A Review of the Literature Pertaining to 

Swimming with Wild Dolphins

Amy Samuels1,2, Lars Bejder2,3, and Sonja Heinrich4

1

 Daniel F. and Ada L. Rice Conservation Biology and Research Center,

Chicago Zoological Society, Brookfield IL, USA 2

 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole MA, USA 3

 Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada 4

 University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

prepared for the

Marine Mammal Commission

4340 East-West Highway, Room 905

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Contract Number T74463123

April 2000
iii

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Cetaceans That Are Typically Solitary and Seek Human Company (Lone, Sociable) ..... 3

Cetaceans That Are Habituated to In-Water Encounters with Humans through Food 

Provisioning ........................................................................................................... 5

Cetaceans That Are Habituated to In-Water Encounters with Humans ............................ 7

Cetaceans That Are Not Habituated to In-Water Encounters with Humans ..................... 9

Assessment of Research Methodologies .......................................................................... 14

Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 15

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 17

Swim-with-Dolphin Bibliography ................................................................................... 18

List of Tables

Table 1. Categories of the Excel database on literature pertaining to swimming

with wild dolphins ................................................................................... 27

Table 2. Lone, sociable dolphins that are well documented .................................. 29

Table 3. Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

through food provisioning (codes as in Table 1) ..................................... 31

Table 4. Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

(codes as in Table 1) ................................................................................ 37

Table 5. Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

(codes as in Table 1) ................................................................................ 43

Files on Accompanying Diskette

SWD Database.xls

SWD Library.enl
1

Introduction

The 1994 amendments to the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act define the

term “harassment” as: 

 “Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which —

(i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild

(Level A harassment), or

(ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild

by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to,

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B

harassment).”

The National Marine Fisheries Service has promulgated regulations specifying

that feeding marine mammals in the wild constitutes harassment. However, there exists a

diversity of opinion as to what other types of interactions between humans and marine

mammals may also constitute harassment. Of particular concern are programs in which

humans enter the water to view, swim with, photograph, and touch wild marine

mammals. In the United States, these activities commonly target bottlenose dolphins in

Florida and spinner dolphins in Hawaii. In the Florida Panhandle, in-water encounters

may be sustained by humans offering food to attract dolphins to a location where

interaction can occur. In Hawaii, swimmers attempt to interact with dolphins and may

disrupt critical dolphin activities. 

Although swimming with wild cetaceans is growing in popularity, the impact of

such activities on marine mammals is not well known. This literature review was

conducted to determine what is known about the effects of swimming with wild dolphins

on the animals’ behavior and well-being and to provide a body of scientific literature to

facilitate informed management decisions. To this end, we tried to collect a complete set

of current scientific documents that pertain to in-water encounters between humans and

wild dolphins or whales. Each document was reviewed from the perspective of the

targeted animals’ welfare. We included conference and workshop abstracts, working

papers, popular books, magazine and newspaper articles, and information from Internet

sites only when we were unable to obtain information from a published, more complete,

and/or scientific source. 

To assess the scope of swim-with operations on a global scale, we tried to

chronicle all such activities. This proved impossible because there is an ever-growing list

of newly initiated swim-with operations, and documentation may not exist for many

situations. As an example, we recently learned by word of mouth about swim-with

activities in Zanzibar and three additional swim-with sites in Australia. We were unable

to find literature pertaining to these recently initiated programs; therefore, none is

included in this review. With the growing popularity of swimming with wild cetaceans,
2

there are likely to be many such situations that are not described in the literature (e.g.,

Nachoum 1999).

The review is organized around the four basic categories of in-water encounters

between humans and cetaceans. These involve encounters with:

(1) dolphins that are typically solitary and seek human company, labeled in this report

“lone, sociable”; 

(2) dolphins that are habituated to in-water interactions through food provisioning by

humans, labeled “food-provisioned”; 

(3) cetaceans that tolerate or seek human swimmers for sustained interactions on a

regular basis (not including food-provisioned or lone, sociable), labeled “habituated”;

and 

(4) cetaceans that are not habituated to human swimmers, labeled “not habituated.”

Categories 1-3 involve animals that are habituated to interactions with humans

(i.e., identified individual cetaceans that tolerate and/or seek repeated, sustained

interactions with humans on a regular basis). The distinction for categories 1-3 is the

means by which habituation to humans originated or is maintained. Category 4 includes

situations in which cetaceans are presumed to be “unhabituated” because they have

encounters with human swimmers that are (a) frequent or regular but the animals exhibit

signs of disturbance, (b) infrequent or opportunistic (the animals may or may not show

signs of disturbance), or (c) of undocumented frequency or regularity (e.g., because

individual cetaceans have not been identified). Because each of the four categories is

likely to result in different types of encounters, responses, and impacts, the categories are

treated separately in this review. 

The literature review consists of an Excel table (Excel 97, Microsoft) that

summarizes key points from each reference; an Endnote library (Endnote Version 3.0,

Niles Software) that lists each citation (both provided on the enclosed diskette); and this

summary report. Each of the 151 references is summarized in the Excel database by

entries into subject columns listed in Table 1. References that report on more than one

swim-with situation have multiple entries in the Excel table, resulting in nearly 200

entries. 

Of the 151 references, 107 are directly related to swimming with wild dolphins or

whales. In addition, we included topics that are tangentially relevant, including:

(5) swimming with captive dolphins, where details of human-dolphin interactions can be

viewed continuously and at close range; 

(6) interactions of cetaceans with boats because (a) swim-with activities are often boatbased and it may not be possible to separate responses to swimmers from responses

to boats, and (b) boat-based cetacean watching tours typically comprise a substantial

proportion of the tourism impact; 

(7) swimming with sharks, which sometimes occurs as a case of mistaken identity; 
3

(8) swimming with dugongs and manatees; and 

(9) cooperative fisheries where humans and dolphins work together in the water to catch

fish, a special case of category (3), “habituated” dolphins. 

This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of these additional topics.

The Endnote library contains citations for all references included in the Excel

database. Key words for searching the Endnote library include common and scientific

names of marine mammals; location names; the dolphin’s given name for lone, sociable

dolphins; “swim-with-dolphin”; “swim-with-whale”; “swim-with-sirenian”; “swim-withshark”; “lone, sociable”, “food provisioning”; “habituated”; “unhabituated”; “commercial

tour”; “boat traffic”; “whale watch”; “cooperative fishing”; etc. A list of related sources

can be obtained by searching the Endnote library using the key words.

Cetaceans That Are Typically Solitary and Seek Human Company

(Lone, Sociable) 

Lockyer (1990) provided a comprehensive review of lone, sociable dolphins until

1988 (e.g., original sources include Burgess 1982, Doak 1981, 1988, Dobbs 1981, 1984,

Holmes 1987, Lockyer 1978, Lockyer and Morris 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987a, 1987b,

Mundey 1967, Robson 1988, Webb 1978a, 1978b). Recent additions to this list include

“Freddy” in England, “Pita” in Belize, “Tiao” and a Sotalia fluviatilis calf in Brazil,

“JoJo” in Turks and Caicos, “Flipper” in Norway, “Holly” in the Egypt, “Maui” in New

Zealand, “Wilma” and “Kuus” in Canada, and a pair of unnamed immature dolphins in

the United Kingdom (Bilgre et al. 1999, Bloom 1991, Bloom et al. 1995, Cirilo et al.

1998, Clarke 1999, Constantine 1999a, Doak 1994, Dudzinski et al. 1995, Flanagan

1996, Goffman et al. 1999, Perrine 1990a, 1990b, 1998, Santos 1997, 1998, 1999, St

John 1991, van der Toorn et al. 1992, Wood 1999). With the exception of “Sandy,” a

Stenella sp.; “Wilma” and “Kuus,” two juvenile beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas;

and the S. fluviatilis, all are bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus or T. aduncus.

From the swimmer’s perspective, lone, sociable dolphins provide the greatest

degree of contact. “Generally they are well-habituated to humans, so scaring them away

is less of a worry than failing to provide adequate entertainment” (Perrine 1998). 

However, what constitutes “adequate entertainment” for these well-habituated dolphins

can be problematic for both the dolphin and human swimmers. 

Of the 26 lone, sociable dolphins that are well documented (15 males, 8 females,

3 of unknown sex; Table 2), most were reported to have near-daily interactions with

humans and infrequent interactions with conspecifics. Eleven had periods of misdirected

sexual behavior towards humans, buoys, and/or vessels; 15 directed aggressive behavior

towards humans. Dolphin-to-human aggression sometimes resulted in serious human

injury, such as a ruptured spleen, broken ribs, or even death (Perrine 1990a, Santos
4

1997). Seven lone, sociable dolphins were reported to cause damage to human property,

primarily vessels and fishing gear. Aggression, damage to human property, and/or

disruption of fishing operations resulted in conflict with local people in several cases.

Doak (1988) noted that “in the history of lone dolphins approaching human

settlement, one thing is clear – it is highly dangerous for the dolphin.” Fourteen lone,

sociable dolphins received injuries as a result of their habituation to humans and human

activity. For example, “Freddy” was frequently entangled in fishing gear and three times

had fishing hooks or line embedded in his body. “Nudgy” was speared and hit with oars. 

“Percy” had a fish hook in his eye. “Donald” and “Horace” received serious wounds

from collisions with boats or propellers. “JoJo” was reported to have 37 injuries related

to human interaction since 1992, including eight that were life-threatening. The original

“Simo” in 109 AD was said to have been killed by local people when his popularity

resulted in overcrowding of the town with dolphin tourists. Although this account may be

fictional, his fate is not an uncommon one for lone, sociable dolphins. Four of the welldocumented lone, sociable dolphins (“Opo,” “Nudgy,” “Dobbie,” and the “Costa Rican”)

were known to be killed by humans. Neither of “Holly’s” two calves survived to age

seven months (causes of death are unknown). Five other lone, sociable dolphins

disappeared under mysterious circumstances (e.g., soon after local people complained

about their disruptive behavior). These dolphins are presumed dead at human hands, and

others like “JoJo” seemed destined for a fatal accident related to their habituation to

humans.

In recent years, management actions appear to have improved the chances of

survival for some of these dolphins. For example, Frohoff (1999) suggested that the

success of a management program devised to “mitigate inappropriate human behavior”

towards “Wilma” and “Kuus” was evident in the “relative absence of injuries incurred

[by the belugas] from boat propellers during the time in which the programs were

implemented.” In addition, “Maui” was reported to substantially reduce the frequency

with which she interacted with humans, presumably as a result of New Zealand

regulations coupled with voluntary restrictions on interaction with this particular dolphin

instituted by local tour operators (Constantine 1999a). 

Although the term “sociable” has been used to refer to dolphins that seek human

company, the origin of the dolphins’ habituation to humans is not clear. Food

provisioning does not appear to be a factor in the habituation of most lone, sociable

dolphins. In fact, many are reported to refuse fish handouts from humans. “Donald”

accepted fish from people but did not eat them (the sea bottom was said to be littered

with dead fish). “Percy” and “Dorad” each caught their own fish, which they offered to

humans. “Pita” is an exception; as a juvenile, she became habituated to humans who fed

her after a shark injury; as an adult, however, Pita reportedly refused fish handouts

(Dudzinski et al. 1995). An orphaned S. fluviatilis calf in Brazil also was reported to

accept fish from fishermen, which Cirilo et al. (1998) suggested may be a common way

that young dolphins learn to seek human company. “Holly” is another lone, sociable
5

dolphin that accepts fish handouts from humans, but food provisioning was initiated

more than two years after her first encounter with humans (Goffman et al. 1999). 

In a number of cases, the habituation process appears to have been initiated by a

dolphin that displayed an interest in boat traffic. A few lone, sociable dolphins were

quick to allow human contact, but for many, habituation to in-water encounters and

touching by humans was a gradual process achieved through considerable effort on the

part of humans. In several cases, it was noted that a dolphin initially shy of human

contact would, after a lengthy habituation period by humans, become bold and initiate

frequent sexual and aggressive behavior with humans. For example, Robson “set about

establishing a personal relationship [with ‘Horace’]” and enticed the dolphin into shallow

water to interact with people, but he later became concerned when the situation with

“Horace” and swimmers got out of hand (Dobbs 1981).

Quantitative data that systematically document the behavior and daily life of a

lone, sociable dolphin are provided in only one study. Bloom et al. (1995) conducted 24-

hr watches of “Freddy” to monitor his activity budget, ranging, foraging, and acoustic

behavior as well as his interactions with humans. Interactions with swimmers or boats

occurred during approximately 34% of daylight observation periods, and “Freddy”

responded positively to 62% of opportunities to interact with humans, sometimes

abandoning foraging or rest to do so (Bloom et al. 1995). Aside from this study, there is

anecdotal information only about the interactions of lone, sociable dolphins with humans

or the effects of in-water encounters on each dolphin’s behavior and overall life. It is

likely to be difficult, however, to design a study that would truly assess the impact of

human interaction on these dolphins, given the considerable amount of time each dolphin

spends with humans on a daily basis.

Cetaceans That Are Habituated to In-Water Encounters

with Humans through Food Provisioning

Food provisioning is one method used to facilitate regular interaction with wild

animals, including swimming with wild cetaceans. Bryant (1994) provided a

comprehensive review, “Report to Congress on Results of Feeding Wild Dolphins: 1989-

1994,” that left little doubt as to the detrimental effects of food provisioning on dolphin

health and well-being. The present review is not intended as a duplication of that effort;

however, we have added several recent references that strengthen the conclusion that

uncontrolled food provisioning is harmful to wild cetaceans (Table 3).

We documented seven situations worldwide where food provisioning has

facilitated the habituation of dolphins to human interaction including in-water

encounters. In Brazil uncontrolled feeding of S. fluviatilis occurs at two locations, and

people swim with at least one food-provisioned dolphin (Cirilo et al. 1998, Santos 1998,

1999). In the United States, where food provisioning of cetaceans is illegal, uncontrolled
6

feeding of wild T. truncatus still appears to be the primary basis for in-water encounters

with dolphins in the Panhandle and Gulf coast regions of Florida (Colbert and

Cunningham 1998, Colburn 1999, Flanagan 1996, Ford 1997, Samuels and Bejder 1998,

Smith 1997, Spradlin et al. 1998). In Panama City, Florida, for example, many dolphins

that interact with swimmers frequently accept fish handouts (Colburn 1999, Ford 1997,

Samuels and Bejder 1998). 

Food provisioning provides a basis for regular human interaction at four

established sites in Australia. Three of these operations are state-licensed, and food

provisioning is subjected to strict controls (Tursiops sp. at Bunbury, Monkey Mia,

Tangalooma). A fourth (Sousa chinensis at Tin Can Bay) operates illegally without

controls, albeit with the apparent knowledge of local authorities, even though humpback

dolphins are a protected species (Corkeron 1998, Garbett and Garbett 1997, Wortel

1999). Uncontrolled in-water interactions between humans and wild food-provisioned

dolphins occur in at least three of these sites.

Monkey Mia dolphins in Western Australia are the best documented of the foodprovisioned dolphins. These dolphins are residents of a well-studied coastal community.

