ABSTRACT
It was July 1, 2001, when Ministerial Order No 92 placed various Japanese cetacean fisheries under a single legal system (Section 58), by incorporating dolphin and porpoise fisheries into the then-existing regulation system for whaling Responding to international and domestic concerns and criticisms of the management of Japanese dolphin and porpoise fisheries since around 1975, the Fisheries Agency and prefecture governments attempted to control these fisheries before the issuance of Ministerial Order No 92 using various administrative techniques I worked for the Fisheries Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as a cetacean scientist from 1983 to 1997, had opportunities to watch the attempts in the Agency, and felt that the reason Japan took almost 25 years to establish a control system for small-cetacean fisheries was because of lack of consensus within the Agency on the regulation needs and perhaps because of technical difficulties of the regulation In other words, the earlier less efficient actions taken by some divisions of the Fisheries Agency could have been the products of their efforts under a limited mandate The following is a brief history of small-cetacean management before 2001
The old Fishery Act (Section 51) came into effect in 1901 and offered a way to manage Japanese fisheries in an orderly way This act allowed a particular group of fishermen to monopolize a limited area in coastal waters for particular fishing activities, the “common fishing right” This gave a basis for the opportunistic driving of dolphins found in or near the harbor by local communities that had continued since before the Meiji Revolution around 1864-1868
Kishiro and Kasuya (1993) stated that in 1951 Shizuoka Prefecture placed all the drive fisheries in the prefecture under its license system Before this action, the dolphin-drive fisheries on the coast of the Izu Peninsula (34°36′N-35°05′N, 138°45′E-139°10′E) in Shizuoka Prefecture operated as one of the drive fisheries for various marine animals that were approved as the common fishing right mentioned earlier (see Section 38 and footnote to Table 311) In 1959, Shizuoka Prefecture changed the license from “drive fishery” to “dolphin-drive fishery,” which meant narrowing the fishing target, and regulated the operational area, fishing season, and number of vessels allowed (Kishiro and Kasuya 1993; unpublished document of Suisan-cho Kaiyo-gyogyo-bu Sanjikan [Councilor for Marine Fisheries Department of Fisheries Agency] 1986, in Japanese) In the autumn of 1960, I started
investigating dolphins taken by the drive fishery on the Izu coast and confirmed that drive fisheries surviving there were for dolphins only The number of vessels allowed by the prefectural license was 2 for Kawana (34°57′N, 139°07′E), 2 for Futo (34°55′N, 139°08′E) and 12 for Arari (34°50′N, 138°46′E), and the fishing season was from September 1 to March 31 The operational area was not limited to inshore waters but was limited to waters in front of Shizuoka Prefecture on the west side of the Izu Peninsula for the Arari team and on the east side for the Kawana and Futo teams The boundary between the two grounds was at the longitude of Tsumeki Cape (138°59′E) The permit was issued to each FCU with a statement that the catch should not exceed the past level, but the statement seemed to be nothing more than a request Although the Fisheries Agency made some earlier requests to prefectures to decrease their catches of dolphins, the first functional catch limit was established in 1991 when Shizuoka Prefecture had a catch limit of a total of 730 of all species (Kishiro and Kasuya 1993)
At Taiji (33°36′N, 135°57′E) in Wakayama Prefecture there was also a traditional dolphin-drive fishery in the local community that operated when dolphins were found near the harbor This fishery was named gondo-tatekiri-ami [stopping pilot whales in the net] and licensed as a common fishing right The last recorded operation was in the 1950s (see Section 39), but the license lasted until August 1993, when renewal was discontinued, possibly due to the absence of operations for more than 20 years
The dolphin-drive fishery currently in operation at Taiji was first attempted in 1969, using methods learned from the Izu coast, and fully established with a drive team in 1971 (Section 39) The operation was quite different from the traditional opportunistic dolphin drive of the past, because the team sent out vessels daily to scout for dolphins 15-20 nautical miles offshore In 1982, Wakayama Prefecture placed this fishery under its license system (Kishiro and Kasuya 1993) At this time, the prefecture advised the then-existing two driving teams to merge, which allowed issuing a single operation permit but allowed all vessels of the two teams (15 vessels in total) to participate in the fishing This license served to stop new entry into the fishery The merging of the two teams contributed to ending competition between them and was meant to decrease chances of overhunting, but the retention of the large fleet did lead to overhunting The license was renewed every 3 years The fishing season and catch limit were self-determined The season was from October 1 to the end of April for short-finned pilot whales, from October 1 to the end of February for other dolphins,
was 500 short-finned pilot whales and a total of 5000 dolphins of other species (not specified) These catch limits became a part of the conditions of the operation permit in 1986 Although the catch limits in the permit remained the same, the Fisheries Agency pressed the prefecture for further reduction of the catch (see Section 65)
Nago (26°35′N, 127°59′E) in Okinawa Prefecture also had a history of opportunistic dolphin drives (Section 310) The Nago group seemed to have acquired a prefecture license for the dolphin drive around the 1980s (see Section 62) but ceased operations in the 1980s due to the change in the atmosphere in the local community or destruction of suitable beach by construction Kishiro and Kasuya (1993) recorded a drive of short-finned pilot whales in 1982 and of bottlenose dolphins in 1989, which could have been the last operation
Dolphin and porpoise fisheries were operated at numerous locations in earlier Japan, but many of them ceased operation before the Fisheries Agency started regulation around 1990 without being described in detail (Chapters 2 and 3)
