Chapter One: Introduction & thesis objectives

Management of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) exposed to tourism in Port Stephens, N.S.W., Australia

by

Simon James Allen B.Sc. (Hons.)

Thesis submitted as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Graduate School of the Environment Macquarie University New South Wales March 2005

S. J. Allen © 2005

ii

iii

Table of Contents Title Page List of Figures List of Tables Summary Declaration Acknowledgements Dedication

i vi vii viii ix x xii

Chapter One: Introduction & thesis objectives

1

1.0 Introduction

1

1.1 Thesis objectives

5

Chapter Two: Cetacean-based ‘ecotourism’ around Australia

6

2.0 Introduction

6

2.1 Cetacean-based tourism - operations, impacts and management

10

2.1.1 Dolphin provisioning

10

2.1.2 Swimming with cetaceans

14

2.1.3 Viewing cetaceans

17

2.2 The ‘ecotourism’ label for cetacean-based tourism

Chapter Three: Is self-regulation an effective management tool for dolphin watching in Port Stephens?

21

24

3.0 Introduction

24

3.1 Materials & Methods

30

3.1.1 Study site

30

3.1.2 Study subjects

31

3.1.3 Study methods

31

3.1.4 Data analysis

33

3.2 Results

34

3.2.1 Number of boats in contact with a school of dolphins

34

3.2.2 Duration of interactions

36

3.2.3 Distance between boats and dolphins

37

3.2.4 Method of approach (and boat-handling)

38

iv

3.2.5 Frequency of cruises and hours of interaction

39

3.2.6 Approaching calves

39

Overall compliance

40

3.3 Discussion

40

Chapter Four: Short-term effects of tour boat presence on bottlenose dolphin schools in eastern Port Stephens

48

4.0 Introduction

48

4.1 Methods & Materials

50

4.1.1 Study site

50

4.1.2 Study methods

50

4.1.3 Scan sampling

51

4.1.4 Focal school follows

52

4.1.5 Data analysis

54

4.2 Results

55

4.2.1 Dolphin school size, distribution and absence/presence in Port Stephens 55 4.2.2 Dolphin school behaviour and spread in the absence/presence of boats

57

4.2.3 Dolphin school stability in the absence/ presence of dolphin watch boats 60 4.3 Discussion

61

Chapter Five: Summary and management recommendations

66

5.0 Summary of results

66

5.1 Legislation for management of marine mammals

69

5.2 Management recommendations for NSW

70

5.3 Management recommendations for Port Stephens

71

5.3.1 Commercial dolphin watching tourism

72

5.3.2 Commercial and recreational boating

76

5.3.3 Fishing and aquaculture operations

77

5.3.4 Education/awareness programs

78

5.3.5 Monitoring and Research

79

References

80

Appendix (publication abstracts)

94

v

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Port Stephens: on NSW coast, area under observation, observation platform

30

Figure 3.2: Number of boats interacting with a dolphin school at any one time

34

Figure 3.3: Number of interactions complying with and breaching the CC limit of 2 boats in contact with a dolphin school at any one time for individual regular dolphin watch operators with other dolphin watch boats only and with all other boats

35

Figure 3.4: Number of interaction times complying with and breaching the 30 min interaction time limit recommended by the CC

36

Figure 3.5: Duration dolphins were exposed to dolphin watch boats during continued interactions

37

Figure 3.6: Minimum approach distance between dolphin watch boats and dolphins

38

Figure 4.1: Frequency distribution of estimated school size from scan data

56

Figure 4.2: Dolphin school positions fixed on all scans

56

Figure 4.3: Proportion of behaviours exhibited in the absence/presence of dolphin watch boats

58

Figure 4.4: Proportion of travel behaviour observed by time of day in the absence/presence of boats

59

Figure 5.1: Spatial zones for dolphin watching

75

Figure 5.2: The cyclical approach of adaptive management

76

vi

List of Tables

Table 2.0: The ten principles within the triple bottom line of sustainable development that a product must strictly comply with in order to be awarded Advanced Ecotourism Accreditation

8

Table 2.1: Overview of Australian sites where tourists feed dolphins

11

Table 2.2: Overview of Australian sites where tourists swim with cetaceans

15

Table 2.3: Examples of Australian sites where tourists view cetaceans

18

Table 3.1: PSCDWA approved CC 1996 (updated in 2000)