Since the mid-1980s, they have been subjects of long-term behavioral research (e.g.,

Connor et al. 1992, Connor and Smolker 1985, Mann et al. in press, Mann and Smuts

1999), and they have been closely monitored by the Western Australian Department of

Conservation and Land Management (CALM) (e.g., Donaldson 1998, EPA 1989, Trayler

and Shepherd 1993, Wilson 1994, 1996). The Monkey Mia experience perhaps best

illustrates the dangers of uncontrolled food provisioning for dolphins. Documented

impacts (Connor et al. 1992, Connor and Smolker 1985, Edwards 1988, EPA 1989,

Gawain 1982, Mann and Barnett 1999, Mann et al. in press, Mann and Smuts 1999,

Trayler and Shepherd 1993, Wilson 1994, 1996) include the following: 

• “Old Charlie,” the original Monkey Mia dolphin, was reported to have been killed

by gunshot; 

• seven dolphins disappeared and were believed dead as a result of pollution in the

shallow waters where the dolphins waited to be fed; 

• tourists have been bitten in the provisioning area; 

• a calf was killed by a shark while her mother was in the provisioning area; 

• a weaned juvenile became dependent on fish handouts and died; 

• when compared with behavior away from the provisioning area, the frequency of

maternal behavior was lower and the frequency of intraspecific aggression higher

within the provisioning area; and 

• provisioned females were found to have significantly lower calf survivorship than

wild-feeding females in the same bay. 

Although less is known about the Bunbury situation (Orams 1995, Smith 1999,

Wilson 1994), risks to provisioned dolphins also are apparent there. After provisioning

became a regular occurrence at Bunbury, there was an increased frequency in dolphins
7

stealing bait from fishing lines, and at least one dolphin was killed by fishermen at the

time of this conflict (Wringe 1993a, 1993b).

As Wilson (1994) pointed out, “If the welfare of the dolphins were the sole

concern, then provisioning... should cease [but] many human livelihoods now depend

upon continuation of the meet-the-dolphin phenomenon.” Thus, at Monkey Mia, a review

of the feeding policy led CALM to institute even stricter regulations to preserve the

tourist experience while protecting the dolphins (Wilson 1994, 1996). Five years after

initiating these regulations, each of the three food-provisioned females at Monkey Mia

now has a surviving calf and a surviving juvenile offspring (CALM, unpublished data).

In all cases in which the history of habituation is known, it is the humans who

have persisted in establishing food provisioning. Humans have sometimes taken

advantage of the friendly overtures of one or more dolphins (e.g., “Old Charlie” in

Monkey Mia, Australia [Edwards 1988, Gawain 1982, Lockyer 1990]) or the attraction

of dolphins to fisheries bycatch (e.g., in the Florida Panhandle or Tin Can Bay, Australia

[Ford 1997, Garbett and Garbett 1997]). In Tangalooma, Australia, considerable effort

was put into enticing wild dolphins to come to a resort and to train them to accept regular

fish handouts as a tourist attraction (Corkeron 1998, Green and Corkeron 1991, Orams

1994, 1995, Orams et al. 1996). Similarly, in Panama City, Florida, it is said that

commercial operators “trained” dolphins to expect fish handouts at certain times of day at

a specific location (Ford 1997).

None of the research on food-provisioned dolphins has focused on impacts of inwater encounters with humans. However, given the pervasive effects of food

provisioning, it would not be easy to design a study that could partition which impacts

are due to food provisioning and which are due to in-water encounters. In a brief study

conducted in Panama City, the behavior of dolphins habituated through food provisioning

was compared to that of unhabituated dolphins in the same location. Dramatic differences

in behavior and ranging patterns were documented: in particular, over a period of several

days, one juvenile dolphin was observed to interact with humans including swimmers

during 74% of observations, was fed by humans at least once per hour, and had

dangerous encounters involving humans or vessels once per 12 min (Samuels and Bejder

1998). Given the prevalence of food provisioning for habituated dolphins in this region

(Colburn 1999, Samuels and Bejder 1998), it could not be determined whether these

differences are due to food provisioning or to frequent in-water encounters with humans.

Cetaceans That Are Habituated to In-Water Encounters with Humans

We defined “habituated” to refer to groups of cetaceans in which many

individuals have sustained interactions with human swimmers on a regular basis without

pursuit by humans or the incentive of food provisioning. We documented four situations

in which wild dolphins have become habituated to regular in-water encounters with
8

human swimmers (Table 4). Three involve swimming with bottlenose dolphins (i.e.,

Rockingham in Western Australia, Florida Keys in the United States, and Bonin,

Ogsawara, and Mikura/Miyake Islands in Japan). The fourth case involves Atlantic

spotted and bottlenose dolphins at Little Bahama Bank in the Bahamas. The spinner

dolphins of Maravilla, Brazil, may be an additional example (Doak 1988), but this could

not be confirmed. Dolphins that take part in cooperative fishing efforts with humans also

belong in the “habituated” category because fishermen appear to form relationships with

individual dolphins, and humans and dolphins work together in the water on a regular

basis (e.g., Busnel 1973, Pryor et al. 1990) However, cooperative feeding is not directly

relevant to the swim-with-dolphin issue and will not be discussed further in this review.

The origin of habituation to humans in the water was described in three cases. In

the Florida Keys, tour operators target specific animals at specific locations for

habituation, noting that “it takes some time to gain [the dolphins’] trust” (Henning 1993). 

In Rockingham, a tour operator reportedly spent more than six months to habituate

specific dolphins for swim-with-dolphin tours (Orams 1995, Weir et al. 1996). In the

Bahamas, curious dolphins frequented a wreck salvage operation in the 1970s, and

subsequent filming of the dolphins led to organized swim-with-dolphin tours (St John

1988). These dolphins also have been subjects of underwater behavioral research since

1985 (Herzing 1991, 1996, 1999, Ransom 1998, Rossbach and Herzing 1997). In this

case the dolphins made first contact, but it seems likely that habituation was a gradual

process through repeated exposure to divers, researchers, filmmakers, and ecotourists in

the water. Herzing (1999) describes “interactive” encounters between dolphins and

researchers to promote “rapport and trust,” thereby facilitating close-up, in-water

observations. Increasing habituation of these dolphins is suggested by the finding that inwater encounters have increased in duration over a 6-yr period (median encounter length 

ranged from 7 to 11 min); however, increased experience of the operators cannot be ruled

out as an explanation for this finding (Ransom 1998).

For the human swimmer, habituated cetaceans are said to pose “little danger” and

to provide an “opportunity for extended spontaneous interaction [and] to observe natural

behaviors” (Perrine 1998). For the scientist, habituated cetaceans provide an opportunity

to observe behavior closely and to identify individuals from an underwater vantage

(Herzing 1991, 1996, 1999, Rossbach and Herzing 1997). Little has been documented

about these experiences from the animals’ perspective. Ransom (1998) looked at dolphin

responses to tour vessels in the Bahamas, an investigation pertinent to the swim-withdolphin issue because “almost all swim-with-dolphin tours are conducted from a boat

[and] it is almost impossible to isolate the dolphins’ response to swimmers from the

confounding effect of vessel presence” (Constantine 1998). Ransom (1998) found that

spotted dolphins changed their behavior 68% of the time when a boat approached; they

were least likely to respond while socializing, and positive responses predominated (i.e.,

dolphins often approached the boat). One spotted dolphin calf was reported to have lifethreatening wounds, presumably from a boat propeller (Ransom 1998). In the same

study, bottlenose dolphins changed their behavior during 59% of approaches with

negative responses predominating (i.e., dolphins typically avoided the boat).
9

Information about responses of habituated cetaceans to swimmers is anecdotal.

Ransom (1998) reported an instance of intraspecific aggression among spotted dolphins

when an assertive swimmer came between a presumed mother and calf. That spotted

dolphins in the Bahamas “come to the humans, and can leave at any time they wish”

(Würsig 1996) is presumed to indicate a degree of attraction to humans for the animals.

However, the animals’ ability to choose to interact or not may be in part an artifact of the

remote location where the number of tour vessels is not yet so great that operators

compete for access to the animals (Herzing 1999). As Würsig (1996) noted: “This

situation [in the Bahamas] would need stricter regulation only when the number of

vessels and attendant underwater activity and noise increased, no longer allowing the

animals to easily and comfortably 'escape.'”

There is little information about swim-with programs in Japan. Some dolphins

there are likened to habituated dolphins in the Bahamas, in that they reportedly approach

humans for sustained interactions on a regular basis (Dudzinski 1998). The literature for

this region focuses on descriptions of the voluntary codes of conduct developed by local

tour operators, researchers, and other involved parties (Barbosa 1999, Dudzinski 1998,

1999, Mori 1999, Shimomaki et al. 1999). How effective these codes are in safeguarding

the dolphins is not yet demonstrated: “The rule is almost effective.... The problems are

some of [whale-] watching participants [don't come to] the meeting and ignore the

agreement” (Mori 1999). 

There is very little information about swimming with wild dolphins in the Florida

Keys (Frohoff and Packard 1995, Henning 1993). It is not possible to evaluate from the

available literature the number of affected animals or whether all dolphins targeted by

tour operators are habituated.

There is no published research that specifically addresses the impacts of regular,

sustained in-water interactions with humans on habituated cetaceans. The habituation and

accessibility of these animals to human observers makes them appropriate subjects for

long-term study of the behavior of individual dolphins in the presence and absence of

human swimmers. In addition, studies of the local communities to which habituated

dolphins belong would provide information about what proportion of a given community

is habituated, and whether there are certain individuals or age/sex classes that are more

likely to seek, be affected by, or avoid human interaction.

Cetaceans That Are Not Habituated to In-Water Encounters

with Humans

We defined “not habituated” to refer to cetaceans that have infrequent contact

with humans and/or show disturbance reactions to the presence of vessels or swimmers. 

It was not always easy to make this distinction from the available literature. Animals are

sometimes labeled as “habituated” because tour vessels have been in operation for many

years, but research findings suggest that duration of exposure may not be the defining
10

feature. For example, research on dusky dolphins in Kaikoura, New Zealand, shows that

“dolphin groups often react to vessels and do not appear to have greatly habituated

despite nine years of tourism” (Würsig et al. 1997). Lack of habituation persists despite

the fact that “humans are with the dolphin group during about 70% of daylight hours”

(Würsig 1996). We considered the dwarf minke whales of the Great Barrier Reef to be

“unhabituated” even though they initiate approaches to boats and swimmers (Arnold and

Birtles 1998, 1999), because repeated encounters with the same individual whales may be

rare (F. O’Neill, personal communication). In other cases, we classified animals as

“unhabituated” because there was insufficient information to determine whether

individual animals have repeated, sustained interactions with humans. With respect to the

spinner dolphins of Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii, there are anecdotal reports that certain

humans have formed long-term relationships with individual dolphins (McNarie 1999),

but preliminary results of studies there suggest that resting dolphins are disturbed by

human activity including tour boats, kayakers, and swimmers (Forest 1999, Green and

Calvez 1999, Würsig 1996).

Unhabituated cetaceans that are the focus of swim-with activities are listed in

Table 5. The list includes familiar swim-with situations and species (e.g., spinner

dolphins in Hawaii [Barber et al. 1995, Forest 1999, Green and Calvez 1999, McNarie

1999, Psarakos and Marten 1999, Simonds 1991, Würsig 1996] and dusky, bottlenose,

and common dolphins in New Zealand [Amante-Helweg 1996, Barr 1997, Barr and

Slooten 1998, Constantine 1998, 1999a, 1999b, Constantine and Baker 1996, Doak 1994,

Findlay 1997, Suisted 1999, Würsig 1996, Würsig et al. 1997, Yin 1999, Yin and Würsig

1999]). The list of unhabituated cetaceans also includes a number of less well-known

sites and/or exotic species (e.g., Hector’s dolphins in New Zealand [Bejder and Dawson

1998, Bejder et al. 1999, Constantine 1998, 1999a], dense beaked whales near the Canary

Islands [Ritter 1996, Ritter and Brederlau 1999], dwarf minke whales in the Great Barrier

Reef [Aitken 1999, Arnold and Birtles 1998, 1999, Corkeron 1998, Nachoum 1999, Pirzl

1998], and sperm whales near the Azores and Canary Islands, and in the Caribbean and

Mediterranean Seas [Constantine 1998, 1999a, IFAW 1997, Nachoum 1999, Ritter

1996]). There is insufficient information to determine if gray whales in Baja California,

Mexico, belong in this category (Snyderman 1988), but gray whales elsewhere appear to

be unhabituated to vessels (Duffus 1996, Obee 1998).

The “Diver’s Guide” advertises that swimming with unhabituated cetaceans

incurs a “low risk of aggression” (Perrine 1998). However, a woman’s “near-death

experience” with an unhabituated pilot whale suggests that swimming with any wild

cetacean can be dangerous (Shane 1995, Shane et al. 1993).

The New Zealand swim-with-dolphin operations have received considerable

scientific scrutiny, primarily evaluating responses of dolphin groups to vessel

approaches. Research includes shore-based studies of dusky dolphins in Kaikoura and

Hector’s dolphins in Porpoise Bay, and tour boat-based studies of bottlenose and

common dolphins in the Bay of Islands. In Bay of Islands, 32% of vessel approaches to

bottlenose dolphins resulted in a change in group activity with feeding being the activity
11

least likely to be disrupted and socializing most likely; 52% of approaches to common

dolphins resulted in behavioral change with resting least likely and socializing most

likely to change (Constantine and Baker 1996). In Kaikoura, 83% of approaches to dusky

dolphins resulted in behavioral change, with interruptions to feeding and resting

behavior (Würsig et al. 1997). Disrupted resting and feeding behavior did not resume

after the boats departed (Barr 1997, Barr and Slooten 1998). In the presence of boats,

dusky and Hector’s dolphins formed more compact groups, and dusky dolphins

frequently changed direction of travel or became active during their normally quiescent

afternoon period (Barr 1997, Barr and Slooten 1998, Bejder and Dawson 1998, Bejder et

al. 1999, Yin and Würsig 1999). Hector’s dolphins appeared to be attracted to boats

during the early part of an encounter, but tended to orient away from the vessel if the

encounter lasted more than 70 min (Bejder and Dawson 1998, Bejder et al. 1999). Yin

(1999) and others noted that dolphins interacting with swimmers or boats appeared to be

a small subset of the group. Although Yin (1999) did not find a significant effect of boat

presence on speed of group travel by dusky dolphins, she cautioned that “observable

trends were evident that are potentially important enough that a conservative approach is

recommended.”

The New Zealand studies provide some information about responses of dolphin

groups to swimmers in the water. Barr (1997) described a technique used in swim

attempts with dusky dolphins to minimize the impact on the group: “When several

dolphins stayed to interact with the swimmers... the boat's engine was turned off. In this

way, the main pod of dolphins would continue swimming, leaving the boat & swimmers

behind.” For Hector’s dolphins, 57% of in-water encounters were sustained (>5 min) and

classified as “non-disturbing”; 42% were classified as at least “potentially disturbing”

(Bejder and Dawson 1998, Bejder et al. 1999). In addition, Constantine and Baker

(1996) documented for bottlenose and common dolphins, respectively, that 60% and 31%

of swim attempts were successful (i.e., at least 1 dolphin was within 5m of a swimmer),

and 48% and 24% of swims resulted in sustained interactions (mean = 4.2 and 5.3 min).

Sustained interactions are typically interpreted as evidence of attraction to humans. 