The hand-harpoon fishery for dolphins and porpoise operated without regulation until 1988 It was placed under a license system in 1989, and a quota was given in 1990
Dolphin drives have been among the important fisheries along the coast of the Izu Peninsula since the early seventeenth century (Section 38) Operations expanded around the time of World War II and reached an annual take of 10,000-15,000 striped dolphins However, the high catch was followed after the 1960s by a gradual decline to record low catches of around 1000 in the late 1980s, and the decline of the stock became evident (Kasuya 1985) Since the 1970s, the hand-harpoon fisheries off the Sanriku Coast on the Pacific (37°54′N-41°35′N) exported their catches of Dall’s porpoises to Shizuoka Prefecture to supplement the decreased supply of striped dolphins, and the hand-harpoon fishery for Dall’s porpoises expanded to the Hokkaido coast in the 1980s (Section 24)
The IWC is formed by commissioners nominated by each contracting government of the ICRW, has been working for the management of whaling and whale resources, and has established various committees for that objective The Scientific Committee (SC), one of the committees under the IWC, established the smallcetacean sub-committee in 1973 The subcommittee first met in Montreal in 1974 and became a standing subcommittee of the SC in 1975 Beginning with the first meeting, the subcommittee paid attention to the Japanese dolphin and porpoise fisheries and expressed its concern about the two kinds of Japanese small-cetacean fisheries described earlier (hand-harpoon fisheries in the Sanriku Region and drive fisheries on the Izu coast) and later on the drive fisheries at Taiji and hunting of short-finned pilot whales off Sanriku by small-type whalers (Kasuya 2007) Although there is no agreement in the IWC on its competence to manage small-cetacean fisheries, there is a general agreement that
and the fisheries
A moratorium on commercial whaling was first proposed in the IWC in 1972, one year before the establishment of the small-cetacean subcommittee, followed by annual repetition of the proposal and its adoption in 1982 to be implemented beginning with the 1985-1986 Antarctic whaling season and 1986 coastal season This meant that Japan would end whaling activities with the exception of drive fisheries, hand-harpoon fisheries, and small-type whaling for small cetaceans, that is, Delphinoidea species and most Ziphiidae species (Chapter 7) However, the Japanese whale fishery did not move in this direction but delayed acceptance for 2 years and then started so-called scientific whaling in the Antarctic in the 1987/1988 season and in the North Pacific in 1994 (Sections 62 and 74) These Japanese scientific whaling programs are debated with suspicion about the scientific value, on plausibility of the objectives, and about commercial elements (Kasuya 2003, 2005, both in Japanese, 2007)
Under these circumstances, the Fisheries Agency probably felt it inappropriate to view Japanese small-cetacean fisheries as minor local issues and to leave them unregulated In 1982, when the drive fisheries on the Izu coast were already under the license system of Shizuoka Prefecture, the Fisheries Agency pressured Wakayama Prefecture to put the drive fishery at Taiji under its license system The same action may have taken place for the drive fishery at Nago in Okinawa Prefecture (a memorandum of the Fisheries Agency dated July 7, 1988, which is cited in the next paragraph) These Fisheries Agency actions and subsequent actions of the prefectural governments functioned to stop additional entries into the fisheries We had to wait several years before the establishment of catch controls with quotas by species
In February 1988, the Fisheries Agency established a discussion group on the dolphin and porpoise fisheries under the leadership of Kazuo Shima, Councilor of the Fisheries Agency, and with membership of heads of related departments and divisions The discussion group issued an agreed document titled “On a Desirable Policy on Small-Cetacean Fisheries around Japan, 7 July 1988,” which was based on a background document by Shiro Ebisawa of the Department of Fishery Promotion titled “On the Dolphin and Porpoise Problems around Japan, 3 March 1988” The former document is useful in indicating the understanding within the Fisheries Agency on problems of Japanese small-cetacean fisheries and is summarized in the following translation (headings are as in the original text and my notes are in square brackets): [Background of the Problems]
1 International concern about management and conservation of large and small cetaceans has increased since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 This will continue in the future
2 Drive and hand-harpoon fisheries for dolphins and porpoises are economically important for some prefectures, and the value of their products has been
ing products
3 Management actions on the exploited stocks cannot be limited to the Japanese EEZ but must expand to problems of incidental mortality of cetaceans in fisheries in the North Pacific
[Current status of the fisheries]
4 The drive fisheries operate with permits issued by the prefecture governors and are called iruka oikomi gyogyo [dolphin-drive fishery] in Shizuoka Prefecture and geirui oikomi ami gyogyo [cetacean drive net fishery] in Wakayama Prefecture The drive fishery in Okinawa Prefecture is also regulated in the same way [Kishiro and Kasuya (1993) stated that the Nago fishermen had not obtained a license]
5 The drive fisheries have targeted mainly striped dolphins, and the catch, which reached 30,000 per year, has recently declined and is now surpassed by other species taken in hand-harpoon fisheries Drive fisheries in 1987 caught about 2300 cetaceans (including 300 small whales) in Wakayama, 1800 in Shizuoka, and none in Okinawa
6 The hand-harpoon fishery, which is currently unregulated, recorded a take of 15,000 in 1987 Most (98%) were taken by fishermen in Iwate Prefecture The Iwate fishermen taking Dall’s porpoises are increasing (208 vessels in 1987) and expanding the fishing ground to waters of other prefectures Their catch also underwent a 50% increase from 1985 to 1987 A decline in the population of truei-type Dall’s porpoises has been suggested
7 Nine small-type whaling vessels currently operate with a permit from the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries The moratorium on commercial whaling was applied to them in 1988 [see Section 712], so the small-type whalers are now surviving by taking Baird’s beaked whales (quota of 40), pilot whales, and other small cetaceans
