The Cove
Introduction
The 1999 movie “The Cove” is a documentary about dolphin hunting and activist Ric
O’Barry’s efforts to expose industry practices, specifically in the town of Taiji, Japan. O’Barry
has a unique perspective to offer viewers, since he helped capture and train the dolphins that
starred on the television show “Flipper”. He has experience working with the dolphin and
whaling industry, and founded a group called the “Dolphin Project” in 1970 that works to free
captive dolphins. In the film, a team of supporters join O’Barry in Taiji to expose the practices
of local Japanese fishermen. The fishermen drive dolphins from the sea into a small cove,
collect a few dolphins to sell to aquariums, and kill the rest for meat.
Business World
There is no doubt that the movie portrays the business world in a negative light. The first
step the movie takes in this portrayal is to humanize dolphins. The movie made many statements
to achieve this, such as:
“Dolphins are self-aware like humans.”
“Cathy would watch herself on television and she could tell the difference between herself and
Suzy, who was another flipper dolphin that was used.”
“When you look into a dolphin’s eye, there is a connection with an intelligent being.”
“We can communicate with dolphins on a deep level and have an understanding with them.”
In addition, there are two news reports shown in the film that suggests that dolphins might
actually be more intelligent than humans. After showing this information, the movie shows Taiji
fishermen driving dolphins into the cove by hitting rods with hammers to create a “wall of
sound”. In the cove they kill the dolphins with spears. There are a few particularly disturbing
scenes where the color of the water turns bright red and injured dolphins can be seen flopping
around in the water. Finally, the message is driven home that the entire situation is ultimately
caused by demand for “show dolphins”, as well as a lack of activists to make changes to the law.
The movie states that if you’re not an activist, you’re an inactivist. And because there are so
many inactivists, businesses like Sea World continue to keep dolphins in captivity and dolphin
meat continues to be sold freely.
The Cove
Ethical Dilemmas
The most interesting ethical dilemma presented by the movie was regarding the way forprofit organizations influence non-profit organizations. The two specific examples shown in the
movie are the sponsorship of the Marine Mammal Conference and Hub Research Institute by Sea
World and the influence the Japanese whaling industry places on the International Whaling
Commission. Based on the movie’s depiction of these organizations, there is no question that
industry has a strong degree of control of the decisions made by those organizations.
There were not many details about the Hub Research Institute shown in the film, but the
film did expose an important issue. If Sea World were to publish a report about how marine
mammals should be treated, and how industry and the public should interact with the animals,
the report would be viewed with a certain amount of skepticism. This is because Sea World has
a natural bias toward allowing the practice of holding marine mammals in captivity for
educational and entertainment purposes. If the practice were to become illegal, Sea World would
instantly go out of business. However, when an independent group publishes a similar study, it
has more credibility, since it would be reasonable to assume that the group had “all options on
the table” before providing a specific recommendation or result. By funding a nominally
independent group, Sea World gets the best of both worlds. Group conclusions have credibility,
and Sea World can censor results it doesn’t like.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was the subject of a dramatic scene in the
movie, when O’Barry walks into their meeting with a TV strapped to his chest. The TV shows
scenes of dolphins being killed in Taiji. He is escorted away from the meeting, but not until after
receiving a lot of media attention. In the IWC meeting, representatives from many countries are
shown, including Japan. The Japanese are portrayed as the “evil” country that prevents progress
in reducing fishing quotas and regulation of the whaling industry. Other countries are shown
opposing the Japanese, pointing out how terrible their policies are. However, the Japanese
manage to steer the commission by “buying off” smaller countries by paying for whaling and
fishing related facilities to be built in their countries. Although these facilities are often not
maintained, their construction seems to have been enough to convince smaller countries to join
the IWC and vote with the Japanese.
The Cove
The resolution to this problem of supposedly independent bodies being biased by their
source of funding was presented in the movie, and actually was one of the primary purposes of
the movie. The solution is exposure. When people are aware of the links between organizations
and their funding sources, they can decide for themselves whether or not they are independent.
The movie did an effective job of achieving this goal, and I personally agree that funding sources
for groups should be public knowledge. I did not personally disagree with the positions the
Japanese took in the IWC, but it does seem that the methods they use to promote their positions
should be more public and straightforward.
A second ethical dilemma from the film is whether or not dolphinariums like Sea World
should be able to hold dolphins in captivity. The argument made in the film is that the practice is
inherently cruel and inhumane. O’Barry had a very personal experience that converted him from
dolphin trainer to anti-captivity activist. He tells the story of Kathy, one of the original Flipper
dolphins, committing suicide in his arms. Apparently dolphins need to make a conscious effort
to breathe, which is different than humans. If a dolphin makes the conscious decision not to take
another breath, they die. O’Barry believes that Kathy was so miserable to be captive that she
simply decided to stop breathing. Further described in the movie are conditions in modern
dolphinariums, where the water filtration system is sometimes so loud that dolphins will die from
stress caused by the sound. Even dolphins that do not die develop ulcers that require medication
for treatment. Last, the film stresses the natural behavior of dolphins, where they travel up to 40
miles in a single day. In any type of tank enclosure, this type of travel is not possible.