Bottlenose and common dolphins avoided 22% and 38% of swim attempts, with the

operator’s technique of approach to the dolphins having a significant effect on the

group’s response (Constantine and Baker 1996). Approach techniques that resulted in a

high rate of sustained interaction were the same techniques that resulted in a high rate of

avoidance, which led Constantine and Baker (1996) to recommend that minimizing

disturbance to the dolphins be considered a higher priority in regulatory decisions than

maximizing swim success. A follow-up study by Constantine (1999b) showed increased

avoidance of swimmers by bottlenose dolphins between 1994-95 and 1997-98, which she

attributed to the possibility that “individuals in the population becoming sensitised to

swim attempts.”

Research conducted in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia, was modeled on the

Constantine and Baker (1996) study. Weir et al. (1996) found that 60% of swim attempts

were successful (dolphins were nearby), but in only 17% of swims did dolphins interact

with swimmers, whereas in 33% and 50% of swims, dolphins responded to swimmers by
12

avoidance or no change in behavior, respectively. As in New Zealand, Weir et al. (1996)

found that the most disruptive operator techniques yielded the highest percentage of

successful swims and the highest rate of avoidance. They noted that “extended

observations [by sequential boats] see pods being disturbed for hours at a time without

respite,” and reported situations with the dolphins being “hemmed in” by more than 20

boats (Weir et al. 1996). High rates of avoidance by Port Phillip Bay dolphins were

observed in situations that are prohibited in New Zealand, which was suggested as

evidence that New Zealand regulations are effective in minimizing disturbance to

dolphins (Weir et al. 1996).

Dwarf minke whales in waters near Great Barrier Reef, Australia, are reported to

initiate encounters with boats and swimmers, and even “slowed down...and maintained a

position near swimmers” (Arnold and Birtles 1998, 1999). Encounters often last an hour,

with one encounter with eight whales lasting over 11 hrs (Aitken 1999). Dwarf minke

whales reportedly displayed no aggression towards humans during more than 30

monitored encounters, but did exhibit “disturbance” behaviors when swimmers tried to

touch them (Arnold and Birtles 1998, 1999). Researchers have identified behaviors

indicative of boat disturbance, including “veer away” and “speed up”(Arnold and Birtles

1998, 1999).

Two studies focused on unhabituated cetaceans in waters near the Canary Islands

(Heimlich-Boran et al. 1994, Ritter 1996, Ritter and Brederlau 1999). A study of pilot

whales in the Canary Islands focused on the behavior of individual animals and their

responses to boats (Heimlich-Boran et al. 1994). In the presence of boats, pilot whales

delayed rising to the surface and formed more compact groups; however, no information

was provided about the increasingly popular “Swim-With-The-Whales” trips (HeimlichBoran et al. 1994). In another study, Ritter (1996) conducted group-focal observations of

in-water interactions between cetaceans and humans, making his observations from tour

vessels and from the water: 46 cetacean encounters by commercial tour vessels resulted

in 20% avoidance and 38% “intense” in-water encounters (i.e., cetaceans interacted with

swimmers) with pilot whales or rough-toothed, spotted, or bottlenose dolphins. Ritter

(1996) provided anecdotal information about swimming with such uncommon species as

dense beaked whales, which “repeatedly made the impression of curious animals which

do not generally avoid the presence of man,” and sei whales, which “seemed to tolerate

the boat and were partially curious.” In a later report, Ritter and Brederlau (1999)

described variable responses of beaked whales to boats and swimmers (e.g., in seven

sightings, dense beaked whales remained distant or were curious and approached; groups

were compact; whales oriented towards the boat or changed swim speed or direction to

accommodate boat movements; whales breached, tail-slapped, spy-hopped, or frequently

changed direction of travel; and in one instance, a group “sprinted several hundred

meters with the animals repeatedly porpoising at high speed”). Ritter and Brederlau

(1999) implied that swim-with activities may have been prohibited in the Canaries as of

1996.
13

Several researchers focused on responses of spinner dolphin groups to human

activity in Kealakekua Bay and elsewhere in Hawaii, but results are preliminary (Barber

et al. 1995, Forest 1999, Green and Calvez 1999, Psarakos and Marten 1999). Spinner

dolphins enter protected bays in daytime to rest and socialize, critical activities that may

be disrupted because the dolphins are readily accessible to large numbers of human

swimmers and kayakers from shore (Würsig 1996). Forest (1999) compared the number

of dolphins entering the bay prior to the onset of tourism in 1979-80 vs. 1993-94, and

found that current attendance was 21% lower. This finding may suggest that the bay has

become “a less suitable resting area,” but Forest (1999) noted that other explanations are

possible. Forest (1999) also documented an increase in aerial activities when associated

boats, kayakers, or swimmers are present, suggesting a potential disruption of resting

behavior, and she found an overall decrease in aerial activities compared with 1979-80.

The latter finding suggested that dolphins now have “reduced energy levels,” presumably

due to increased tourist activity, but other interpretations are also possible (Forest 1999).

Green and Calvez (1999) described corresponding diurnal activity patterns for humans

and spinner dolphins in the bay: in the early morning, a few local people swim, and

dolphins are interactive; at midday, there are many tourists and boats, and dolphins

appear to avoid them; in the afternoon, there is decreased human activity, and the

dolphins rest.

The available research on swimming with unhabituated cetaceans provides a first

step in understanding the short-term impacts of swim-with-dolphin operations on these

animals. These studies provided valuable information for making management decisions

in New Zealand. For example, based on researchers’ concerns, guidelines were recently

instituted to safeguard the midday rest periods of dusky dolphins (Yin 1999). However,

recent findings from one of the few longitudinal studies, showing an increase in rates of

avoidance over a several-year period, indicate that a long-term perspective is essential

(Constantine 1999a, 1999b). Authors themselves have pointed out limitations in

interpreting their research findings. Barr and Slooten (1998) noted for dusky dolphins: “It

is very difficult to determine whether boats and swimmers affect dolphin behaviour when

periods without boats and swimmers are so few and so brief... If dolphins take several

hours to return to 'normal' behaviour after a boat visit, then almost all of the observations

reported on here represent modified behaviour.” Constantine and Baker (1996) made

observations in conditions that permitted data collection only when the research platform

(a commercial tour vessel) was within 400m of dolphins; therefore, this study may have

included only those dolphins tolerant of boat approaches. Bejder and Dawson (1998)

made the general observation that “Despite the obvious need... no New Zealand cetacean

population has received detailed study before being targeted by commercial whale or

dolphin-watching operations. Hence, ‘before and after’ comparisons are impossible.” 

Yin’s results may have been biased by her method of selecting focal groups that are small

and apart from other dolphin groups (Yin 1999, Yin and Würsig 1999). 

In addition, studies of unhabituated cetaceans typically focus on (a) group activity

(a necessity in shore-based theodolite studies and studies based from commercial vessels)

and (b) responses to tour vessels. These are necessary first steps, but the next steps
14

include (a) a focus on details of cetacean/human in-water interactions and responses to

swimmers, (b) a focus on the behavior of individual animals and identifying which

individuals are particularly affected, (c) a long-term perspective to assess impacts of

human activities, and (d) baseline “before” data before initiation of new programs. 

Assessment of Research Methodologies

Gales (1999) noted that “the management of commercial swim-with-dolphin

programs... has proceeded without clear scientific guidance. As is the case with most

marine mammal/human interactions, the demand and growth of this industry has

significantly outstripped the ability of scientists to develop and implement sufficiently

sensitive tools that might provide some sound basis for management decisions.” This

observation refers to the situation in Australia, but is valid elsewhere in the world,

particularly in the United States. Even in New Zealand where there has been

considerable scientific scrutiny to evaluate swim-with-dolphin activities, and wildlife

managers have been responsive to scientists’ findings, research that focuses on impacts

of these activities is in its infancy.

Most studies of swim-with situations focus on (a) responses of groups of

cetaceans, and (b) dolphin responses to vessel approaches. These emphases are in part

dictated by methodologies used (distant, shore-based observations; in-water or tour

vessel-based observations) and are necessary first steps. But, as noted by several

researchers (e.g., Constantine 1999a, Ransom 1998, Samuels and Bejder 1998, Yin

1999), this is only the tip of the iceberg, and more refined, in-depth, and longitudinal

investigations are needed. Our lack of knowledge is further compounded by the fact that,

for species already heavily impacted by human activity, there are insufficient data on

baseline “undisturbed” behavior to be able to assess the impacts of swim-with activities. 

Also lacking from the literature are “before-and-after” studies that might document

impacts of tourism on the animals or details of the habituation process. 

The available research sets the stage for understanding effects of swim-with

operations on the behavior and well-being of wild cetaceans. However, in addition to

shore-based and commercial vessel-based studies of group behavior (e.g., Arnold and

Birtles 1998, 1999, Barr 1997, Barr and Slooten 1998, Bejder and Dawson 1998, Bejder

et al. 1999, Constantine 1999b, Constantine and Baker 1996, Forest 1999, Green and

Calvez 1999, Ransom 1998, Ritter 1996, Ritter and Brederlau 1999, Weir et al. 1996,

Würsig et al. 1997, Yin 1999, Yin and Würsig 1999), complementary studies are needed

that focus on the behavior of individual animals as members of local communities (e.g.,

Heimlich-Boran et al. 1994, Samuels and Bejder 1998). Focal-animal follows of

individual cetaceans may not be practical in all situations (e.g., groups of 700 dusky

dolphins) but are likely to be feasible in many cases of habituated and unhabituated

cetaceans. Use of the technique would complement and fill in the gaps in information

obtained from existing methodologies. Such research might include (1) details of inwater interactions between dolphins and humans, including types and frequencies of
15

interactions; (2) comparisons of the behavior of the same individuals in the presence and

absence of swimmers, (3) comparisons of the behavior of individuals that do and do not

interact with swimmers in the same region or community, and (4) determining which

individuals or age/sex classes and what proportion of local communities are more likely 

to interact with swimmers, be detrimentally affected by swimmers, or avoid swimmers.

Conducted over periods of several years, such studies would provide valuable

information about short- and long-term impacts of swim-with encounters on the lives of

individuals, animals of different age/sex classes, activity states, or reproductive

conditions, and cetacean communities. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

We reviewed 151 sources that pertain to swimming with wild dolphins and

whales including scientific and popular literature on cetaceans, sirenians, and sharks. 

Commercial tours that advertise swimming with wild cetaceans now occur worldwide

including Australia, the Azores, the Bahamas, the Canary Islands, Dominica, Grenada,

Japan, New Zealand, and the United States. New operations are initiated on a regular

basis. At least 20 cetacean species are targeted in these activities. Dolphin species

include Atlantic spotted, bottlenose, common, dusky, Hector’s, humpback, Risso’s,

rough-toothed, spinner, striped, and Tucuxi, and whale species include pilot, false killer,

killer, dwarf minke, minke, sei, dense beaked, and sperm. 

With respect to swim-with situations in the United States, we have compiled a

body of information from which scientists and wildlife managers can determine the scope

of swim-with activity on a worldwide basis, and they can assess impacts – potential,

probable, and demonstrated – of the various forms of swim-with activity on the welfare

of targeted animals. Although what is known about swimming with wild cetaceans is far

from a complete picture, we think that the available information is sufficient to make

specific recommendations with respect to swim-with situations in the United States.

Below we summarize our findings according to the four categories of cetaceans that have

in-water encounters with humans: lone, sociable; food-provisioned; habituated; and not

habituated.

Category 1: Lone, Sociable

 

Conclusion: Although lone, sociable dolphins typically make first contact with humans,

habituation to humans and in-water encounters is usually a gradual process

achieved through considerable effort on the part of humans. Unfortunately for the

dolphins, habituation to humans puts the dolphins at risk of injury or death. Strict

management programs may reduce this risk.

Recommendation: Lone, sociable dolphins of any species are particularly vulnerable to

impacts of human activity, and all interactions with humans should be strictly

prohibited and enforced in each situation.
16

Category 2: Food-Provisioned

Conclusion: Uncontrolled food provisioning is the primary basis for in-water encounters

with dolphins at several locations worldwide. Research findings and anecdotal

evidence are unequivocal that uncontrolled food provisioning is harmful to wild

cetaceans. Whether there are detrimental effects of strictly controlled food

provisioning has not yet been determined.

Recommendation: Enforcement of the no-feeding ban is urgently needed for foodprovisioned bottlenose dolphins in the Florida Panhandle and Gulf coast areas.

Category 3: Habituated

Conclusion: There are a few locations where swim-with operations regularly interact

with habituated dolphins. In some cases, the dolphins’ “freedom of choice” to

interact or not with humans is achieved through considerable effort on the part of

humans to habituate the animals. There is virtually no research that specifically

addresses short- or long-term impacts of regular swim-with operations on the

behavior and well-being of habituated individuals or affected cetacean

communities.

Recommendations: For habituated bottlenose dolphins in the Florida Keys, more

information is needed to assess the extent of human activities, the number and

identity of affected animals, the proportion of targeted animals that are

habituated, the methods used for habituation, etc.

In the absence of the above information, and given the accessibility of these

dolphins to large numbers of tourists, a precautionary approach is appropriate.

The National Watchable Wildlife Program provides a set of explicit

recommendations designed to minimize disruption to wildlife. These include

viewing wild animals from a distance using binoculars, not attempting to interact

with wild animals, avoiding areas critical for foraging, resting, parental care, etc.

(Duda 1995).

Category 4: Unhabituated

Conclusion: There are several locations worldwide where tour operators provide

opportunities for swimmers to interact with unhabituated dolphins and whales. In

some cases, lack of habituation is likely to be related to the infrequency of

encounters. In other cases, cetaceans remain unhabituated despite regular and

long-term exposure to human activity. Several recent studies focus on responses

of unhabituated cetacean groups to vessel approaches and swimmers. These

studies provide a first step in assessing the impacts of this type of activity on the

animals. Reports from Hawaii and overseas provide quantitative data and

anecdotal information to indicate that swim-with operations are associated with
17

disruption to the behavioral patterns of targeted cetaceans, at least for some

approaches and for some subset of approached animals. Results of longitudinal

studies are only starting to emerge, but available findings point towards

detrimental effects of tourist activity on targeted dolphins (Constantine 1999b,

Forest 1999). For unhabituated cetaceans, studies have yet to be conducted that

document details of human/cetacean in-water interactions or the short- and longterm impacts of swim-with activities on individual animals and affected cetacean

communities. However, even in the absence of more specific information, a

conservative interpretation of available data indicates that swim-with activities

clearly constitute “harassment” as defined in the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection

Act. Recent data show that even strict sets of regulations as in New Zealand may

not be sufficient to safeguard the animals.

Recommendations: For unhabituated spinner dolphins in Hawaii, research results are

preliminary but sufficient to indicate that these animals are disturbed by tourist

activity in areas that are critical for their well-being. This clearly constitutes

“harassment” as defined in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Ideally, more

research would be useful to determine what proportion and which individuals or

age/sex classes are or are not affected by human activity. However, preliminary

findings of detrimental effects, and the ready accessibility of these animals to

human incursion, dictate a precautionary approach, even without further research.

Watchable Wildlife guidelines would recommend that these animals not be

approached at all in protected bays that are critical for rest.

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Charles, R. Constantine, E. Crowley, C. Flaherty, C. Hurter, C.

McGarrity, M. Rabb, C. Recchia, H. Smith, T. Spradlin, and S. Yin for their help in

finding sources for this literature review. We especially thank R. Mattlin and T. Spradlin

for moral support throughout the lengthy process of compiling this report. AS is grateful

to the Monkey Mia Resort, Monkey Mia Dolphin Information Centre, and Monkey Mia

Wildlife Sailing, and LB and SH are grateful to the Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution for facilities and supplies used in the preparation of this report. This project

was funded by Marine Mammal Commission contract T74463123 to AS at the

Brookfield Zoo.
18

Swim-with-Dolphin Bibliography 

Acevedo, A. 1991. Interactions between boats and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops

truncatus, in the entrance to Ensenada De La Paz, Mexico. Aquatic Mammals 17:

120-124.