8 About 200 small cetaceans are culled annually for the purpose of reducing damage to fisheries The culling operation has received international criticism, and the Fisheries Agency has requested the fishermen to minimize the cull [The background paper given earlier by Ebisawa of March 3, 1988 stated that the purpose of culling at Iki Island (33°47′N, 129°43′E) had changed into a commercial fishery and that out of 197 false killer whales supposedly culled, 30 were sold to aquaria and the remaining 10 to meat dealers in Tokyo]
9 Mortality of dolphins and porpoises incidental to Japanese fisheries was reported at 1500 in drift nets and 50 in fixed trap-net fisheries in 1987 [The background paper by Ebisawa listed the salmon driftnet fishery, large mesh drift-net fishery, large-and small-type purse seine fisheries (302 licensee in
6535 small-type trap nets) as fisheries that are likely to kill dolphins and porpoises incidentally He stated that of these fisheries, the salmon drift-net fishery in the Sea of Japan (67 vessels), and purse seine and fixed trap-net fisheries were of concern for the management of small cetaceans in Japanese waters The Sea of Japan was covered by the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean signed by Canada, Japan, and the United States in 1952 and modified in 1978 and was a problem area inhabited by various cetacean populations as well as fur seals and Japanese sea lions (possibly now extinct), but it did not attract attention of the member countries presumably because it was outside the range of waters inhabited by marine mammal populations within the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and because Japan wanted to hide the problem from international attention]
[Current Measures by Japan]
10 Managing small-cetacean populations that are affected by Japanese fisheries exceeds the capacity of the prefecture governments, so it must be done by the Japanese Government, but the Government has not established principles of a management policy
11 Before deciding catch limits, there is a need to improve abundance estimates and biological information on the cetacean species affected
[Medium Term Goals]
12 Establish a government system for conservation and management of small-cetacean stocks, which shall be followed by:
13 Establish a system of research and collection of biological data for each cetacean species affected
14 Conduct technical consideration of catch and effort control for the management of each cetacean species
15 Obtain consensus within the Fisheries Agency and adjust legal and administrative systems accordingly
16 Collect international information on the problem 17 Exchange opinions between the Fisheries Agency
and governors of the related prefectures on the direction of the international atmosphere
[Tentative actions]
18 Place the hand-harpoon fishery in Iwate Prefecture under control of the Regional Fisheries Adjustment Committee (Regional FAC) in 1988, and suppress further expansion of the fishery and increase of the catch
19 Consider whether government advice is needed for other small-cetacean fisheries based on information to be collected through Item 16
20 Keeping in mind the results of ongoing attempts to reduce the incidental mortality of small cetaceans in the North Pacific fishery, apply the solution to the coastal fisheries [Under the convention on North Pacific high-seas fisheries signed by the three countries in 1952 and with consent of the United States, Japan operated a salmon gillnet fishery in the US EEZ However, the coverage of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 was expanded in 1977 to the US EEZ, and the US Government was required to prove that incidental mortality of Dall’s porpoises and fur seals in the gill-net fishery was within allowable level before issuing the fishing permit for Japanese gillnetters If this was not determined, the Japanese fishery was unable to operate in the US EEZ Therefore, the two countries in 1978 started biological studies of these marine mammals as well as development of technology to reduce the incidental mortality Later, this activity expanded in geographical range and countries involved to include the operation of large-mesh and squid gill-net fisheries However, the technical prospects for reducing incidental mortality or for assessing the status of the affected small-cetacean stocks were dim (more small-cetacean stocks became identified with progress of the research) In 1987, lawsuits were filed by conservationists against the Japanese fishery and the US Government, and the gill-net fisheries did not operate as of the 1988 season In January 1989, the Japanese fishery was defeated in the lawsuits (Iida et al 1994, in Japanese), and in December 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution to close high-seas large-scale gill-net fisheries Japan accepted the resolution in December 1992 Thus, the operations of the Japanese high-seas squid gill-net fishery, large-mesh gill-net fishery, and salmon gill-net fishery came to an end Many of the results of scientific studies conducted in relation to the activities mentioned earlier were published in International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Bulletin No 53 (I, II and III), which is the report of an international symposium held in Tokyo in November 1991]
21 Culling is necessary for the time being but should be reconsidered in the future
22 For further progress in the direction agreed upon, a discussion group should be established in the Fisheries Agency
Following this agreement and with leadership of the Coastal Division of the Department of Fishery Promotion, there seems to have been continued discussion within the Fisheries Agency One of the probable products was a document titled “Proposal, Rule for Regulation of Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries” This was circulated for comment in October 1988
Section) and Coastal Divisions of the Department of Marine Fisheries, the Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory (Whale Research Group), and related prefectures It was amended after comments by the reviewers in January 1989 and finalized as a proposal on January 25, 1989 Although it appeared to me that those who worked for this task expected the rule to be issued as a ministerial order in 1989, this did not happen, presumably because consensus was not reached within the Fisheries Agency