29

Table 3.2: Description of methods of approach and boat-handling around dolphins

33

Table 3.3: Regular operators’ compliance (and rank order) with CC limit of 2 boats per dolphin school during interactions involving only dolphin watch boats

35

Table 3.4: Regular operators’ compliance (and rank order) with CC limit of 30 min interactions

36

Table 3.5: Regular operators’ compliance (and rank order) with CC approach limit of 30 m

38

Table 3.6: Regular operators’ compliance (and rank order) with CC methods of approach/boat handling

39

Table 3.7: Regular operators’ compliance (and rank order) with CC limit of 3 trips per day

39

Table 3.8: Regular operators’ mean rank order over all aspects of CC assessed

40

Table 4.1: Number of scans with/without dolphins by time of day

57

Table 4.2: Results of logistic regression assessing predictors of travel behaviour

59

Table 4.3: School splits/joins under ‘no boat’ and ‘boat’ conditions

60

Table 4.4: Time until change in school size under ‘no boat’ and ‘boat’ conditions

61

vii

Summary

Bottlenose dolphins of Port Stephens are exposed to commercial dolphin watching, an industry that remains without formal regulation in NSW despite broad concerns regarding potential impacts on dolphins. This reflects globally increasing awareness of the need to better manage wildlife tourism. An assessment of the voluntary Code of Conduct for dolphin watching in Port Stephens was undertaken, yielding significant variability between operators and stipulations within this Code. Stipulations in which compliance was high were rendered ineffective in reducing exposure of dolphins to boats by the number of boats operating in Port Stephens. Dolphin responses to the presence of dolphin watch boats were also assessed, indicating effects on school behaviour and spread. Schools were more likely to be travelling and inter-animal distance lower when a boat was nearby. Time to change in school size was shorter and schools tended to split into sub-schools in the presence of boats. Whether short-term changes have long-term ramifications remains unknown, but similar results elsewhere suggest a precautionary approach is warranted. Spatial and temporal dolphin watching zones are recommended for Port Stephens. Future research should include assessment of dolphin population size and habitat use. Adoption of an Adaptive Management regime for monitoring dolphin-tourism interactions is advised.

viii

Declaration

I hereby declare that this work has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution and that, except where otherwise stated, this represents my own, original work.

Simon J. Allen

ix

Acknowledgements I would firstly like to thank the major partners in this project for providing both financial and logistic support; The NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service and the Port Stephens Commercial Dolphin Watch Association. In particular, George Malolakis, Mick Murphy, Sandro Condurso, Rob Gibbs, Rob Quirk and Laurence Penman (of NPWS) and Frank Future, Owen and Linda Griffiths and the late Peter Dawson (of PSCDWA) were great help. The Waterways Authority (esp. Charlie, Sonia, Matt and Brett), Nelson Bay Water Police (esp. Ando, Hoggy, Rossco and Justin) and Port Stephens Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol were also forthcoming with vital logistic support on numerous occasions. Eric Kniest of the University of Newcastle was always willing to provide equipment and software for assessing dolphin-vessel interactions. This project would not have been possible without the support of each of these people/agencies/institutions and I consider the friendships gained through these associations of enduring personal benefit.

I extend sincere thanks to the various people with whom I have occasionally or often chatted about the potential influences of tourism on wildlife, as well as those that helped with measuring and analysing such influences. Lars Bejder, Rochelle Constantine, Peter Corkeron, Nick Gales, Julian Leslie, Alan Taylor, Hal Whitehead and Suzanne Yin deserve special mention.

I also thank Rob Harcourt and Kelly Waples for their supervisory roles in this project. I have learnt a lot about science and communication from these two throughout the duration of my somewhat epic candidature (and even more about qualities to expect and respect in myself and other people).