Aitken, K. 1999. Whales and dolphins: Unforgettable and accessible. Sport Diving 74: 1-

15.

Amante-Helweg, V. 1996. Ecotourists' beliefs and knowledge about dolphins and the

development of cetacean ecotourism. Aquatic Mammals 22: 131-140.

Anderson, P. K. 1998. Commercial dugong tourism at Shark Bay. Pages 31. Department

of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.

Anon. 1998. The flip side of dolphins. Pages 10-12. Geo.

Arnold, P. W., and R. A. Birtles. 1998. Towards sustainable management of the

developing dwarf minke whale tourism in northern Queensland. Pages 21.

International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/50/WW1.

Arnold, P. W., and R. A. Birtles. 1999. Towards sustainable management of the

developing dwarf minke whale tourism industry in northern Queensland. Pages

30. CRC Reef Research Centre, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 27.

Barber, A., R. Barber, and M. Jackson. 1995. The presence of spinner dolphins (Stenella

longirostris) affects human use and sex ratios of swimmers in Kealakekua Bay,

Hawaii. 11th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Society

for Marine Mammalogy, Orlando, Florida.

Barbosa, C. 1999. An example approach to the dolphin swimming/watching programs

around Mikura Island, Japan. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R.

Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Barr, K. 1997. The impacts of marine tourism on the behaviour and movement patterns

of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Pages

87. MSc thesis. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Barr, K., and E. Slooten. 1998. Effects of tourism on dusky dolphins at Kaikoura. Pages

30. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/50/WW10.

Bejder, L., and S. M. Dawson. 1998. Responses by Hector's dolphins to boats and

swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Pages 13. International Whaling

Commission Scientific Committee, SC/50/WW11.

Bejder, L., S. M. Dawson, and J. A. Harraway. 1999. Responses by Hector's dolphins to

boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 15:

738-750.

Bilgre, B. 1999. Underwater research of dolphins in Belize in K. M. Dudzinski, T. G.

Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui,

Hawaii.

Bilgre, B., T. Frohoff, A. Sanders, and K. Dudzinski. 1999. Observations of a lone

sociable dolphin in Belize. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin,

eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Blane, J. M., and R. Jaakson. 1994. The impact of ecotourism boats on the St Lawrence

beluga whales. Environmental Conservation 21: 267-269.
19

Bloom, P. 1991. The diary of a wild, solitary, bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus),

resident off Amble on the north Northumberland coast of England, from April

1987 to January 1991. Aquatic Mammals 17: 103-119.

Bloom, P. R. S., A. D. Goodson, M. Klinowska, and C. R. Sturtivant. 1995. The activities

of a wild, solitary bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Aquatic Mammals 21:

19-42.

Briggs, D. 1991. Impact on killer whales. Impact of human activities on killer whales at

the rubbing beaches in the Robson Bight Ecological Reserve and adjacent waters

during the summers of 1987 and 1989. Pages 37. Ministry of Parks, British

Columbia.

Bryant, L. 1994. Report to Congress on Results of Feeding Wild Dolphins: 1989-1994.

Pages 23. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources,

Silver Spring, Maryland.

Burgess, G. H. 1998. Diving with elasmobranchs: A call for restraint. Shark News -

Newsletter of the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

Shark Specialist Group 11: 1-4.

Burgess, R. F. 1982. The dolphin that came in from the cold. Flippers in Philip's Inlet.

Oceans 15: 13-15.

Busnel, R. G. 1973. Symbiotic relationship between man and dolphins. Transactions of

the New York Academy of Sciences 35: 112-131.

Butler, S. 1992. Swimming with the manatees. Pages E3-4. The Washington Post,

Washington, D. C.

Cirilo, P. C. P., M. C. d. O. Santos, E. Zampirolli, A. F. C. Vicente, F. S. Alvarenga, and

T. M. A. Pereira. 1998. Report on a lone sociable marine tucuxi dolphin, Sotalia

fluviatilis, at Sao Vicente, southeastern Brazil. Conference abstract, 8o Reuniao

de trabalho de especialistas em mamíferos aquáticos da América do Sul, Brazil,

Recife, Brazil.

Clarke, A. P. 1999. Club Med jeopardizing Turks and Caicos national treasure: JoJo.

Southeast Media Affiliates, Inc., 2 January 1999.

Colbert, D. E., and P. A. Cunningham. 1998. Incidents of recorded bites by a wild

bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, known as "Beggar". Mote Marine

Laboratory personal communication, 28 October 1998.

Colburn, K. 1999. Interactions between humans and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops

truncatus, near Panama City, Florida. Pages 45. Masters thesis. Duke University,

Durham, North Carolina.

Connor, R. C., R. A. Smolker, and A. F. Richards. 1992. Dolphin alliances and

coalitions. Pages 415-443 in A. H. Harcourt and F. B. M. de Waal, eds. Coalition

and alliances in humans and other animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Connor, R. C., and R. S. Smolker. 1985. Habituated dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Western

Australia. Journal of Mammalogy 66: 398-400.

Constantine, R. 1998. The whale and dolphin tourism industry in New Zealand: A review

of management and research. Pages 13. International Whaling Commission 

Scientific Committee, SC/50/WW6.

Constantine, R. 1999a. Effects of tourism on marine mammals in New Zealand. Pages

60. Department of Conservation, Science for Conservation.
20

Constantine, R. 1999b. Increased avoidance of swimmers by bottlenose dolphins in the

Bay of Islands, New Zealand. Abstracts of the 13th Biennial Conference on the

Biology of Marine Mammals, Maui, Hawaii.

Constantine, R., and C. S. Baker. 1996. Monitoring the commercial swim-with-dolphin

operations in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand. Pages 54. Department of

Conservation, Auckland, New Zealand.

Corkeron, P. 1998. Whalewatching - Management and research in Australia. Pages 8.

International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/50/WW5.

Corkeron, P. J. 1995. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hervey Bay,

Queensland: Behaviour and responses to whale-watching vessels. Canadian

Journal of Zoology 73: 1290-1299.

Davis, D., S. Banks, A. Birtles, P. Valentine, and M. Cuthill. 1997. Whale sharks in

Ningaloo Marine Park: Managing tourism in an Australian marine protected area.

Tourism Management 18: 259-271.

Doak, W. 1981. Dolphin dolphin. Hodder and Stoughton, Auckland, New Zealand.

Doak, W. 1988. Encounters with whales and dolphins. Hodder and Stoughton, Auckland,

New Zealand.

Doak, W. 1994. Swimming with dolphins in New Zealand. Hodder & Stoughton.

Dobbs, H. 1981. Save the dolphins. Souvenir Press, London.

Dobbs, H. 1984. The magic of dolphins. Lutterworth Press, Guildford, Surrey.

Donaldson, B. 1998. Commercial dolphin tours in Red Cliff Bay, Monkey Mia: A pilot

study. Pages 30. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western

Australia.

Duda, M. D. 1995. Watching Wildlife. Falcon Press, Helena, Montana.

Dudzinski, K. M. 1998. The best kept secret in dolphin swim programs is in Japan.

Whalewatcher 31: 14-17.

Dudzinski, K. M. 1999. Learning dolphin "etiquette" by understanding their rules of

behavior and interaction. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin,

eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Dudzinski, K. M., T. G. Frohoff, and N. L. Crane. 1995. Behavior of a lone female

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) with humans off the coast of Belize.

Aquatic Mammals 21: 149-153.

Duffus, D. A. 1996. The recreational use of grey whales in southern Clayoquot Sound,

Canada. Applied Geography 16: 179-190.

Duffus, D. A., and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A

conceptual framework. Biological Conservation 53: 213-231.

Duffus, D. A., and P. Dearden. 1993. Recreational use, valuation, and management, of

killer whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada's Pacific coast. Environmental

Conservation 20: 149-156.

Edwards, H. 1988. The Monkey Mia dolphins. Pages 209-213 in R. Harrison and M. M.

Bryden, eds. Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises. Facts on File Publications, New

York.

EPA. 1989. Disappearance of dolphins at Monkey Mia. Pages 16. Environmental

Protection Authority, Bulletin No. 381, Western Australia.
21

Findlay, K. 1997. A review of the effects of tourism activities on cetaceans. Pages 24.

International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, SC/49/029.

Flanagan, P. 1996. Wild and dangerous: Why interacting with marine mammals in the

wild can be harmful. Soundings, Magazine of the International Marine Animal

Trainers Association 21: 26-32.

Ford, B. K. 1997. An evaluation of uncontrolled public-dolphin interaction. Soundings,

Magazine of the International Marine Animal Trainers Association 22: 10-11, 34.

Forest, A. M. 1999. The Hawaiian spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris: Effects of

tourism in K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin

Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Frehsee, R. 1994. The flying dolphins of Roatan. Skin Diver, January : 120-22, 134-36.

Frohoff, T. G. 1999. Conducing research on human-dolphin interactions: Captive

dolphins, free-ranging dolphins, solitary dolphins, and dolphin groups in K. M.

Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program

Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Frohoff, T. G., and J. M. Packard. 1995. Human interactions with free-ranging and

captive bottlenose dolphins. Anthrozoos 8: 44-53.

Gales, N. 1999. An overview of the management of commercial swim-with-dolphin

programs in Australia. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds.

Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Garbett, P., and D. Garbett. 1997. Some aspects of interaction between Indo-Pacific

humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and humans at Tin Can Bay, Queensland,

Australia. Whales in Danger: Whales on the Net, Australian Whale Conservation

Society, 17 February 1997.

Gawain, E. 1982. More than half way. Oceans 15: 10-12.

Gilchrist, I. G. 1967. Dolphin days. Animals 10: 104-107.

Goffman, O., K. Lavalli, D. Kerem, and E. Spanier. 1999. Consequences of swimming

with a lone female bottlenose dolphin (T. aduncus) in the Gulf of Eilat/Aqaba,

Red Sea. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild

Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Green, A., and P. J. Corkeron. 1991. An attempt to establish a feeding station for

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) on Moreton Island, Queensland,

Australia. Aquatic Mammals 17: 125-129.

Green, M., and L. Calvez. 1999. Research on Hawaiian spinner dolphins in Kealakekua

Bay, Hawaii. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild

Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Heimlich-Boran, J. R., S. L. Heimlich-Boran, R. Montero, and V. Martin. 1994. An

overview of whale-watching in the Canary Islands. European Research on

Cetaceans 8: 37-39.

Henning, C. 1993. Keys trip offers a chance to swim with wild dolphins. Pages 4F. The

Miami Herald, Miami, Florida, 7 November 1993.

Henningsen, T., and B. Würsig. 1992. Interactions between humans and dolphins in

Galveston Bay, Texas. Pages 135-140 in J. J. Symoens, ed. Whales: biology -

threats - conservation. Royal Academy of Overseas Sciences, Brussels, Begium.
22

Herzing, D. 1991. Who's watching who? Sonar, Magazine of the Whale and Dolphin

Conservation Society 6: 8-10.

Herzing, D., T. Frohoff, and M. Cesar. 1995. Summary of Workshop on Small

Cetacean/Human Interactions: Research and Management. 11th Biennial

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Orlando, Florida, unpublished

report.

Herzing, D. L. 1996. Vocalizations and associated underwater behavior of free-ranging

Atlantic spotted dolphins, Stenella frontalis and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops

truncatus. Aquatic Mammals 22: 61-79.

Herzing, D. L. 1999. Minimizing impact and maximizing research during human/dolphin

interactions in the Bahamas. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R.

Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Holmes, B. 1987. A diary of my delightful dives with Dorad. Diver 32: 30-31.

IFAW. 1997. Report of the workshop on the special aspects of watching sperm whales.

Pages 36, Roseau, Dominica.

Janik, V. M., and P. M. Thompson. 1996. Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose

dolphins in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 12: 597-602.

Kruse, S. 1991. The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait,

B.C. Pages 149-159 in K. Pryor and K. S. Norris, eds. Dolphin societies:

Discoveries and puzzles. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Lockyer, C. 1978. The history and behaviour of a solitary wild, but sociable, bottlenose

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) on the west coast of England and Whales. Journal of

Natural History 12: 513-528.

Lockyer, C. 1990. Review of incidents involving wild, sociable dolphins, worldwide.

Pages 337-353 in S. Leatherwood and R. R. Reeves, eds. The Bottlenose Dolphin.

Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Lockyer, C., and R. Morris. 1987a. Observations on diving behaviour and swimming

speeds in a wild juvenile Tursiops truncatus. Aquatic Mammals 13: 31-35.

Lockyer, C., and R. Morris. 1987b. Observed growth rate in a wild juvenile Tursiops

truncatus. Aquatic Mammals 13: 27-30.

Lockyer, C., and R. J. Morris. 1985a. Body scars of a resident, wild bottlenosed dolphin

(Tursiops truncatus): Information on certain aspects of his behaviour. Aquatic

Mammals 11: 42-45.

Lockyer, C., and R. J. Morris. 1985b. A wild but sociable dolphin off Portreath, north

Cornwall. Journal of Zoology (London) 207: 605-607.

Lockyer, C., and R. J. Morris. 1986. The history and behaviour of a wild, sociable

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) off the north coast of Cornwall. Aquatic

Mammals 12: 3-16.

Lynch, M. 1999. Shark attacks, wounds swimmer who joined dolphin pod. The Miami

Herald, Miami, Florida, 28 July 1999.

Mann, J., and H. Barnett. 1999. Lethal tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) attack on

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.) calf: Defense and reactions by the mother.

Marine Mammal Science 15: 296-303.
23

Mann, J., R. C. Connor, L. M. Barre, and M. R. Heithaus. in press. Female reproductive

success in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.): Life history, habitat, provisioning,

and group size effects. Behavioral Ecology .

Mann, J., and B. Smuts. 1999. Behavioral development in wild bottlenose dolphin

newborns Tursiops sp. Behaviour 136: 529-566.

McNarie, A. D. 1999. A surfeit of love? Ka'u Landing, A Magazine from the Island of

Hawai'i February: 15-17.

Mori, K. 1999. Whale and dolphin watching and associated research programs in the

Ogasawara Islands, Japan. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin,

eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Morris, R. 1988. Human contact. Pages 204-206 in R. Harrison and M. M. Bryden, eds.

Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises. Facts on File Publications, New York.

Mundey, G. R. 1967. Charlie revisited. Animals 10:354-356.

Nachoum, A. 1999. Predators, mammals and us. DAP Web Services.

Nelson, D. R., R. R. Johnson, J. N. McKibben, and G. G. Pittenger. 1986. Agonistic

attacks on divers and submersibles by gray reef sharks Carcharhinus

amblyrhynchos: Antipredatory or competitive. Bulletin of Marine Science 38: 68-

88.

NMFS. 1995. Flipper's myth proves harmful. MMPA Bulletin 6: 3.

Nowacek, S. M. 1999. The effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops

truncatus, in Sarasota Bay. Pages 42. Masters thesis. University of California,

Santa Cruz, California.

Obee, B. 1998. Eco-tourism boom - How much can wildlife take? Beautiful British

Columbia 40: 7-17.