In December 1988, while the Coastal Division was working on the “Rule for Regulation of Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries” mentioned earlier, a newspaper in Iwate Prefecture reported that the hand-harpoon fishery for porpoises in the prefecture would be placed under a prefectural license system This suggests that another alternative was considered in the Fisheries Agency With the leadership of the Coastal Division, on January 25, 1989, it was decided to place the hand-harpoon fisheries for dolphins and porpoises under a prefectural licensing system (Iwate Prefecture), under approval of the Regional FAC (in most of the other prefectures) or the Multi-regional FAC (Hokkaido and Nagasaki) and to decide fishing seasons and particular ports of landing for most of the prefectures These fisheries were later moved to be under control of the prefecture governments by April 2002 The date of permit issue, number of licensees, and ports of landing were listed as follows (as of July 1, 1989) The number of vessels was that expected for January 1989 based on the results of operations in 1988 (Hokkaido) or results in past years and may have differed slightly in the actual permits issued
January Aomori (January 31, no vessels) February Iwate (February 1, 9 ports, 360 vessels) March Miyagi (March 1, 8 ports, 60 vessels)
Okinawa (March 1, 5 vessels) Hokkaido (March 20, 9 ports, 50 vessels) Tokyo (Bonin Islands: March 25, 1 port;
Other islands: March 14, 2 ports; no vessels)
Shizuoka (March 18, 3 ports, no vessels) Chiba (March 28, 1-2 vessels) Kanagawa (March 31, 2 ports, no vessels) Oita (March 31, 21 vessels)
June Wakayama (June 1, 7 ports, 50 vessels) October Nagasaki (Expected for October 1) Not decided Ehime (to be decided in Autumn)
Vessel sizes for these permit holders in Iwate Prefecture were in the range of 4-19 gross tons The permit holders had an obligation to operate within the given fishing season and within licensed waters and to report their catch Because each prefecture started the system on a different date, the full-scale regulations came into effect in all of Japan only in 1990, when a total of 644 permits were issued (Table 24) The number of permits is greater than the number of vessels holding the permits because some vessels obtained permits for multiple regions
small cetaceans preceded the action of the government described earlier, which became clear in statistics presented to the annual meeting of the IWC in June 1989 in San Diego Japan reported a total of 13,406 Dall’s porpoises taken by various fisheries in 1987, but the number presented to the San Diego meeting was 41,555 for the year 1988 The Scientific Committee believed that such a large catch was not sustainable and recommended that the catch be reduced as soon as possible to the previous level and that catch statistics by stocks (dalli-type and truei-type) be obtained (Section 25) A similar recommendation was repeated in 1990
The response of the Fisheries Agency to this recommendation is found in a document of the Coastal Division titled “Countermeasures to the Hand-Harpoon Fisheries for Dolphins and Porpoises,” which was probably prepared soon after the IWC meeting of 1990 for the formation of consensus within the Fisheries Agency It referred to the statement of the IWC SC and noted that the Japanese handharpoon fishery in 1988 took over 40,000 Dall’s porpoises, that 34,000 of them were taken by Iwate fishermen, and that 313 out of a total of 520 hand-harpoon vessels in 1989 were from Iwate Prefecture
The document of the Coastal Division noted that Japan placed the hand-harpoon fishery for small cetaceans under a license system in 1989, controlled the number of operating vessels, decided fishing seasons, and made it obligatory to report the catch The Japanese Government had requested the prefectures to reduce catches by 30% in 1989 and further by 15% in 1990 through reduction of the fleet size and fishing season, and it already reached agreement with Iwate Prefecture on a final goal of reducing the catch of the prefecture to 10,000 by 1994 However, in view of the discussion in the IWC of this year (1990), it became necessary to achieve the final goal in 1991, and the Coastal Division therefore would request on July 13 that Iwate Prefecture make a plan to reduce their annual catch to 10,000 as soon as possible and would send similar requests to Hokkaido and Miyagi Prefectures after receiving a response from Iwate Prefecture Thus, Japan would become ready for the 1992 IWC Meeting and the Second Conference on the Human Environment The actions proposed earlier agreed with the statement of Morimoto of the Fisheries Agency at the Scientific Committee meeting of the IWC in 1990 (Section 25)
Culling of dolphins at Iki Island was allowed without limitation of the number until 1989, when an upper limit was set at 104 for 1990 (131 taken) and 96 for 1991 (Coastal Division dated March 1991)
Cetacean fisheries in Japan have been regulated as described earlier, but bycatch of cetaceans in various fisheries such as those using fixed trap nets has long been left unregulated These fisheries killed cetaceans from the same populations as exploited in dolphin and porpoise fisheries, small-type
They also killed whales of species that had been depleted by past whaling and protected by the IWC (gray whale, North Pacific right whale, and humpback whale) The statistics for such mortality appear to be quite incomplete; only a fraction of the catch is believed to have been reported (Tobayama et al 1992; Kasuya 2007) In view of our past experience with dai ami hogei [trap-net whaling] that once operated in the nineteenth century on the coasts of northern Kyusyu and Noto Peninsula (36°50′N-37°30′N, 136°40′E-137°20′E), it was plausible that some new type of net whaling might be established if incidental takes were left uncontrolled In order to avoid such a situation, the Fisheries Agency sent out several circulars before a full solution was achieved by Ministerial Order No 92 of 2001 on hunting and incidental takes and No 77 of 2004 on strandings (see Section 58)
