workshop report, and a final conservation plan. 

Participants at the workshop recommended that NMFS consider the information and 

reconlrnertdations discussed at this workshop, and act quickly in completing this workshop report to 

be used towards the development of a final conservation plan for Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins. 

The workshop ended on September 14, 1993. 
Appendix 11: Workshop Participants 

Susan Barc:o 

James Maclison University 

Biology Department 

Harrisonburg, VA 228017 

(703) 568-86667 

N'elio Barros, Ph.D. 

Sea World Research Institute 

Lab P.0. Box 691602 

Orlando, FI, 32869- 16012 

(407) 363-2664 

William J. Bowen 

NMFS Beaufort Lab 

101 Pivers Island Road 

Beaufort, lVC 285 16 

(9 19) 728-8714 

Billy Brooks 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

3 100 University Blvd., Suite 115 

Jacksonville, FL 32216 

(904) 723-5845 

Jeffrey Brown 

NMFSISoutheast Regional Office 

9450 Koger Boulevard 

St. Peterst-)urg, FL 33702 

(813) 893-3366 

Gail Cann~on 

Duke Marine Laboratory 

1 1 1 Pivers Island Road 

Beaufort, NC 285 16 

Jeff Cordes 

National Public Service 

Cape Lookout National Seashore 

13 1 Charl~zs Street 

Harkers Ialand, NC 2853 1 

(9 19) 728- 2250 

Frances Cresswell 

Cooperative Oxford Lab 

904 S. Morris Street 

Oxford, MD 21654 

(4 10) 226-0078 

Bud Ckoss, Ph.D. 

NOAAINMFSlBeaufort 

101 Pivers Island Road 

Beaufort, NC 285 16 

(9 19) 728-8724 

Cindy Driscoll, D.V.M. 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East-West Highway, #I 31 30 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

(301)7 1 3-2289 

Joyce Evans 

Maryland DNR 

904 S. Morris Street 

Oxford, MD 21654 

Joseph R. Geraci, V.M.D., Ph.D. 

Ontario Veterinary College 

University of Guelph 

Guelph, Ontario 

Canada 

(519) 823-8800, ext. 4635 

Larry Hansen 

NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

75 Virginia Beach Drive 

Miami, FL 33149 

(305) 36 1-4264 

Don Hoss, Ph.D. 

NOA AINMFSlBeaufort 1,ab 

101 Pivers Island Road 

Beaubrt, NC 285 16 

(9 19) 728-8746 
Dave Jenkins 

New Jersey Dept. of Environmental 

Protection and Energy 

Division of Fish, Game & Wildlife 

P.O. Box 236 

Tuckahoe, NJ 08226 

(609) 628-2 103 

Jennie Jenkins 

National Aquarium in Baltimore 

501 East Pratt Street, F'ier 3 

Baltimore:, MD 21202 

(4 10) 576-3852 

Sherman Jones, I11 

Christopher Newport University 

BC&ES Department 

50 Shoe 1-ane 

Newport News, Virginia 

(804) 594.-7307 

William McLellan 

Department of Biology 

James Madison Univer:sity 

Harrisonburg, VA 221107 

(703) 568-6225 

Wayne MlcFee 

NMFSICharleston Laboratory 

2 17 Ft. Johnson Road 

Charleston, SC 2941 2 

(803) 762:- 1200 

Charles h4aley 

Georgia DNR 

1 Conservation Way 

Brunswick, GA 31 523-8600 

(9 12) 262:-3 143 

James Mead, Ph.D. 

Smithsonian l~istitution 

Washington, DC 20560 

Mailstcop NIIR 108 

(202) 357- 1920 

Sally Murphy 

South Carolina Wildlife 

& Marine Resources 

P.O. Box 12559 

Charleston, SC 294 12 

(803) 762-50 15 

Tom Murphy 

South Carolina Wildlife 

& Marine Resources 

Route 2, Box 167 

Green Pond, SC 29446 

(803) 844-2473 

Ann Pabst 

James Madison University 

Department of Biology 

Harrisonburg, VA 22807 

(703) 568-6333 

P. Michael Payne 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East-West Highway, #I31 16 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

(301) 713-2323 

Richard Petricig 

University of Rhode Island 

Narraganset, RI 02883 

Charles Potter 

Marxne Ma~nrnal Program 

Smithsonian Museum of Natural History 

Srnithsonian Institution 

Washington, DC 20560 

(202) 357-1923 

Michael Rikard 

National Park Service 

Cape 1,ookout National Seashore 

13 1 Charles Street 

IIarkcrs Island, NC 2853 1 
Keith Rittmaster 

NC Maritirne Museum 

3 15 Front Street 

Beaufort, WC 285 10 

(9 19) 728-73 17 

Gerald Scott, P11.D. 

NMFS Southeast Fisheri~es 

Science Center 

75 Virginia Beach Drive 

Miami, FL, 33149 

(305) 36 1-4264 

David Schofield 

National Aquarium in 13 a l tlrnore ' 

501 East Pratt Street, F'ier 3 

I3altimore, MD 21202 

(41 0) 576-3850 

Ideon Spence 

Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife 

P.0. Box 1401 

Dover, DE 19903 

(302) 739-4782 

Ileborah Stefanski 

Cetacean Awareness Program 

221 Clancy Circle 

Cary, NC 275 1 1 

(91 9) 469-8780 

Mark Swingle 

Virginia Science Museum 

7 17 General Booth Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 2.345 1 

(804) 437-4949 

Davidl L. Taylor 

NC Department of Marine Fisheries 

P.O. Box 769 

Morehead City, NC 28377 

(9 19) 726-702 1 

Vicky Thayer 

NMFS 

101 Pivers Island Road 

Beaufort, NC 28516 

(919) 728-8714 

Kathy Wang, Ph.D. 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East-West Highway, #I3130 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

(30 1 ) 7 13-2289 

Randall Wells, Ph.D. 

Chicago Zoological Society 

C/O Mote Marine Lab 

1600 Thompson Parkway 

Sarasota, FL 34236 

(813) 388-4441 

Guy Stefanski 

Cetacean Awareness Prol;rani 

221 Claricy Circle 

Cary, NC 275 11 

(9 19) 469-8780