Orams, M. B. 1994. Tourism and marine wildlife: The wild dolphins of Tangalooma,

Australia: A case report. Anthrozoos 7: 195-201.

Orams, M. B. 1995. Development and management of a feeding program for wild

bottlenose dolphins at Tangalooma, Australia. Aquatic Mammals 21: 137-147.

Orams, M. B., G. J. E. Hill, and A. J. Bagioni. 1996. "Pushy" behavior in a wild dolphin

feeding program at Tangalooma, Australia. Marine Mammal Science 12: 107-117.

Perrine, D. 1990a. Humans with dolphin: Help or harm? Sea Frontiers March/April: 39.

Perrine, D. 1990b. JoJo rogue dolphin? Sea Frontiers March/April: 33-41.

Perrine, D. 1998. Divers and dolphins. Sport Diver 6: 41-47.

Pirzl, R. 1998. Australian management of cetacean observation activities: A

Commonwealth perspective. Pages 6. International Whaling Commission

Scientific Committee, SC/50/SS2.

Pryor, K., J. Lindbergh, S. Lindbergh, and R. Milano. 1990. A dolphin-human fishing

cooperative in Brazil. Marine Mammal Science 6: 77-82.

Psarakos, S., and K. Marten. 1999. A study of the Hawaiian spinner dolphins around

Oahu in K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin

Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Ransom, A. B. 1998. Vessel and human impact monitoring of the dolphins of Little

Bahama Bank. Pages 108. Masters thesis. San Francisco State University, San

Francisco, California.
24

Rice, N. 1981. Responses to man of free-ranging dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus

obscurus). Pages 12. The Dolphin Action & Protection Group, No. 3, Cape Town,

South Africa.

Riley, D. 1993. Our love of dolphins has turned into a questionable affair. Smithsonian

January: 58-67.

Ritter, F. 1996. Abundance, distribution and behaviour of cetaceans off La Gomera

(Canary Islands) and their interaction with whale-watching boats and swimmers.

Pages 114. Diploma thesis. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

Ritter, F., and B. Brederlau. 1999. Behavioural observations of dense beaked whales

(Mesoplodon densirostris) off La Gomera, Canary Islands (1995-1997). Aquatic

Mammals 25: 55-61.

Robson, F. 1988. Pictures in the dolphin mind. Reed Methuen, Birkenhead, Auckland,

New Zealand.

Rossbach, K. A., and D. L. Herzing. 1997. Underwater observations of benthic-feeding

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) near Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas.

Marine Mammal Science 13: 498-504.

Samuels, A., and L. Bejder. 1998. Habitual interaction between humans and wild

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) near Panama City Beach, Florida. Pages

13. Marine Mammal Commission, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Samuels, A., and T. R. Spradlin. 1995. Quantitative behavioral study of bottlenose

dolphins in swim-with-dolphin programs in the United States. Marine Mammal

Science 11: 520-544.

Santos, M. C. d. O. 1997. Lone sociable bottlenose dolphin in Brazil: Human fatality and

management. Marine Mammal Science 13: 355-346.

Santos, M. C. d. O. 1998. Hand-feeding wild Sotalia: A new matter of concern in Brazil?

Conference abstract, 8o Reuniao de trabalho de especialistas em mamíferos

aquáticos da América do Sul, Brazil, Recife, Brazil.

Santos, M. C. d. O. 1999. Approaching wild dolphins in Brazil: Potential risks in a near

future. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin

Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Seideman, D. 1997. Swimming with trouble. Audubon 99: 76-82.

Shackley, M. 1992. Manatees and tourism in Southern Florida: Opportunity or threat?

Journal of Environmental Management 34: 257-265.

Shane, S. H. 1995. Human-pilot whale encounter: Update. Marine Mammal Science 11:

115.

Shane, S. H., L. Tepley, and L. Costello. 1993. Life-threatening contact between a

woman and a pilot whale captured on film. Marine Mammal Science 9: 331-336.

Shimomaki, M., Mikura-Island Bottlenose Dolphin Research Group, and I. C. E. R. C.

Japan. 1999. The number of dolphin watching boats limited per day, according to

a “treaty” about dolphin watching operations in Mikura-Island waters. In K. M.

Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program

Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Siciliano, S., J. J. Lailson-Brito, and A. d. F. Azevedo. in preparation. Killer whales

(Orcinus orca) in shallow coastal waters of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. International

Whaling Commission Scientific Committee.
25

Simonds, M. A. 1991. Dolphins and ecotourism: Determining Impacts. Pages 662-676 in

J. A. Kusler, ed. 1st International Symposium on Ecotourism, 1989, 2nd

International Symposium on Ecoutourism and Resource Conservation, 1990.

Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, Merida, Mexico and Miami, Florida.

Smith, C. 1997. Feeding dolphins makes many a moocher. NOAA Report October: 3, 6.

Smith, H. 1999. Dolphin social behaviour in the presence of humans. Pages 14.

Independent study. Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.

Snyderman, M. 1988. Eyeball to eyeball with a 40 tonne whale. Pages 214-215 in R.

Harrison and M. M. Bryden, eds. Whale, Dolphins and Porpoises. Facts on File

Publications, New York.

Spradlin, T. R., A. D. Terbush, and W. S. Smullen. 1998. NMFS update on

human/dolphin interactions in the wild. Soundings, Magazine of the International

Marine Animal Trainers Association 23: 25-27.

St John, P. 1988. An interactive study with wild Stenella frontalis. Aquatic Mammals 14:

73-75.

St John, P. 1991. Educating a wild dolphin. Aquatic Mammals 17: 5-11.

Suisted, R. 1999. Management policies in New Zealand regarding wild dolphin swim

programs. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and T. R. Spradlin, eds. Wild

Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.

Sumner, A. 1999. Tourist bit by bull shark. Key West Citizen, Key West, Florida, 28 July

1999.

Trayler, K., and R. Shepherd. 1993. Water quality at Monkey Mia, Shark Bay. Landnote,

Magazine of Conservation & Land Management January: 1-10.

van der Toorn, J., J. van der Toorn, and T. Schorpen. 1992. A friendly dolphin in

Norway. Soundings, Magazine of the International Marine Animal Trainers

Association Winter: 28.

Watkins, W. A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine

Mammal Science 2: 251-262.

Webb, N. G. 1978a. Boat towing by a bottlenose dolphin. Carnivore 1: 122-129.

Webb, N. G. 1978b. Women and children abducted by a wild but sociable adult male

bottlenose dolphin. Carnivore 1: 89-94.

Weir, J., W. Dunn, A. Bell, and B. Chatfield. 1996. An investigation into the impact of

"dolphin-swim ecotours" in southern Port Phillip Bay. Pages 31. Dolphin

Research Project Inc., Hampton, Victoria, Australia.

Wells, R. S., and M. D. Scott. 1997. Seasonal incidence of boat strikes on bottlenose

dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 13: 475-480.

Whale-and-Dolphin-Conservation-Society. 1995. Review of swim-with-the-dolphin

regulations. 11th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals,

Orlando, Florida, unpublished report.

Wilson, B. 1994. Review of dolphin management at Monkey Mia. Pages 37. Department

of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia.

Wilson, B. 1996. Supplementary review of dolphin management at Monkey Mia. Pages

8. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia.

Wood, C. J. 1999. A period of human contact by two free-ranging bottlenose dolphins

(Tursiops truncatus). Marine Mammal Science 15: 863-871.
26

Wortel, K. 1999. Dolphin feeding in Tin Can Bay, Queensland, Australia. personal

communication, 4 March 1999.

Wringe, I. 1993a. Dolphin killed by blow: Vet. Pages 3. West Australian, Perth, Western

Australia, 13 March 1993.

Wringe, I. 1993b. Dolphin magic a mystery. Pages 4. West Australian, Perth, Western

Australia, 20 September 1993.

Würsig, B. 1996. Swim-with-dolphin activities in nature: Weighing the pros and cons.

Whalewatcher 30: 11-15.

Würsig, B., F. Cipriano, E. Slooten, R. Constantine, K. Barr, and S. Yin. 1997. Dusky

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off New Zealand: Status of present

knowledge. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47: 715-722.

Yin, S. E. 1999. Movement patterns, behaviors, and whistle sounds of dolphin groups off

Kaikoura, New Zealand. Pages 77. Master’s Thesis. Texas A&M University.

Yin, S. E., and B. Würsig. 1999. Studying the human/dolphin interactions from cliff-side

in Kaikoura, New Zealand. In K. M. Dudzinski, T. G. Frohoff, and. T. R.

Spradlin, eds. Wild Dolphin Swim Program Workshop, Maui, Hawaii.
27 

Table 1. Categories of the Swim-with-Dolphin Database 

Category Description 

1 Habituation to 

swimmers 

Cetaceans: 1 = not habituated, 2 = lone, sociable, 3 = habituated, 4 = food provisioned, 5 = captive, 6 = general, unspecified or whale-watch Other marine animals: 7 = sharks, 8 = Sirenians 

2 Reference title 3 Author 4 Year 5 Source Journal, book title, etc 6 Species Common & scientific name17 Location City, country, etc 8 Human activity TARGETED: FP = food provisioning, SW = in-water interaction, MA = mediated approach from platform 

Control: sc = controlled by scientists, uc = uncontrolled, r = controlled by regulations, g = existence of guidelin

conduct UNTARGETED: HO = human encroachment into animal area, WF = waste feeding, HF = animal interference 

9 Access e.g., W = in water, B = from boat, L = from land, including standing in shallow water 10 Affected animals Number of animals, age/sex class and identity 11 Duration Dates of first & last contact; dates covered in report 12 Distance Proximity of swimmers to animals, e.g., touch, within touching distance; examples of type of contact 13 Extent of human 

activity 

Number of tour operators; tour schedule & average duration of human-animal encounters, etc 

14 Types of impact & 

details 

Details provided, when relevant, for the following categories: 1 = rest, 2 = forage, 3 = ranging & habitat utilization, 4 = migration, 5 = mating behavior, 6 = parental care, 7 = 

conspecifics, 8 = other social behavior with conspecifics, 9 = reproductive success, 10 = health, 11 = human-in

towards other animal species, 13 = animal aggression towards humans, 14 = damage to human property, 15 = g

15 Origin of 

habituation 

IH = intentional by humans; UH = unintentional; NH = not habituated Duration & details of habituation process 

16 Synopsis Brief description of study methods & relevant results 17 Recommendations Recommendations or action taken 18 Comments Additional information, opinion, or quotes 19 Source type Quantitative, descriptive, popular, peer-reviewed, etc 

1 Scientific names are recorded as in the reference unless known to be incorrect. There is confusion in the literature (and in this review) with respect to the correct species name

(due to recent reclassification) and for sperm whales (APhyseter catodon@ and APhyseter macrocephalus@ are used by different authors to refer to the same species).
Table 2. Lone sociable dolphins that are well documented

All dolphins are Tursiops sp. unless the given name is annotated with an asterisk; other species are listed in "Comments."

Dolphin Age

Sexual w/ 

Humans

Aggression 

to Humans

Damage to 

Property

Risk to 

Dolphin

Dolphin 

Mortality Habituation Comments

Male

Costa Rican adult? yes not provisioned killed by fisherman afteDonald (Beaky) adult yes yes yes yes not provisioned

took fish from people bfrom propeller & from 

Dorad (Funghi) adult yes gradual; divers initiated offered fish to diversFreddy adult yes yes yes yes gradual

exposed to sewage; entimbedded 3 times

Percy

adult (old?) yes yes yes yes ? gradual, not provisioned exposed to sewage; dis

Tiao adult yes yes ?

killed human swimmerdolphin was killed "out 

Nudgy subadult? yes yes yes yes

trapped in bay by storm; initial contact w/ dog

speared, hit with oars; cbeing penned then died

Horace subadult? yes yes yes yes ? initiated by humans

injured in ship collisionunderwater explosions; 

Sandy* subadult? yes yes yes gradual, not provisioned Stenella sp.Dobbie juvenile? yes did not allow touching; Indah juvenile? did not allow touchingJoJo juvenile yes yes yes yes

conflict with local resoinjuries (8 life threateni

Kuus* juvenile yes Beluga; management pRomeo juvenile yes yes

initiated contact with bathers

1st contact with human(companions?) died (on

Simo juvenile yes yes ? became ill then disappe

Page 1 of 2
Table 2. Lone sociable dolphins that are well documented

All dolphins are Tursiops sp. unless the given name is annotated with an asterisk; other species are listed in "Comments."

Dolphin Age

Sexual w/ 

Humans

Aggression 

to Humans

Damage to 

Property

Risk to 

Dolphin

Dolphin 

Mortality Habituation Comments

Female Charlie adult no? yes yes gradual, not provisioned no touching?

Holly adult yes

2 calves 

died

rapid, initiated by locals; provisioned after 2 yrs

periods of aggression to lactation; reason for cal

Maui adult? not provisioned management plan to miNina adult yes ? rapid, not provisioned dolphin found dead; "hJean-Louis juvenile yes yes

not provisioned; swimwith human-initiated did not allow touching

Opo juvenile yes yes yes not provisioned

mother believed killed after Act of Parliament 

Pita juvenile yes yes yes

gradual, initially provisioned left area, presumed with 

Wilma* juvenile yes

Beluga;exhibited unspe

management plan to mi

Unknown Florida unknown yes swimmer incurred ruptu

#8 & #10 juvenile rapid

2 juveniles interacted wfrom summer migration

Page 2 of 2
Table 3: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans through food provisio

Species Location Human Activity Access Duration Affected Animals Distance Extent of Human 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.)