The first action of the Fisheries Agency was Circular No 2-1039 of June 28, 1990, co-signed by the Director of the Coastal Division of the Department of Fishery Promotion and the Director of the Offshore Division of the Department of Marine Fisheries, which was titled “On Handling of Whales Incidentally Taken in the Fixed Trap-Net Fishery” and sent to fishery sections of the prefecture governments It requested that the fishermen be guided as follows: (1) this is on handling of all species of Mysticeti and Physeteridae found in fixed trap nets, (2) if the animal is found alive it should be released to the sea, and if found dead it should be buried, to eliminate potential poaching, (3) in an area with a tradition of consuming whales, the carcass found dead can be consumed locally with hygienic precautions, (4) incidents as described in the 2nd and 3rd items given earlier should be reported by the corresponding FCU to the prefecture government to be forwarded to the Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency These guidelines did not mention dolphins and porpoises At that point in time, Physeteridae included two species of the genus Kogia, which were excluded in a later circular of the same title (Circular No 3-1022 of March 28, 1991; see below) In the same year, the 2nd and 3rd circulars were sent out by the Director of the Coastal Division to the prefecture governments: Circular No 2-1050 of September 20, 1990, and No 2-1066 of November 30, 1990, intended to cover more species
The second circular (No 2-1050) was titled “On Handling of Incidentally Taken Small Cetaceans (Dolphins and Porpoises)” and targeted at incidental take of three particular dolphin species (narwhal, finless porpoise, and killer whale) in fixed trap nets, drag nets, and other fisheries It stated that (1) the animal should be released to the sea if it is found alive, (2) it should be buried if it is found dead, and (3) incidents of the 2nd case should be reported by the FCU to the prefecture to be forwarded to the Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency It did not mention local consumption of the carcass; thus, the consumption was prohibited
The third circular (No 2-1066) was titled “On Handling of Small Cetaceans” and targeted cases of incidental take in fishing gear and stranding of species that were not covered by the two circulars (Nos 2-1039 and 2-1050) mentioned earlier, that is, all the toothed whales other than the three species of
finless porpoise, and killer whale) It stated that (1) if found alive the animal should be released to the sea, (2) if found dead the carcass should be in principle buried or incinerated, (3) it is acceptable to consume carcasses found dead in regions with such customs, but selling of the carcass is not acceptable, (4) the 2nd and 3rd cases should be reported by the FCU to the prefecture to be forwarded to the Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency
Through these three circulars handling of incidental take of all cetacean species became regulated However, the first circular allowed selling of carcasses in the local market, the 3rd circular prohibited selling of carcasses, and the 2nd did not allow even non-commercial consumption of carcasses found in nets This resulted in a strange situation, where minke whale carcasses found in nets could be circulated in the local market for human consumption, and beaked whale carcasses could be consumed but could not enter local markets Consumption of beaked whales was prohibited by a later circular (5th circular of March 28, 1991; see below)
The 4th and 5th circulars were issued presumably to streamline the complicated guidelines There were two similar but different circulars on related subjects, which had the same document number (No 3-1022) and the same date (March 28, 1991) but were signed differently One of the circulars, which I tentatively call “4th circular,” was signed by both the Directors of the Coastal Division and Offshore Division and titled “On the Handling of Whales Incidentally Taken in Fixed Trap-Nets” and made a minor change in the guideline given in the earlier Circular No 2-1039 by excluding the two species of the genus Kogia from the regulation The other circular, “5th circular,” was signed by the Director General of the Department of Fishery Promotion and titled “On Handling of Small Cetaceans (Dolphins and Porpoises)” The preamble of this circular stated that the earlier circulars Nos 2-1050 and 2-1066 would be repealed in the near future, which means that the two earlier circulars were still valid at the time of issuance of this circular (March 28, 1991) This circular defined iruka [dolphins and porpoises] to include all the toothed whales other than the sperm whale and requested the fishery management of the prefecture governments to advise fishermen as outlined here [Three Categories of Iruka]
Group 1: Cuvier’s beaked whale, killer whale, northern-form short-finned pilot whale, Fraser’s dolphin, harbor porpoise, finless porpoise, narwhal, and other toothed whales not included in the following two categories
Group 2: Baird’s beaked whale, false killer whale, southern-form short-finned pilot whale, bottlenose dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, Dall’s porpoise (including two color morphs)
Group 3: Melon-headed whale, common dolphins, northern right whale dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin
1 It is prohibited to take or cull species in Group 1 They should be released to the sea if found alive while operating a fishery, or buried or incinerated if found dead The incident should be reported to the Coastal Division Those who intend to take these species for scientific purpose should consult the Coastal Division
2 Take or cull of species in Group 2 are permitted within the catch limits given elsewhere and within regulations set by other related rules and government orders
3 Species in Group 3 should be managed with caution after consulting the Coastal Division
[Incidental Take and Stranding]
1 Any species of iruka should be released if found alive 2 If found dead, species in Group 1 should be buried
or incinerated Consumption of species of Groups 2 and 3 is acceptable in regions with such customs Commercial circulation of them is prohibited Any incidents should be reported by the FCU to the prefecture government to be forwarded to the Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency
The circular summarized earlier drive and hand-harpoon fisheries prohibited from taking finless porpoises and harbor porpoises, which are coastal species and require special care for conservation Although it may be hard to understand why the northern-form short-finned pilot whale was placed in Group 1 and Baird’s beaked whales in Group 2, when both species were hunted by small-type whaling with ministerial permit, it probably functioned to protect the northern-form short-finned pilot whale from local fisheries that were under the control of the prefecture government or the FAC With the exception of Baird’s beaked whale, other Group-2 species were hunted by drive and hand-harpoon fisheries under the control of the prefecture government or the FCU and had quotas set in 1993 The Group-3 species were not exploited by Japanese fisheries of the time, and their abundance was unknown
Circular No 2-1066 of November 30, 1990, allowed local consumption of Ziphiidae found dead in nets, but the 5th circular of March 28, 1991, prohibited this with the exception of Baird’s beaked whales At this stage, incidentally taken minke whale carcasses were allowed to be sold in local markets by Circular No 2-1030 (June 28, 1990), but in reality they were often transported to remote markets for higher prices Such scandals were occasionally reported in newspapers around 1993
The Fisheries Agency made attempts to control incidental take of cetaceans through a series of circular letters before 2001, when Ministerial Order No 92 was issued (Section 58) to modify the earlier Ministerial Order No 5 of 1963 on
or advice in circular letters sent out by the Director of the Coastal Division or by the Director General of the Department of Fishery Promotion had, in my view, a weak legal basis, and thus, penalizing violations was probably difficult It was likely to involve arbitrary fines or penalty by administrative sections of the government and was likely to cause an unfair relationship between the Fisheries Agency and fishing industries In spite of such deficits and attempts made toward modification of the old Ministerial Order in 1988-1989, this ambiguous method continued for 11 years Behind this delay, there were difficulties in reaching consensus within the Fisheries Agency on the understanding of the small-cetacean situation in Japan and on the regulation measures to be taken
Ministerial Order No 92 of 2001 placed fishery and incidental take of small cetaceans under legal control, and No 77 of 2004 placed stranded cetaceans under legal control These actions streamlined the previous patchy management measures for cetacean species affected by whaling, dolphin and porpoise fisheries, incidental mortality, and stranding However, disagreement or ambiguity of interpretation remains between the Ministerial Orders and circulars of the Director General of the Fisheries Agency issued simultaneously with the orders (Section 58)
The fixed trap-net fishery is, in principle, a passive fishery of limited selectivity, where every marine organism found in the net is processed or handled in accordance with its commercial value The Coastal Division of the Department of Fishery Promotion apparently refused for many years to apply this basic principle of the fixed trap-net fishery to cetaceans This could have been because the difficulty of controlling what is caught in a trap-net fishery was recognized Whales are managed in principle to allow takes according to their current population levels and expected increase rates of the stocks However, fixed trap nets take a particular proportion of marine organisms migrating through the vicinity, and the take rate depends on the behavior of the species as well as characteristics and location of the gear If a fixed trapnet fishery were forced to modify operations to minimize the catch of most depleted whale species, it could be lethal to the fishery Japanese fixed trap nets would have to share quotas with small-type whaling (which were actually zero) if whales were identified as a legitimate target The status of the western gray whale stock was much worse than that of the minke whale, and no incidental takes would be accepted for the trap-net fishery The solution for this situation was probably to consider that cetaceans were not the target of a fixed trap-net fishery and to prohibit commercial use of the carcasses found in the net
However, there was another, socially related problem, where a minke whale taken in a fixed trap net could be sold for several million yen (100-150 yen/US$ in the 1990s), and many such whales went into the underground market This was determined by the observation of a limited number of trapnet operations (Tobayama et al 1992) and DNA analysis of market samples (Baker et al 2000; Delebout et al 2002), and the Scientific Committee of the IWC questioned the reliability
Fisheries Agency was unable to deny such facts or to further enforce the prohibition rule, it was obliged to accept the status quo and issued Ministerial Order 92 of 2001, which allowed “take and sale” of whales found in fixed trap nets A circular of the Director General of the Fisheries Agency was issued on the date same as Ministerial Order No 92, and it had the apparent intention to restrict “take” of whales found in trap nets in a way that would be accepted internationally
Recent Japanese fixed trap-net fisheries report annual takes of over 120 minke whales and occasional takes of humpback whale, North Pacific right whale, and western gray whales The population of the last is estimated to consist of about 130 individuals in total, making incidental takes a great concern for its management Japan has taken almost no action to reduce the incidental take of cetaceans in fixed trap nets, drift gill nets, and bottom gill nets Since 2008, the Fishery Resource Protection Act has prohibited take, sale, and possession of gray whales, but it does little more than to say “gray whales must be released if found alive in the net,” which is insufficient as a measure to reduce incidental mortality of the species (Section 59) A considerable number of finless porpoises are incidentally killed by the bottom gill-net fishery in the Inland Sea, and such mortality is believed to be one of the causes of the population decline (Kasuya et al 2002; Section 8451) Not even estimation of the incidental mortality has been attempted by the government Japanese fishery management policy should give more attention to reducing incidental mortality of cetaceans in fishing gear This, in my view, is an obligation of fisheries that exploit the marine ecosystem