Many dedicated research assistants spent time on boats and hills and looking at dorsal fins from near and far for the benefit of this project, including Liz ‘Mum’ Allen, Stephen ‘Dad’ Allen, Rochelle Constantine, Lucy Fox, Charlie Huveneers, Brigid Krug, Bek McLeod, Brett Mitchell, Holly Smith and Isabelle Thiebaut. Transient or occasional, but no-less-valuable, helpers included Lars Bejder, Jordan Forestell, Tony Fowler, Dean Gilligan, Amanda Hodgson, Roger Laird, Neil Lazarow, Charles Littnan, Sonia McKay, Andrea Ottensmeyer, Sarah Robinson, Carlos ‘I’m too stoned to go surfing with ju Simo’ Tueffer and Ruth Young. That long, yet non-exhaustive list makes up a sterling array of Aussies, Belgians, Canucks, Chileans, Danes, Germans, Italians, Kiwis, Mexicans, South Africans, Swiss and citizens of the United Kingdom and the United States of America that blessed Sydney and Port Stephens with a truly national and international flavour. Apologies to any individuals or nations missed in my ‘5-years-off-thetop-of-my-head’ acknowledgements.

x

My life was often kept sane, and to a greater extent insane, by the good company of fellow students in the Marine Mammal Research Group of past and present and the researchers and friends that have visited or shared our communal offices over the last few years. So ‘cheers’ to: Kerstin Bilgmann, Ulysse Bové, Dan Butt, Rochelle Constantine, Shannon Corrigan, Sue Gibbs, Charlie Huveneers, Michelle Lemon, Charles Littnan, Luciana Möller, Julie Old, Nathalie Patenaude, Lindsay Porter, Emma Turner and Jo ‘just quickly’ Wiszniewski. Shannon wanted extra special mention for helping me through the hard times writing my acknowledgments, but I refused. Thanks also to my imaginary friend: you materialised at just the right time.

Good science, stimulating discussions, sweet therapeutic breaks from the real world, glorious diversity in megafauna (some to jump into the water for and some to jump out of the water from), award winning photography (copyright Lars Bejder!?) and pictionary challenges of intensity bordering on psychotic were often experienced in beautiful Shark Bay at the other end of the country. For that I raise a glass of single malt whisky to: Lars Bejder, Amanda Coakes, Richard Connor, Shane Gero, Vincent ‘saying it louder doesn’t make it right’ Janik, Michael ‘you gave me an ear vorm’ Krützen, Janet Mann, Brooke Sargeant, Jana Watson and a number of others including the similar-but-different Wranghams.

To great, student-tolerant housemates: Suresh ‘the dirty’ Devadas, Ben ‘we can’t remember his nickname for the life of us’ Munk and co. in the early days in Sydney; Tony Fowler, Dean Gilligan, Roger Laird, Neil Lazarow and Charles Littnan in Port Stephens; and in the death throws of write-up, ‘the coolest thing about me is that I live with’ Suresh again and my ‘adopt a couple and crash on their floor’ friends Michael and Anna, then Richard and Tania. Thanks so much and allow me to fix you eggs Benedict with salmon and a flat white in Lana Cové.

There are a few great people that have inspired me in many ways in the past and will no doubt do so into the future. While I feel a pang of guilt for merely listing their names when they deserve so much more, I am running out of time and space as usual. A highly respectful nod of the head to: Lars Bejder, Mike Bossley, Richard Connor, Peter Corkeron, Rochelle Constantine, Dean Gilligan, Michael Krützen, Charles Littnan, Dean Marchioni and Luciana Möller. Special people = special places in my head and heart.

Naturally I have saved the most precious until last. To my family, thankyou very much for anything else that has yet to be mentioned. This thesis has been the excuse for many missed events. I promise to be a perfect relative from now on. I will be independent, reliable, stable, predictable, and utterly contactable at all times. Unless I am not… it depends... on the charismatic animals, the exotic location and/or the perfect girl.

xi

Dedication

To Mum and Dad and my left foot …for keeping me from swimming in circles.

xii

Chapter One: Introduction & thesis objectives

1.0 Introduction Cetaceans have been subject to a broad spectrum of interactions with humans for several centuries (Lockyer 1990; Constantine 2002a). This range of interactions has included their being harvested by humans as a food source and caught for display in aquaria, through cooperative foraging relationships between cetaceans and humans, to their being held in both fear and reverence by some cultures (Fairholme 1856; Busnel 1973; Samuels & Tyack 2000). While there was a change in attitude in some western cultures in the 1960s and 1970s coincident with the expansion of aquaria displaying dolphins and the use of great whales as an emblem for the green movement, this broad suite of cetacean-human interactions continues to this day (Samuels & Tyack 2000; Whitehead et al. 2000).