Bunbury, Western 

Australia, 

Australia

FP-uc (feeding from private boats) & r (fed by staff); "dolphins had also been thrown fish by fishermen & other people for years" (Wringe 1993b); MA, SW, HF

W, B, L 

(standing 

in 

shallows)

feeding since 

1960s; tourist 

center 

established in 

1989; Smith 

study period: 2 

mos in 1998-99

up to 6 

dolphins 

regularly visit 

interaction 

area including 

35+ yr old 

female & 3 

adult males

Touch: e.g., one 

dolphin rested 

rostrum in 

woman's hand

70,000 tourists visit Bundolphins offered fish on basis; one dolphin spent that she was in designatzone within touching dishumans

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp., now Tursiops aduncus)

Monkey Mia, 

Shark Bay, 

Western 

Australia, 

Australia

previously FP-uc & sc, presently FP-r (state regulations), MA-uc (private boats) & g (local code of conduct for tour boats), SW-uc; HO: previously, pollution of interstitial water

W, B, L 

(standing 

in 

shallows)

daily 

provisioning 

began in late 

1970s; 

provisioning 

regulated in 

1986 & stricter 

controls added 

in 1994; 1st 

commercial tour 

vessel began in 

1993; 

behavioral 

research since 

ca. 1985

presently 3 

adult females 

& immature 

offspring; 

historically 

females & 

offspring of 3 matrilines, 

3 adult males; 

ca. 24 total 

since 1980s

provisioned 

dolphins allow 

people to touch; 

occasional 

dolphin visitors 

to beach are not 

fed & do not 

allow contact; 

boat approach 

to 50m

present: near-daily controf 3-4 adult females in darea, fed no more than 1fed in morning only; prodolphins spend ca. 2.25 beach waiting to be fed; dolphin watch tours; aveinteraction time per provdolphin = 60-90 min per frequently-encountered provisioned dolphin = 6average 25-30 private b80,000-114,000 visitors during 1987-1994

now only Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus); initially also Humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis)

Tangalooma, 

Moreton Island, 

Queensland, 

Australia

initially FP-sc; presently FP-r (by hand, in designated area, state-licensed); WF: feeding near shrimp trawlers

W, B, L 

(waistdeep in 

shallows)

1st visits to 

resort in 1980s; 

several attempts 

to feed by 

scientists in 

1989; feeding 

by hand at 

resort in 1992

9 dolphins are 

identified, 

usually 6-8 

dolphins 

come to resort 

to be fed

Touch: dolphins 

nudge/push 

tourists; tourists 

touch/pat 

dolphins

feeding wild dolphins is regular nightly occurrenresort"

Page 1 of 6
Table 3: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans through food provisio

Location

Bunbury, Western 

Australia, 

Australia

Monkey Mia, 

Shark Bay, 

Western 

Australia, 

Australia

Tangalooma, 

Moreton Island, 

Queensland, 

Australia

Impact Details Research Details

one provisioned female injured from entanglement in fishing line; following introduction of regular provisioning, there was an increase in frequency of close approaches to boats (begging) & stealing bait from fishing lines; reports of fishermen hitting dolphins with oars to prevent them from taking bait; fishermen threatened to kill dolphins that stole bait; 35+ yr old provisioned female "Saranna" was killed by a "powerful blow from a harpoon-like instrument... It's quite obvious that the dolphin was very close to the person when she was killed and I'd suggest that she was probably being hand-fed" (Wringe 1993a)

Smith (1999) showed that within designated interactiaggressive behavior near humans was rare; (2) dolphinfrequently followed by approach by humans; (3) doproximity was individually specific

in provisioning area: decreased maternal behavior, increased mother-calf separation & intraspecific aggression; provisioned dolphins can be aggressive to people & bite especially when people tease; before controls instituted: provisioned dolphins fed inappropriate foods, one dolphin had fish hook in mouth, "Old Charlie" reported to have been shot; 7 dolphins disappeared (& presumed dead) after pollution in shallows where they often waited to be fed; one juvenile became dependent on fish hand-outs & died; one calf killed by shark while mother in provisioning area; significantly higher mortality of offspring of provisioned females when compared with wild-feeding females in same bay; presently: 32% of tour boat approaches result in group behavioral change; estimate disruption by boat occurs once per dolphin per day; anecdotal accounts of swimmers pursuing dolphins near provisioning area

Monkey Mia dolphins are best-documented of food-phistorical records plus numerous recent studies quant(1985): as with studying chimps in Gombe, "this grouprovides cetologists with a valuable 'window' through behavior in a natural setting."; swim-with is opportun

speculation that feeding from trawler didn't work because several male dolphins chased other dolphins away; dolphins were eventually trained to accept hand-feeding at resort; may have initially come to resort to catch fish attracted by jetty lights; also staff offered live fish with broken tails that couldn't escape; dolphins were attracted to an area they hadn't used previously which may have been avoided because of heavy use for water sports; 1st 2 dolphins to accept hand-feeding were lactating females; dolphins could be very "assertive" during feeds (i.e., "pushy", aggressive to humans) 

detailed history of attempts to train dolphins to accepOrams (1995) used subjective "pushiness" score to inrate of dolphin-to-human aggression (number of dolpno data on swim-with but feeding is conducted by pe

Page 2 of 6
Table 3: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans through food provisio

Location

Bunbury, Western 

Australia, 

Australia

Monkey Mia, 

Shark Bay, 

Western 

Australia, 

Australia

Tangalooma, 

Moreton Island, 

Queensland, 

Australia

Recommendations Comments Rel

Smith (1999): in food provisioning, it is important to avoid inadvertent reinforcement of inappropriate behaviors, e.g., aggression to humans

Smith (1999): "it is important that the welfare of the animals and subsequently the human interactors are not jeopardised in order to create the ideal tourist attraction"

Wringe 19

Orams 

Wilson (1994) recommended changes to feeding policy to improve survival of offspring of provisioned females: (1) reduce amount given to dolphins to <=1/3 estimated daily diet, (2) restrict daily period when handouts offered (mornings only), (3) high quality fish given to dolphins, (4) strict supervision of feedings & human interaction, (5) calves, young juveniles & males not fed, (6) eliminate all uncontrolled feeding (from boats, etc) via education & enforcement, (7) recruitment to come from juvenile daughters of provisioned females (who would normally associate with their provisioned mothers after weaning); (8) education & resources for rangers; (9) additional research on water quality & marine ecosystem, funding & facilities for research

"If welfare of the dolphins were the sole concern, then provisioning ...should cease [but] many human livelihoods now depend upon continuation of the meet-the-dolphin phenomenon" (Wilson 1994); since 1994 regulations, all 3 provisioned females now have surviving offspring

Gawain 198Connor & S1989; Lock1992; TraylWilson 1991998; Mann Mann & Baal. in press

Management regime includes (1) all feeding supervised by staff, (2) in dedicated feeding area, (3) limited to resort guests with strict interaction procedures, (4) reliable source of fish, (5) attempted to have regular feeding time, then adjusted for tide, (5) restricted amount of fish given (< 1/3 estimated daily diet), (6) resort supports long-term research to monitor interactions & to develop educational program

"the Monkey Mia experience has been used in Queensland to ban establishment of any new dolphin feeding stations... and to establish conditions associated with the permit held by Tangalooma Island Resort for its feeding station" (Corkeron 1998); current humandolphin interaction related to human-dolphin cooperative fishing in 1800s & present association between dolphins & shrimp trawlers; this is the "first time that humandolphin interaction experiences have been used for the purposes of promoting tourism to a 

resort."

Green & C

1994, 199

Co

Page 3 of 6
Table 3: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans through food provisio

Species Location Human Activity Access Duration Affected Animals Distance Extent of Human 

Indo-Pacific Humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis)

Tin Can Bay, 

Queensland, 

Australia

FP-uc (by hand); SWuc; MA-uc, FP is 

prohibited by 

regulations but not 

enforced; WF?

W, B, L 

(in 

shallows)

feeding begun 

ca. 1974; by 

1992 adult 

female "Scar" 

was accepting 

fish by hand

1st dolphin = 

adult female 

"Scar", her 

calf "Junior" 

born ca. 

1992; up to 8 

dolphins; one 

w/ deformed 

jaw

Touch: children 

ride dolphin by 

holding onto 

dorsal fin

dolphins present on 88

monitored; fish for h

purchased from kiosk; 

quantity control; "no co

managing the inte

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Panama City & 

Fort Walton 

Beach, Florida 

Panhandle, USA

SW-uc, FP-uc (by hand & toss in water), MA-uc; FP is prohibited by regulations but not enforced; HF: provisioned dolphins have "learned to take the bait from fishers' hooks or even steal their catch"; WF: some provisioned dolphins may also follow shrimp boats

W, B, L

1st commercial 

feeding tour 

began in 1984; 

many operators 

by time of 1993 

feeding ban; 

Samuels/Bejder 

& Colburn 

studies in 

summer 1998

in Panama 

City: coastal 

dolphins in 

vicinity of 

Shell Island; 

at least 7 

individuals, 

including 

juveniles & 

adults

gradual 

acceptance of 

touching 

occurred after 

feeding began

commercial tours for feewith-dolphins occur "jusEast Jetty on almost any 3.5 mos in 1997, Florida Patrol issued 6486 verba562 written warnings & for illegal dolphin feedindolphins were engaged iwith humans during app77% of the time they weobservation" (Samuels & 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): "Moocher" & "Beggar"

Sarasota & 

Nokomis, Gulf 

coast, Florida, 

USA

FP-uc, SW-uc, MAuc; FP is prohibited 

by regulations but not 

enforced

W, B

"Beggar" has 

been fed since 

at least 1990

2 dolphins: 

"Beggar" 

(male) & 

"Moocher"

Touch: people 

reaching to pet 

dolphin have 

been bitten by 

dolphin

"many individuals have 

in... feeding and harass

Florida's Gulf of Mexi

many years" (Smi

Tucuxi (Sotalia 

fluviatilis)

Sao Vicente & 

Cananéia estuary 

(sanctuary), 

Brazil

FP-uc (by hand), SWuc W, B

calf sited Nov 

1997-Oct 1998; 

dolphins in 

sanctuary fed 

for 4+ years

one calf at 

Sao Vicente; 

up to 4 

dolphins in 

sanctuary

in sanctuary, may be modolphin hand-fed by mofisherman

Page 4 of 6
Table 3: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans through food provisio

Location

Tin Can Bay, 

Queensland, 

Australia

Panama City & 

Fort Walton 

Beach, Florida 

Panhandle, USA

Sarasota & 

Nokomis, Gulf 

coast, Florida, 

USA

Sao Vicente & 

Cananéia estuary 

(sanctuary), 

Brazil

Impact Details Research Details

calf took fish from human hands at age 3 yrs & soon allowed people to 

touch; visited provisioning area without mother as soon as weaned; tourists 

try to climb on dolphins' backs

all reports are descripti

Samuels & Bejder 1998: a food provisioned juvenile dolphin was observed to forage naturally only once during nearly 6 hrs of observations on 3 days, same dolphin received fish handouts approx once per hour; "habituated dolphins remained... within [a] <1 nm2 area... In contrast, unhabituated dolphins traveled distances of several nautical miles during follows [in the same area]"; Colburn 1999 estimated that feeding occurs once every 3 min 

Samuels & Bejder (1998): focal follows of dolphins differences in behavior & ranging patterns of habituaone habituated juvenile dolphin interacted with huma74% of observation time, was fed by humans at least of 4 vessels within close proximity, had dangerous enonce per 12 min; virtually all interactions between doappeared to be based on food provisioning; Colburn observations with vessel or swimmer as focal; on avearea, swimmers spent 22 min in water; only 14% of finteraction; of those, 42% engaged in high risk behavpassengers on vessels with low 'levels of control'; prohuman-dolphin interations; dolphin feeding primarily could not confirm no feeding by commercial vessels

9 recorded incidences of dolphin biting people in 1 yr; some injuries occurred while people simultaneously fed & tried to pet dolphin, dolphin presumably mistook the hand for a fish; one bite occurred while swimming with dolphin; some injuries were treated medically; potential impacts include eating inappropriate foods, making dangerous approaches to vessels or propellers, entanglement or being hooked in fishing gear, etc

all reports are descripti

At Sao Vicente, anecdotal information suggests that an orphaned calf started to approach fishing boats & was hand-fed by fishermen; at Cananéia estuary, there are concerns that hand-feeding dolphins will lead to increased tourism in a sanctuary set aside for calving & breeding

anecdotal accounts: after mother was intentionally ki

a young dolphin began approaching fishing boats in e

with one person by May 1998, & was hand fed by 

more Sotalia have been hand-fed by one or more 

Page 5 of 6
Table 3: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans through food provisio

Location

Tin Can Bay, 

Queensland, 

Australia

Panama City & 

Fort Walton 

Beach, Florida 

Panhandle, USA

Sarasota & 

Nokomis, Gulf 

coast, Florida, 

USA

Sao Vicente & 

Cananéia estuary 

(sanctuary), 

Brazil

Recommendations Comments Rel

 illegal & uncontrolled food provisioning & swim-with occurs with knowledge of local & state agencies even though humpback dolphins are protected species & provisioning of Tangalooma dolphins is strictly statecontrolled; feeding station contributes significantly to economy of small fishing village, so "it seems very difficult for managers to shut it down" (Corkeron 1998)

Garbett & GCorkeron 19Wortel 199

Colburn 1999: (1) NMFS-initiated education of commercial operators appeared to have good effect; need similar educational effort that targets private boaters; Samuels & Bejder 1998 and Colburn 1999: (2) need enforcement

"contrary to the statement by NMFS Enforcement that feeding at Shell Island is 'almost nonexistent', a minimum of 114 instances of feeding were observed in this study" (Colburn 1999); both studies were brief

Flanagan 19Spradlin et Bejder 1998

description of NMFS campaign to educate 

public about dangers of feeding wild dolphins 

with emphasis on "Moocher", the food 

provisioned dolphin at Nokomis

Flanaga

Cunningha

Cirilo et al. 1998 & Santos 1998 recommend: (1) educate local fishermen, (2) institute photo-ID effort to document numbers of affected dolphins, (3) establish methods to systematically follow food-provisioned calf so that local authorities can create guidelines to regulate human interactions to protect dolphin

Tucuxi is a new species of lone sociable/ food provisioned dolphin Cirilo et al. 

Page 6 of 6
Table 4: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activities 

primarily Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis); also bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Little Bahama 

Bank, Bahamas

SW-g, uc, sc; MAg, uc, sc (Oceanic 

Society guidelines)

initially 1 

group, now 12+ groups 

including 

mothers & 

calves; 

identified 

individuals: 

150 spottted, 

30 bottlenose

1st interactions 

in 1970s; 

Herzing 

research since 

1985; Ransom 

study 1992-97

Touch not 

permitted but 

swimmers 

sometimes 

tried to "grab 

hold of their 

dorsal fins"

in 1992, 5 commercial vessels conducted week long trips; in 1997, 9 vessels plus mprivate boats; site is somewhat protected from human activity by remote offshore location but increased vessel traffic from 12 boats in past 15 yrs; mean in-water encounter duration is 10 min; boats anchwait for dolphins to approach; when dolpapproach "of their own free will", touristenter water

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Spinner dolphin (Stenella sp.)

Ogasawara, 

Bonin Islands, 

Mikura/Miyake 

Islands, Izu 

Islands, Japan

SW-g (local guidelines)

some 

identified 

individual 

dolphins

dolphin tours in 

1970s; swimwith on smallscale in 1987, 

large-scale by 

1990s; 

identified 

individuals 

since 1994

10 whale-watch (includes swim-with) locations in Japan; in Ogasawara: 9000 people went whale-watching in 1998, 5-boats offer swim-with-dolphin tours; in Mikura, 10,000 swimmers during May-S1997; may have 4-5 swim-with attempts made per group of dolphins

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Florida Keys, 

USA

SW-g (operator guidelines); MA

resident 

dolphins, 

including 

calves; 

identified 

individuals

swim-with for 

14 years? 

Frohoff & 

Packard study: 

14 hrs during 

1990-91

Touching not 

permitted by 

tour operator

tour operators are familiar with rangi

patterns of several pods of dolphins so 

readily find dolphins for tourists

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops sp.)

Rockingham, 

Western 

Australia

SW-r? (state permit); MA (using underwater motorised scooter to move among dol

phins)

120-150 

dolphins; 

identified 

individuals

since ca. 1992; first 2 yrs were 

pilot study then 

licensed

in Rockingham, swim-with is licensed to single operator working with a single population of dolphins, in a specific area

Page 1 of 6
Table 4: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Little Bahama 

Bank, Bahamas

Ogasawara, 

Bonin Islands, 

Mikura/Miyake 

Islands, Izu 

Islands, Japan

Florida Keys, 

USA

Rockingham, 

Western 

Australia

Impact Details Research Details

an adult (presumably mother) "forced the calf to the bottom and held it there" after the calf persisted in interacting with an aggressive swimmer; another calf had life-threatening wounds presumably from boat propeller

Ransom 1998 analyzed encounter durations from 1992-9group behavior in response to boats & swimmers from tofound significant increase in encounter duration from 19explanations include: (1) dolphin habituation to swimme

humans, or (3) increased operator experience; number onot affect encounter length; fewer dolphins present at enencounters; spotted dolphins changed behavior 68% of tapproached, were least likely to change activity when sowere positive (approach); bottlenose dolphins changed bboat approach, 40% responses were negative (avoid); nreflect those dolphins who are more tolerant of human tr

swimers & boats sometimes chase dolphins not reportedswimmer injured by shark when jumped in water to swim with "dolphin pod"

Frohoff & Packard (1997) conducted 14 hrs of observatinoted that dolphin behavior with humans was similar to intraspecific interactions; provided list of advantages & & swimmersdescription of in-water encounters with dolphins at Rocktowed behind a tour leader using an underwater scooter; published?