In 1989, when the Fisheries Agency placed the hand-harpoon fishery under a license system, the Coastal Division made a request to the prefecture governments to advise hand-harpoon fisheries and drive fisheries under their control not to take finless porpoises and narwhals (original request not seen but recorded in a document of the Coastal Division; Kasuya 1994, in Japanese) Because there were no fishing activities for these species in Japan, this request or advice functioned only as a precautionary action or a first step toward future intervention in the fishery management This was followed by Circular No 2-1050 of September 20, 1990, that required that narwhals, finless porpoises, and killer whales be released or buried depending on the condition at the time of capture The list of prohibited species was further expanded in 1991 (see Section 63)
The current dolphin-drive fishery at Taiji started in 1969 with 8 vessels, joined by a second group (7 vessels) in 1979, and then formed one team of 15 vessels in 1982 when the fishery was placed under the license system of Wakayama Prefecture The fleet decreased to 14 in the 1984/1985 season; this was reflected in the license in 1986 The fishing season has been decided by species since 1982 (for details see Section 39) The first autonomous catch limit was decided
pilot whales and 5000 other dolphins (species not specified); this became a condition attached to the license issued in 1992 and was retained for later years However, a statement attached to the license said, “If necessary there will be additional regulations,” allowing for occasional modification of catch quotas The Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency imposed smaller quotas for dolphins (other than short-finned pilot whales) on the Taiji fishery: 3500 dolphins for 1989, 3324 for 1990, and 3100 for 1991 (Kasuya unpublished record dated January 1991) The last figure was proposed and could have been negotiated at a later stage as noted in Kishiro and Kasuya (1993), which listed the quota for the 1991 season as 2900 dolphins, including up to 500 short-finned pilot whales In addition, a live take of up to five killer whales was allowed for aquaria For the next season that started in 1992 the quota was further reduced to 2500 total dolphins, including up to 300 short-finned pilot whales and up to 1000 striped dolphins (Kishiro and Kasuya 1993)
In my view, the fishermen of Taiji totally ignored an additional condition attached to the license stating that “any animals smaller than 2 m must be released” I was once asked by the Director General of the Taiji FCU if such a regulation had any meaning for the dolphin population, but I could not identify any value in it and so replied I have seen that many individuals, particularly small ones, of some species (eg, striped dolphin and southern-form short-finned pilot whale) did not live long in the harbor, presumably due to the stress received during the drive, and survival of juveniles seems to be dubious if released alone separated from the mother
The dolphin-drive fisheries on the Izu coast were placed under the license system of Shizuoka Prefecture in 1951 (Section 61) The first catch quota for the fisheries was 730 dolphins in 1990 (no species specification), which was reduced to 657 in 1991 These quotas were given to Futo, the only dolphin-drive group remaining on the Izu coast It was plausible that the Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency proposed some catch limits for this drive fishery before 1990, but I was unable to confirm that
Nago (26°35′N, 127°59′E) in Okinawa Prefecture had a long history of traditional dolphin-drive fishing and seemed to have received a prefecture license in 1982 at the same time as other dolphin-drive teams in Wakayama and Shizuoka Prefectures (see Section 62)
It was for the 1990 season that all the dolphin and porpoise fisheries first received quotas based on advice from the Fisheries Agency (Table 61) The quota for 1992 could have been similar to that for 1991, but the details are unknown These quotas were not by species, but Wakayama put in place some loose regulations by species Cetacean species listed in Group 1 of Circular No 3-1022 (see Section 63) were either the targets of small-type whaling or protected species and were excluded as targets for the driving or hand-harpoon fisheries
Some prefectures set additional conditions on the licenses for dolphin and porpoise fisheries For example, Iwate Prefecture prohibited the take of baleen whales, sperm whales,
narwhals, killer whales, finless porpoises, suckling calves and cows accompanied by calves in the hand-harpoon fishery (beginning in 1989) Chiba Prefecture in 1991 permitted only iruka [dolphins and porpoises] other than Dall’s porpoise, finless porpoise, killer whale, and narwhal in the handharpoon fishery (The narwhal was known off Japan by only one case in the eighteenth century [Otsuki 1795, in Japanese]) Wakayama Prefecture required release of animals smaller than 2 m, which was continued up to 1992 However, the real value of such supplemental conditions is dubious other than improving appearances to the outside There were cases of driving of baleen whales off Taiji and hand harpooning of northern-form short-finned pilot whales off the Pacific coast of northern Japan
Out of the eight species listed in Group 2 of Circular No 2-1022, seven species other than Baird’s beaked whale were accepted as targets of dolphin and porpoise fisheries, and the catch quotas were decided by stock and allocated to prefectures and type of fisheries beginning in 1993 The principles used in calculating the quotas and the products are listed in Table 62 The calculation was based on the mean values of abundance, which were estimated by geographical area by scientists of the Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory of the Fisheries Agency These abundance figures were multiplied by hypothetical annual increase rates, that is, 4% (Dall’s porpoise),
Early Stage of Japanese Quotas on Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries That Started in 1990 without Distinction by Species (Prefectures Are Arranged from North to South)
3% (striped dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, Risso’s dolphin), and 2% (southern-form shortfinned pilot whale, false killer whale, Baird’s beaked whale) Then the product was either multiplied by safety factors of 05 or 075 or supplemented with an adjustment figure of 50, to obtain final quota figures