The film suggests two possible resolutions to this dilemma. One is to publicize how
dolphins are being treated, and the other is to illegally free dolphins from their owners. Freeing
dolphins illegally can resolve the situation for a particular dolphin, of course, but is not a solution
to change the entire industry. O’Barry does not want to change the industry anyway – he wants
to put it out of business. Therefore, his only hope is to change the law, and to get the law
changed by changing popular opinion through publicity.
Personally, I do not think holding dolphins in captivity is unethical. Although there seem
to have been cases in the past where dolphins were treated poorly, and probably even died
because of that treatment, the situation has improved today. I see no reason why dolphins or
whales would be treated differently from any other animal that is held captive in zoos.
The Cove
Treatment of animals should be regulated and controlled, but there is no reason to eliminate it
altogether. They are not humans.
A third ethical dilemma in the film is whether or not dolphins should be killed for human
food. The film suggested that killing dolphins or whales is inherently wrong. Interestingly, the
idea of vegetarianism or killing of other animal species was not discussed. Instead, the movie
seemed to suggest that dolphins and whales are different from other types of animals and deserve
different treatment because of their intelligence and connection to humans. Another argument
against killing dolphins is the cruelty of how the dolphins are killed in Taiji. In many cases
dolphins take several minutes to bleed to death. The fact that the killing was hidden from the
public in a secret cove suggests that the Taiji fishermen knew they were doing something wrong,
or something that would be viewed as wrong if the public observed it firsthand. Beyond the
actual killing of the animals, industry was shown mislabeling dolphin meat as more expensive
whale meat in stores. The film suggests that industry does this because people would be less
likely to eat dolphin meat than larger whales, and that people might avoid dolphin because it
tends to have high mercury content. In fact, the researchers in the movie found dolphin meat that
had mercury levels much higher than the allowed amount.
There was only one solution presented in the film to this final ethical dilemma: Stop
killing dolphins. The research team hopes that exposing the cruelty of how dolphins are killed
and sold to consumers will prompt a backlash that will make killing dolphins illegal. There is no
suggestion of compromise, or limiting the killing, or regulating industry. My personal view is
that there are alternative resolutions to each of the problems associated with killing dolphins.
One would be to scientifically study whether or not dolphins understand what is happening to
them when they are killed. It makes sense to limit their suffering, but if there is a more objective
way to gauge how a dolphin feels than looking into its eye, that could be used to find more
humane ways to kill the dolphins. There must be a quicker way to kill the dolphins than to allow
them to bleed to death. Perhaps there could be a method to disable their spine or brain so that
they die instantly. Regarding the mislabeling of dolphin meat and high mercury concentrations,
regulatory agencies should step in and penalize companies that participate in this practice. This
is not a problem that would be unique to dolphins, so such an agency must exist in a developed
country like Japan.
The Cove
Summary
My initial reaction when watching the movie was disgust at the way Ric O’Barry and his
colleagues lied and broke the law to achieve their objectives. They tried to assume the moral
high ground in their crusade against the Japanese fishing industry, but in my opinion their
behavior was worse than the behavior of the people they tried to stop. The fishermen never
denied that they were selling and killing dolphins. They simply argued that dolphins are like any
other animal and should be treated like any other animal. I agree with the logic behind the
Japanese argument and believe O’Barry should spend time in jail for his actions.
On the other hand, when analyzing the details of the arguments presented in the movie, I
found myself agreeing with the premise of the movie more than I expected. Even though I
believe the argument that dolphins are smarter than humans is ridiculous, I still think they should
be treated humanely when killed. I also think that the fact that the killing of the dolphins was
hidden from public view says a lot about what the fishermen think about their own actions. They
certainly would have treated the dolphins more humanely if people were allowed to watch the
killing take place.
I also found myself strongly agreeing with the idea in the movie that there are conflicts of
interest in the dolphin and whaling industries that should be revealed to the public. If Sea World
is the primary funding source for a non-profit group, the association should be clear to the public.
When Japan pays for countries to join the IWC, those countries’ comments should be considered
accordingly, since they likely care more about Japanese money than the status of whale
populations. I have no problem with businesses and countries using their resources to pursue and
protect their own interests, but they should not do it in a deceptive manner.
The argument about conflicts of interest made me reconsider my position on how
political campaigns are financed. Previously I have held the view that corporations should be
able to spend as much money supporting their preferred political candidate as they want.
However, I have realized that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney probably each have a coalition of
corporations backing them, and I don’t know which corporations those might be. They might
have interests that are contrary to mine, and are probably waging war through the media and
non-profit groups not directly associated with a candidate. If congress can find a way to better
way to link funding sources to candidates, I would strongly support the bill.