Page 2 of 6
Table 4: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Little Bahama 

Bank, Bahamas

Ogasawara, 

Bonin Islands, 

Mikura/Miyake 

Islands, Izu 

Islands, Japan

Florida Keys, 

USA

Rockingham, 

Western 

Australia

Recommendations Comments 

Würsig 1996: "This situation would need stricter regulation only when the number of vessels, and attendant underwater activity and noise increased, no longer allowing the animals to easily and comfortably 'escape'"; Ransom 1998: research needed that will: (1) characterize the dolphins that do & do not interact with swimmers (e.g., age/sex class); (2) look at effects of swimmer numbers with larger number of swimmers; (3) look at swimmer behavior & dolphin responses; (4) look at long-term effects of increasing boat traffic on dolphin ranging patterns, reproductive success, etc

3 programs offered in Bahamas: (1) Oceanic Society Expeditions off Grand Bahamas Island allows "participants to assist research scientists... and have a close encounter with wild dolphins; (2) Wild Dolphin Project has volunteer helping researchers; (3) Underwater Explorers Society (UNEXCO): divers interact with captive dolphins in open ocean; "dolphins come to the humans, and can leave at any time they wish" (Würsig 1996); "The Bahamas... currently has a minimum marine mammal protection law with little enforcement abilities for in-water interactions." (Herzing 1999)

St Jo

Simo

"the Miyakejima Fishermen's Cooperative Association, dolphin guides, and boat captains collaborated to establish guidelines... these rules are enforced by unannounced patrols from the fishing cooperative"; guidelines include: (1) dolphin-watch boats belonging to fishermen's associations should abide by these rules; (2) dolphinwatch boats should not disturb coastal fisheries; (3) violations of these rules will be discussed & dealt with by fishermen's associations; (4) restrictions on number of boats per day based on swim vs watching only; day of week; season; holidays; "the rule is almost effective... The problems are some of [whale-] watching participants [don't come to] the meeting and ignore the agreement" (Mori 1999)

"in Japan, the primary limiting factors to more swim programs include the cetacean behavior and the water temperatures" Dudzinski 1998

Du

M

Frohoff & Packard 1997: (1) need to know more about basic behaviors such as fluke-slap to better interpret dolphin responses to humans; (2) research on swim programs should be conducted by independent, trained investigators using systematic approach to avoid bias; (3) need assessment of short- and long-term effects on dolphins & studies of intermediate swim program types (e.g., not-controlled captive); (4) underwater observations needed

in Florida Keys, "human-dolphin relationships lasting 

several years have been documented on several 

occasions" (are these lone, sociable dolphins or 

habituated groups?); "experience and sensitivity of 

each charter operator [offering dolphin encounters] 

varies from highly sensitive to unknowingly ignorant" 

(Simonds 1991); dolphins choose to interact or not 

(Hennin

g 1993)

Simo

Or

Page 3 of 6
Table 4: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activities 

humpback dolphin (Sousa sp.); bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Mauritania, 

West Africa; 

Laguna, Santa 

Catarina, Brazil; 

elsewhere

SW-uc, during 

cooperative fishing 

efforts; animal 

assistance with 

human food 

production

in Brazil: 25-

30 "good" 

dolphins that 

participate in 

fishery; at 

least 3 

generations 

of dolphins

in Brazil since 

1847

fishermen do 

not try to touch 

the dolphins, 

although in 

Brazil, some 

dolphins were 

deliberately 

marked for 

identification

in Brazil: fishing takes place all day ev

day with typically 30-40 fishermen & 

dolphins present throughout daylight ho

dolphin-associated fishery reported to 

primary source of income for ca. 10

families; in Mauritania, cooperative fish

seasonal for mullet

Page 4 of 6
Table 4: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Mauritania, 

West Africa; 

Laguna, Santa 

Catarina, Brazil; 

elsewhere

Impact Details Research Details

dolphins chase fish in shallows while fishermen cast or set nets; dolphins take advantage of ensuing confusion caused by nets to catch fish to eat; in Brazil: fishermen never give fish to the dolphins; fishing is initiated by dolphins; in Mauritania, dolphins do not always arrive even though called

descriptive

Page 5 of 6
Table 4: Cetaceans that are habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Mauritania, 

West Africa; 

Laguna, Santa 

Catarina, Brazil; 

elsewhere

Recommendations Comments 

story of human-dolphin cooperative fishing efforts told by Pliny the Elder around 70 A.D.; regarding his writings about animals, Pliny the Elder was "believed to be credulously naïve and especially fond of the curious, the extravagant, and folk stories" (Busnel 1973)

Page 6 of 6
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activitie

Dusky dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

obscurus)

Kaikoura, New 

Zealand

SW-r, MA-r 

(New Zealand 

regulations)

especially large, 

inshore groups; 

group size up to 

750 dolphins; one 

distinctive 

individual seen on 

3 occasions (Barr 

1997)

1st commercial 

swim tours in 

1989; yearround tours 

since 1994; 

Barr study: 

1993-95; Yin 

study: summers 

1994-97; pretourism data 

from 1980s

Touch rarely; 

once "a dolphin 

brushed me with 

a pectoral fin 

while swimming 

past" (Barr 

1997)

2 tour operators do swim-with tooperator does dolphin-watch tourdo aerial tours; 2-3 vessels with tsame group; "humans are with thdolphin group during about 70% daylight hours" (Würsig 1996); 2 operators may take 7 trips w/ up swimmers per day (Yin & Würsi1999); recent voluntary guidelineinstituted to safeguard dolphin reperiods

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus); 

Common dolphin 

(Delphinus delphis)

Bay of Islands, 

New Zealand

SW-r, MA-r 

(New Zealand 

regulations)

minimum 

population 

estimate of 265 

identified 

individual 

bottlenose 

dolphins; >50% 

seen on 3+ days; 

"relatively closed 

[coastal] 

population" 

1st whale watch 

operation in 

1987; 

Constantine 

study: 1993-95, 

1997-98

Touch rarely: 

4% of 

swimmers 

reported that 

they were able 

to touch the 

animals 

although tour 

operators do not 

encourage

commercial tours had 86% succein finding dolphins; average time dolphins per trip = 60 min; for bottlenose & common dolphins, respectively, 60% & 31% of swim attempts were successful (>=1 dowithin 5m of swimmer); average swim attempts per encounter; me2 boats within 400m of dolphin gmaximum of 800-1000 boats opeper day in high season; 38% of 2bottlenose groups exposed to at lswim-with attempt

Killer whale (Orcinus 

orca); false killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens); 

pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas)

New Zealand

SW-r, MA-r 

(New Zealand 

regulations)

opportunistic 

encounters with 

most species?

 killer, false killer & pilot whale

currently treated as dolphins 

operators who sometimes attemp

with encounters

Page 1 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Kaikoura, New 

Zealand

Bay of Islands, 

New Zealand

New Zealand

Impact Details Research Details

Würsig et al. 1997 (Yin study): interrupted feeding & rest; dolphins changed their behavior in 77/93 boat approaches, including bow-ride (30 cases but only small proportion of group); group split into subgroups (n=7) or bunched together (7); dolphins changed direction of travel (13), scattered (8), or sped up (5); dolphins changed activity from travel to mill (7); but "the overall movement patterns & daily activities of these dolphins do not appear to have changed since tourism began and there is no evidence for a population decline"; Yin 1999: no differences in group speed or travel pattern when boats near; Yin & Würsig 1999: increased "reorientation rate" (group directional changes) when boats near; Barr 1997, Barr & Slooten 1998: dolphin groups more compact & more active when boats nearby, especially during afternoon when normal behavior is rest

Barr study: shore-based theodolite tracking & obsbehavior from tour vessel & in water; "observatioare ideal, because they remove the possibility of oand allow comparison of dolphin behaviour in the absence of boats. The only disadvantage is that beobservations are less detailed at a distance"; "statidetecting differences [in group behavior in presenin most cases, partly due to the large proportion oaccompanied by boats";"If dolphins take several h'normal' behaviour after a boat visit, then almost aobservations reported on here represent modified study: shore-based theodolite tracking, focused on typically targeted by tourists; "selection of focal gother groups of dolphins [may have] introduced a tracking groups that had already segregated themsvessel... activity"; see "Impacts" for findings

for bottlenose dolphins: feeding was least likely & socializing most likely to change during vessel approach; 32% of vessel approaches resulted in behavioral change (23% resulted in dolphin approach to vessel); increased avoidance of swim-with attempts over 6-yr period; for common dolphins: resting was least likely & socializing most likely to change during vessel approach; 52% of vessel approaches resulted in behavioral change (no observed avoidance responses); Constantine 1999: increased avoidance of swimmers by bnd over 6-yr period

Constantine & Baker 1996 compared group behavfor bottlenose (bnd) & common dolphins (cd), res24% of swims resulted in sustained interaction (mconsidered to be evidence of dolphin attraction to 38% resulted in avoidance; operator strategy had dolphin response to swimmers; Constantine 1999b up study; Amante-Helweg 1996 surveyed tourist adescriptive

Page 2 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Kaikoura, New 

Zealand

Bay of Islands, 

New Zealand

New Zealand

Recommendations Comments 

Barr & Slooten 1998: (1) do not approach resting or feeding pods, e.g., reduce boat activity during afternoon rest period; (2) do not increase dolphin tourism, reduce number of trips with larger boats carrying more tourists; (3) clarification & better adherence to regulations, e.g., rules re mothers & calves; (4) educate private boat operators; (5) more research to determine: a) whether dolphins are particularly disturbed during "sensitive period" of midday rest, b) extent of impact on individual dolphins; Yin 1999: (1) do not change (relax?) current standards; "observable trends were evident that are potentially important enough that a conservative approach is recommended."; (2) involve all concerned parties in management decisions; (3) "it may be possible to acoustically determine when dolphins are 'in the mood' for social interactions with humans", e.g., different levels of vocal activity may be associated with different behavioral states; Note: recent voluntary guidelines instituted to safeguard midday rest periods

"Fortunately, the main swim-with-dolphin tourism operators from Kaikoura are very astute naturalists who know how to approach the animals, and when not to push them. This is not the case everywhere"; "New Zealand has a short no-nonsense set of rules & guidelines and the enforcing Department of Conservation actually works closely with researchers for constant feedback on potential effects" (Würsig 1996); swim-with regulations specify: number of boat trips per day, number of boats near cetaceans, number of swimmers in water at any one time, do not swim with mother & juvenile cetaceans, operators must be licensed for specific activities

Constantine & Baker (1996) recommend: (1) "line abreast" approach strategy (swimmers enter water to one side of dolphins) resulted in lowest rate of avoidance, "in path" (swimmers enter water in dolphins' path) resulted in highest; operators should not use "in path"; (2) maintain regulations that recommend no approach while dolphins are resting; (3) maintain regulations that recommend no approach to groups with "juvenile" dolphins, but clarify definition of "juvenile" to mean calf; (4) need additional research to determine full ranging patterns of affected dolphins, individual responses of dolphins to boats & swimmers, effects of seasonal change in boat traffic, long-term effects on individuals & population

conditions permitted data collection only when vessel was within 400m of dolphins (= zone of "potential disturbance" by Baker & Herman 1989) therefore study may only include dolphins that are tolerant of approach; current research by Constantine will focus on effects of human activity on individual dolphins

Constantine 1998 recommends: because of documented attacks on other 

cetaceans (& one human in Hawaii), these whales should be considered 

whales, not dolphins, & swim-with should not be permitted

Page 3 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activitie

Hector's dolphins 

(Cephalorhynchus 

hectori)

Porpoise Bay, 

New Zealand

SW-r, MA-r 

(New Zealand 

regulations)

50-65 dolphins, 

seasonally 

resident

Bejder study 

period: 1995-97

one commercial dolphin-watch operator; casual swimmers from at least 1 boat present during 12% least 1 swimmer present during 1observations (taken during seasohighest impact)

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus)

Port Phillip 

Bay, Victoria, 

Australia

SW-g, MA-r 

(state whale 

watch 

regulations; 

voluntary swimwith code of 

conduct)

ca. 100 resident 

dolphins (60 

identified); 4-8 

calves born per 

year in summer 

months

swim with wild 

dolphins since 

1989; voluntary 

code instituted 

in 1994; Weir et 

al study period: 

1996

Touch? 

voluntary code 

specifies no 

touch, but 

divers make "attempts to 

grasp the dorsal 

fins"

9000 people swim with dolphin

Port Phillip Bay per year; 3 ded

dolphin-swim operators + opport

swim-with charters; in January 

season) can have >20 private b

surrounding dolphins plus comm

vessels; in-water encounters rare

>4min; "extended observations 

sequential boats] see pods be

disturbed for hours at a time wi

respite"

Dwarf minke whale 

(Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)

Great Barrier 

Reef, Australia

SW-r, uc, sc; MA-r, uc, sc (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park regulations)

>60 whales; 

varied age/sex; 

not known if 

seasonally 

resident, or if 

feeding/calving in 

this region

1st encounters 

in 1985; 

commercial 

dive trips 

focusing on 

whales began in 1996; Arnold & 

Birtles study: 

1996-97

Touch rarely; 

"sometimes less 

than 5 metres"

mean encounter length = 1.2 hrs; encounters in 1991-95; now 4 commercial operators provide whfocused dive trips, 4 others have opportunistic whale encounters; operator used spotter plane; one encounter with 8 whales was 11 hwhales approach dive boat when moored/stopped at sea; less oftenwhales follow moving boat; whalfrequently remained near boat & swimmers

Page 4 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Porpoise Bay, 

New Zealand

Port Phillip 

Bay, Victoria, 

Australia

Great Barrier 

Reef, Australia

Impact Details Research Details

long term impacts of repeated dolphin-watch tours of >70 min duration could result in disruption of critical energy budgets with possible consequences on rest, feeding, displacement from preferred zone or from bay & breeding success

Bejder & Dawson (1998; Bejder et al. 1999) condtracking of group behavior relative to boats & swiof cliff vantage point: dolphins remained nearby fswim attempts = "non-disturbing", left within 5 m= "potentially disturbing", & left immediately afte"disturbing" (based on 200-m radius); dolphins wboats during Min 10-50 of dolphin-boat encounteaway from boats after Min 70; dolphins formed sipods when boats were present, also tended to form when swimmers present

"active [feeding] behaviour attracted a number of boats... the dolphins rapidly discontinued feeding behaviour and 'sprinted' quickly [away]... The situation resulted in the dolphins being hemmed in"; dolphins more likely to avoid & less likely to interact with swimmers in proposed sanctuary zone thought to be nursery & foraging area; in response to boats, dolphins observed to enter "'freeze/silent' or 'rafting' behaviour...a behaviour that is normally seen with [panicked] dolphins [trapped] in nets of tuna boats" (Weir et al. 1996)