The abundance estimates used were from Miyashita (1991) for Dall’s porpoise and Miyashita (1993) for other species with modifications to include Okinawa area (see Tables 313 and 99) One of the basic problems with the abundance estimates is their great confidence intervals, which must be taken into consideration for safe management of stocks (Section 12) These figures, particularly for Dall’s porpoises, may have been biased upward or downward due to the porpoises being attracted to survey vessels or avoiding them (Section 97) The latter study was obliged to combine sighting data for a 10-year period (1982-1991); thus, if abundance declined during the survey period, the estimates could have an upward bias Another problem in using figures in the latter study for management comes from non-correspondence of the survey area and fishing area The abundance estimate included waters nearly 200 nautical miles from shore, while driving was usually operated within 15-20 nautical miles from port Therefore, there was a
risk of overestimation of exploited stocks if mixing of coastal and offshore individuals is limited or if there are more than one stock in the area used for the abundance estimate
Although it is generally accepted that population growth rate will increase with decreasing population level (Section 12), this has not been reliably applied to management When asked by the Fisheries Agency, our scientists without firm scientific evidence suggested three values for the potential rate of increase rate; 3%, 2%, and 1% instead of the figures actually used by the Coastal Division The Coastal Division calculations resulted in 33%, 50%, and 100% inflation, respectively, of quotas that could be derived from the population growth rate suggested by scientists For some unstated purpose, 50 individuals were added to the results of calculations for several species: striped dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, and southern-form short-finned pilot whale This rider further inflated the figures calculated using the optimistic abundance estimates and population growth rates
I believe that these dubious procedures for calculating quotas for 1993 were introduced to satisfy two needs: (1) to reach some predetermined figures and (2) to pretend that scientific procedures were being used Safety factors of 05 and
Procedure of Calculating Species Quotas for 1993 Season for Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries, from Records of Coastal Division of Fisheries Agency and Kasuya (1997, in Japanese)
Allocation of Quotas to Each Dolphin-Drive Group and Hand-Harpoon Fishery of Prefectures in Central and Southern Japan (See Table 6.4 for Quotas for Hand-Harpoon Fisheries in Northern Japan)
075 were applied to false killer whales and Baird’s beaked whales, respectively These safety factors effectively reduced the quota close to the actual catch level of the time (false killer whale) or the prior catch quota (Baird’s beaked whale) The Coastal Division seems to have had a hidden objective to create 1993 quotas which were similar to the actual catches of the previous years
The catch quotas thus created (Table 62), which were reported to the Scientific Committee of the IWC, were divided by prefectures and fishery types (Tables 63 and 64), leaving small reserves for the Fisheries Agency Thus, figures in Table 62 often exceed the totals of Tables 63 and 64 The reserve for the Fisheries Agency functioned as a kind of safeguard against violation of the catch limit by some prefectures These quotas, with some minor modification, were retained until 2008 Since the 2007/2008 season, a total of 360 Pacific white-sided dolphins has been added to the quota and allocated to various fisheries (Tables 63 and 64)
It should be noted that since 1991 the Japanese Dall’s porpoise hunters have received a total quota of 17,600 porpoises of both color types, which was identical to the quota “scientifically calculated” for 1993 Here we see the reason why the increase rate of the species had to be 4% This led to the assumption of a 3% increase rate for the striped dolphin, which has a longer calving interval than the Dall’s porpoise The adjustment of 50 striped dolphins had to be added to reach a figure close to 1000, which was a quota accepted since 1992 for the species The safety factor of 075 was applied in calculating the quota of Baird’s beaked whales It was necessary to get a figure of 60 individuals, which was a quota accepted by the small-type whalers since 1988 (Kasuya 2007)
The mathematics used by the Coastal Division in creating catch quotas for Japanese small-cetacean fisheries in 1993 might appear to be based on biology, but in my view they were a tool invented to maintain earlier catch regulations accepted by the fisheries and, at the same time, to defend against
Allocation of Quotas to Each Dolphin-Drive Group and Hand-Harpoon Fishery of Prefectures in Central and Southern Japan (See Table 6.4 for Quotas for Hand-Harpoon Fisheries in Northern Japan)
domestic criticism Such mathematics would have never been understood by the IWC if presented to the Scientific Committee (see Section 12632 for additional information)
The catch quotas have been given to the fishermen on an annual calendar basis since at least 1993 The system was felt inconvenient by some fisheries that operated through the northern winter and was modified to be given for the fishing season since autumn of 1997 (hand-harpoon fishery for trueitype Dall’s porpoises) or 1996 (most other fisheries), with some transition measures for preceding years (see Tables 63 and 64 for the fishing season) Although quotas are given for a fishing season that usually starts after summer and ends
before the next summer, the catch statistics are compiled by calendar year Thus, some apparent disagreement between annual quotas and catches does not necessarily indicate violation of the regulations
The Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory of the Fisheries Agency reported the regulations on small-cetacean fisheries and their catch statistics as a part of the Japanese annual progress report on cetacean research to the Scientific Committee of the IWC until 1999 but discontinued this beginning in 2000 They are now available on the website of the Fisheries Agency (eg, Status of International Fishery Resources Accessed 2013)
Allocation of Quotas to Hand-Harpoon Fisheries of Prefectures in Northern Japan (See Table 6.3 for Quota Allocation in Central and Southern Japan)