Weir et al. (1996) conducted shore-based theodolgroup behavior, also some observations from tour 40% of 440 swims were unsuccessful; in successfaltered behavior to interact with swimmers ("activswimmers in 33%, were neutral but within 5m in 5swim types ("direct" approach by boat & free swim lines) resulted in highest % successful swims AND swims; higher % avoidance & lower % "active" oproposed sanctuary

none reported

Arnold & Birtles 1998: observations made from cbased on 30 encounters (25 hrs of contact); no aggrecorded in 130 encounters; disturbance behaviorassociated with direct approaches or touching by s"veer" (rapid change in direction away from humaup" (acceleration away), "change of level in the waway from swimmers); but also noted that whales down... and maintained a position near swimmers

Page 5 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Porpoise Bay, 

New Zealand

Port Phillip 

Bay, Victoria, 

Australia

Great Barrier 

Reef, Australia

Recommendations Comments 

Bejder & Dawson (1998; Bejder et al. 1999) recommend: impacts of dolphin-watch tours are likely to be "cumulative rather than catastrophic" which emphasizes need for long term studies & for cautious interpretation when evaluating disturbance from short term studies; need "before & after" studies

"There is currently no evidence that the present level of disturbance is affecting Hector's dolphins in Porpoise Bay heavily. Considering the apparent importance of Porpoise Bay to the dolphins, the potential for increased disturbance through an increase in tourism in the area, is however, cause for concern." (Bejder et al. 1999)

Weir et al. (1996) recommend licensing tour operators with specific regulations: (1) prioritize minimizing disturbance to dolphin, especially during summer when calves are young via: (2) "parallel and rear" approaches to dolphins; (3) swimmers use mermaid lines, no free swimming; (4) establish coastal boat-free sanctuary in important dolphin habitat; (5) limit number of operators, passengers, trips per operator; (6) no swims near feeding dolphins or neonates; (7) avoid sequential & simultaneous interaction with dolphins by different operators; (8) occasional (non-licensed) operators must adhere to whale watch guidelines; (9) portion of licensing fee goes to enforcement & research

swim-with approved by state official but not permitted in more recent whale watch guidelines so "control of the swims [is] in a 'grey' area", therefore operators, researchers, managers developed a voluntary code for swim-with

Marine Park regulations prohibit active approach to <30m (swimmer) or <100m (boat); but it is the whales that make the approach; however, recommend (1) rope tow-lines to ensure predictable location & safety of swimmers, (2) one boat per group of whales, (3) maintain "no-wake" speed especially when leaving whales, (4) constant monitoring for disturbance behaviors during encounter (5) special instructions to scuba divers for their safety & to minimize disturbance to whales, (6) no flash photography, (7) specific licensing for operators with focused swim-with-whale programs, must include educational component, (8) pre-encounter briefings to ensure that swimmers understand reasons for guidelines, (9) no new swim operations until more research is conducted, especially to document details of in-water interactions & basic biology of dwarf minke about which little is known

"The minke whale is a bit of an embarrassment to our lawmakers... Not only do they not mind boats & divers, but at times they actually seek them out"; "With their natural desire to approach divers and boats, this is one whale that is impossible for a snorkel diver to harass." (Aitken 1999); "To my knowledge, humpback whalewatching and minke whale swims in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are the only commercial whalewatching activities in [Australian] waters that are subject to limitation based on permit issue." (Corkeron 1998)

Page 6 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activitie

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus); 

rough-toothed dolphin 

(Steno bredanensis); 

pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus); 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(Stenella frontalis); 

striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba), beaked 

whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris), sperm 

whale (Physeter 

macrocaphalus), sei 

whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)

La Gomera, 

Canary Islands

SW-g, sc, r? MAg, r? (local selfimposed code); 

in 1996, swimwith cetaceans 

was prohibited?

opportunistic 

encounters with 

most species, 

including all 

age/sex classes of 

dense beaked 

whales; dense 

beaked typically 

located @ mean 

distance of 4.4 

km from shore

1st whale-watch 

operation in 

1992; 

regulations 

initiated in 

1996; Ritter & 

Brederlau study 

period: 1995-97

closest approach 

by swimmers: 

1m for spotted 

dolphins; 5-10m 

for sei whale; 10-

12m for sperm 

whale; close-up 

underwater 

photos for dense 

beaked whales

2 dolphin tour operators; avera

3.3 swim attempts per trip; ave

swim duration <4 min; in 27% 

water encounters >=2 boats pre

dense beaked whales: comprised 

all sightings; in 2/7 sightings t

were 8 in-water encounters wit

swimmers for 1-11 min (mean 

min); longest sighting (1 h 40 m

resulted in underwater photos o

beaked whales in group

short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus)

Tenerife, 

Canary Islands

SW-uc, r?; MAuc, r?; no permit 

needed until 

1996 

regulations?

resident coastal 

population of 

pilot whales, 

including many 

calves

in 1991 "local 

pilot whales 

were discovered 

by the tourist 

industry"; 

Heimlich-Boran 

et al study: 

1992-93

boats within 

<40m

up to 25 medium-sized to large commercial boats, each carrying 150 passengers, some boats run multiple trips per day; "untold nuof 'cowboy' operators in small bo"Swim-With-The-Whales" trips abecoming increasingly popular

Page 7 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

La Gomera, 

Canary Islands

Tenerife, 

Canary Islands

Impact Details Research Details

Ritter 1996: "Even in those situations w[h]ere the animals or individuals of a 

group behaved very sociably towards the boat, they possibly later avoided 

swimmers. Once when two persons went into the water to swim with Atlantic 

spotted dolphins, these disappeared at a very high speed which they maintained 

for several minutes"; Ritter & Brederlau 1999: 7 sightings of dense beaked 

whales: variable responses to boats/swimmers included: whales remained 

distant or were curious & approached; groups were compact; whales engaged in 

"interactive behaviours towards the boat" including approach & remain nearby; 

whales "scouted" (brief approach), oriented towards boat, changed swim speed 

or direction to accomodate boat movements; whales breached, tail-slapped, spyhopped, frequently changed direction of travel, "sprinted several hundred 

meters with the animals repeatedly porpoising at high speed"; nursing was 

observed; researcher was able to take close-up underwater photos

Ritter 1996 observed cetacean-human interactions vessels + 35 in-water encounters; "descriptive" dabehavior; 46 cetacean encounters resulted in 20% distant encounters, 20% "close" in-water encounteabout boat but avoid swimmers), 38% "intense" in(dolphins interact with swimmers); 10% of in-watresulted in an "interaction" with rough-toothed dospotted dolphins, or bottlenose dolphins; interactioccur if initial behavioral state is "milling"; dense "repeatedly made the impression of curious animagenerally avoid the presence of man"; sei whales the boat and were partially curious"

Heimlich-Boran et al. 1994: effects of boats may alter feeding & social behavior; observed behavioral displays "which indicate irritation bordering on clear aggression [occurring] between whales & directed at our boat" 

Heimlich-Boran et al. 1994: this is one of few studon individual whales; focal-animal sampling focuboat presence, finding tighter group spacing & dein presence of boats; no information on responses 

Page 8 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

La Gomera, 

Canary Islands

Tenerife, 

Canary Islands

Recommendations Comments 

Ritter 1996 recommends (1) leave resting dolphins alone; (2) withdraw if 

there are many calves in a group of striped dolphins; (3) pilot whale 

behaviour should be assessed carefully before attempting a swim; (4) when 

encountering beaked whales, the motor should be put into neutral to assess 

the whales' behavior; Ritter & Brederlau 1999 recommend: (5) use of whale 

watch vessels as research platform to obtain data on regular basis; (6) 

mutually beneficial cooperative partnership between tour operators & 

researchers

Ritter 1996: "During behavioral observations there is always the tendency to discover eye-catching behaviours (e.g., leaps) rather than those which are less spectacular" -- i.e., this is a particular problem with studies of group behavior; "use of whale watching boats as observation platform gives an excellent possibility to collect data on a regular basis" but also presents problems, see e.g., Constantine & Baker 1996; Ritter & Brederlau 1999 imply that swim-with was prohibited in Canary Islands in 1996

Heimlich-Boran et al. 1994 recommend (1) "we do not know sufficient about baseline parameters to measure subtle changes which indicate a departure from norm, or that different parameters must be measured, or vessel disturbance has a cumulative effect which can only be measured over the long-term"; (2) adequate legislation to protect resident population especially with so many young calves

Ritter & Brederlau 1999 report re La Gomera implies that swim-with was prohibited in Canary Islands in 1996

Page 9 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activitie

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus); 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(Stenella frontalis); 

striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba); common 

dolphin (Delphinus 

delphis); Risso's dolphin 

(Grampus griseus); 

sperm whale (Physeter 

catodon); killer whale 

(Orcinus orca); false 

killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens); pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus)

The Azores

SW-r? 

(regulations exist 

but not strictly 

enforced; as of 

February 1999, 

swim-with 

whales no longer 

permitted)

near shore since 1992

as of 1996, at least 4 commercial operators; details re sperm whaleprovided below

sperm whale (Physeter 

catodon)

Azores, 

Dominica, 

Grenada, 

Galapagos, 

Mediterranean

SW-uc, MA-uc

coastal whales, 

including mothers 

& calves

since 1992 in 

Azores; 1990 in 

Dominica; 1994 

in Grenada; 

1987 in Med

close-up 

underwater 

footage 

available from 

Dominica & 

Azores, 

including calves

as of 1996, at least 1-4 operators sperm whale watch programs in elocation; swim-with opportunisti(Azores, Med) and/or discourage(Dominica); as of February 1999

with sperm whales prohibited in Azores

Page 10 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

The Azores

Azores, 

Dominica, 

Grenada, 

Galapagos, 

Mediterranean

Impact Details Research Details

boat approaches & placement of swimmers may be "aggressive"in Dominica (& elsewhere) near-shore waters where swim-with may occur are frequented by female groups (mothers & offspring), therefore tourist activity may disrupt mating & parental care; solitary calves remaining at surface while adults dive are especially vulnerable

Page 11 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

The Azores

Azores, 

Dominica, 

Grenada, 

Galapagos, 

Mediterranean

Recommendations Comments 

regulations & voluntary guidelines include: (1) only 2 swimmers in water; (2) no scuba; (3) 1 boat per dolphin group; (4) as of February 1999: do not swim with whales (sperm, killer, false killer, pilot)

IFAW (1997) provided explicit recommendations for watching sperm whales, including specifying boat behavior for different situations, e.g., at different distances from whales, for female groups vs males, for foraging vs resting/socializing whales, for solitary calves (do not approach); swimming with whales "should not be encouraged, either for single animals or for groups"

IFAW (1997): "The popularity of swimming with wild cetaceans is of particular concern in the case of sperm whales. Attempts to swim with whales are likely to be more disturbing than other types of encounters because such activity involves close approaches by boats and humans. Attempts at swimming with whales are usually made with socialising/resting groups. Solitary calves at the surface are also especially accessible, and therefore vulnerable"; "Although there are no reports of aggression towards humans by sperm whales... human swimmers are at risk of injury by whales... Sperm whales are, after all, the world's largest toothed animals." 

Page 12 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Species Location Human Activity Affected Animals Duration Distance Extent of Human Activitie

Spinner dolphin 

(Stenella longirostris)

Oahu & Kona 

coast of Big 

Island, Hawaii, 

USA

SW-uc, MA-uc resting dolphins in sheltered bays

"many years"; 

beginning in 

1980s in 

Kealakekua 

Bay; pretourism data 

from 1979-80

for many yrs, local people have 

with dolphins; now this is beco

popular tourist activity "with m

people traveling thousands of m

just to interact with dolphins"; w

dolphins are in Kealakekua Bay are 10-30 swimmers, 30-40 kay

commercial tour boats, & zodia

bay; local bed & breakfasts, ka

vendors, vacation rentals adve

"swim-with-dolphin"

short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus)

Kona coast, 

Hawaii, USA SW-uc

5 or more, 

including 1 adult 

male

single encounter

Touch: woman 

stroked whale's 

back; whale bit 

woman

opportunistic in-water encounter non-habituated pilot whales

Killer whale (Orcinus 

orca) Brazil SW-uc opportunistic encounters report period: 1993-1997 within 5m

"killer whale proximity to the b

attracted the attention of bather

several occasions"; photographs 

swimmers & surfers in shallow 

within 5m of orcas

Grey whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus)

Magdalena 

Bay, Baja 

California, 

Mexico

SW-uc, MA-uc

in one report: 1 

adult (estimated 

15 m long)

estimated 3 min 

in close 

proximity

Touch: "could 

not resist the 

urge to reach 

out and touch"

primarily whale-watch activities; of swim-with not reported

Page 13 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Oahu & Kona 

coast of Big 

Island, Hawaii, 

USA

Kona coast, 

Hawaii, USA

Brazil

Magdalena 

Bay, Baja 

California, 

Mexico

Impact Details Research Details

bays where people swim with dolphins are daytime resting sites for dolphins; the high level of interaction by swimmers, boaters & kayakers may have detrimental impacts on dolphins' resting patterns; inexperienced humans cannot recognize crucial dolphin behaviors such as rest that they should not disrupt; decrease in dolphins' presence in Kealakekua Bay since 1979-80 may be related to tourist activity

all reports are 

brief/abstracts; 

Barber (in prep) rep

1996: dolphins rest/socialize in shallow bays durinoffshore at night; swimmers/kayakers can easily rfrom shore; Forest (aka Barber) 1999, Kealakekua 1993-94: # swimmers/ kayakers/ motorboats highdolphins in bay; dolphins in bay 21% less often thsuggesting bay may have become "a less suitable increased aerial activities associated with presencswimmers, which may disrupt reproduction, feedidecrease in aerial activities compared with 1979-8dolphins now have "reduced energy levels"; GreeKealakekua Bay, 3 mos study in 1998-99: diurnal swimmers: early AM, locals; midday, tourists & bdecreased human activity; corresponding diurnal pearly AM, interact with humans; midday, avoidanPsarakos & Marten 1999, Oahu, 1-2 mos per yr in 

yet analyzed

A woman had a "near-death experience" swimming with wild pilot whales: the whale rammed into swimmer at high speed, opened mouth, grabbed her inner thigh & pulled her down to ~12m depth before letting go of her; difference of expert interpretation of whale behavior: the whale was aggressive because swimmer stopped interacting with him vs. whale was annoyed at human contact & had been chased by the boat prior to the in-water encounter

descriptive; based on underwater video

none reported descriptive

danger to human swimmer: the whale was "repeatedly bringing its powerful 

flukes within centimetres of me but never making contact" (Snyderman 1988) descriptive

Page 14 of 15
Table 5: Cetaceans that are not habituated to in-water encounters with humans

Location

Oahu & Kona 

coast of Big 

Island, Hawaii, 

USA

Kona coast, 

Hawaii, USA

Brazil

Magdalena 

Bay, Baja 

California, 

Mexico

Recommendations Comments 

Würsig 1996 recommends: "all human/dolphin interactions except for watching from a distance should be banned, and this ban should be enforced"

Würsig 1996: "a few dolphins usually turn... and briefly interact with the humans, giving the underwater viewers the false impression that 'all the dolphins' are coming to them"

Shane et al. 1993 recommend: swimming with wild cetaceans can be dangerous; swimmers should assess the animals' behavior before getting into the water with them

 this in-water interaction was declared illegal in court case

found a lone whale "that appeared to be frolicking at 

the surface rolling over and over" & entered water to 

swim near & touch whale for several min

Page 15 of 15