Research on captive cetaceans in the last century has shed light on many aspects of cetacean behaviour, physiology and cognitive abilities (e.g. McBride & Hebb 1948; Tavolga & Essapian 1957; Bateson 1974; Herman 1980a). More recently, the early and continuing work on captive animals has been complimented by detailed insights into cetacean social structure and ecology from the long-term study of wild populations (e.g. Wells et al. 1987; Leatherwood & Reeves 1990; Connor et al. 1992).

Recent decades have also seen the advent and subsequent rise of nature-based tourism that revolves around wild cetacean populations (e.g. Connor & Smolker 1985; Duffus & Dearden 1993; Corkeron 1995; Würsig 1996; Samuels & Tyack 2000; Corkeron 2004). Conservative estimates suggest this global industry now involves over 2000 licensed operators from 500

1

communities observing or otherwise interacting with cetacean populations in the waters of around 100 different countries (Hoyt 2001; E. Hoyt pers. comm.). The number of unlicensed operators is more difficult to quantify, but is likely to inflate these figures substantially. This rapid and widespread industry growth presents novel and ongoing challenges to management of cetacean-human interactions.

Cetaceans, along with other marine mammals, are afforded a high level of protection from human activities in several countries (e.g. the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972, New Zealand’s Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and Australia’s National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 and Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2000). The management of cetacean-based tourism, however, remains highly variable both within and between State and international boundaries, ranging from no monitoring or management, through voluntary ‘codes of conduct’, to command and control mechanisms administered by government agencies (Gjerdalen & Williams 2000; Garrod & Fennell 2004).

Questions regarding the potential impacts of both regulated and unregulated commercial tourism activities targeting cetaceans have been raised for some years (e.g. IFAW et al. 1995), and the efficacy of many of the management systems put in place to reduce impacts on cetaceans remain largely untested (e.g. Carlson 2001; but see Constantine et al. 2004). Furthermore, research into potential impacts necessary to guide management decisions has not maintained pace with the development of commercial industries (Gales 1999). Little is known at even baseline levels in many locations, so that questions such as: “What species are being targeted by tourism?”, “How many animals are being targeted by tourism?”, and, “What is the ‘normal’ behavioural suite of the animals targeted by tourism?” remain unanswered.

2

Without such information it is very difficult to address the more complex issues, like: “Does tourism disrupt the behaviour and movement patterns of target animals?”, “Does disturbance lead to biologically significant impacts (i.e. fitness cost through reduced survival or fecundity)?”, and, if so, “can we ameliorate impacts through management of cetacean-based tourism?”

Around Australia, numerous resident and migratory cetacean populations are involved in dolphin provisioning programs, swim-with-dolphin and -whale operations, and dolphin- and whalewatching activities from a variety of platforms (e.g. Orams 1995; Gill & Burke 1999; Birtles et al. 2002; IFAW 2004; O’Neill et al. 2004). Management of cetacean-based tourism differs between locations in Australia as it does globally, some States having licensing systems in place for commercial operations, while others do not (Gales 1999; Lalime-Bauer 2001; Waples 2003).

The dolphin watch industry in Port Stephens on the Hunter Coast of New South Wales (NSW where cetacean-based tourism is as yet unregulated) grew for almost a decade without baseline research, assessment into potential impacts of the industry, or a formal management regime. Dolphin watching was first undertaken in 1991 by two operators and has since grown to involve up to nine vessels conducting daily dolphin watching tours and six less regular operators – these numbers and the popularity of recreational boating in Port Stephens make it the area with perhaps the most concentrated boating activity around dolphins in Australia (Commonwealth of Australia 2000; Allen et al. 2003).

Since early 1999, dolphins in and around Port Stephens have been the subject of research into group characteristics, population size, site fidelity, genetic relatedness and social structure (e.g. Allen & Möller 1999; Möller 2001; Möller et al. 2001, 2002; Corrigan 2004; Wiszniewski et al. 2004). Along with another south-eastern Australian population (Jervis Bay, 400km to the South), 3

Port Stephens dolphins have been classified Tursiops aduncus (Möller & Beheregaray 2001), the smaller species of bottlenose dolphin that inhabits many inshore regions of the Indo-Pacific (e.g. Rice 1998; Wang et al. 1999; Hale et al. 2000; Kogi et al. 2004).

Bottlenose dolphins are found throughout Port Stephens, from shallow seagrass beds to deeper channels, and from coves and rivers to open coastal beaches (Allen & Möller 1999). Minimum abundance estimates of recognisable individuals range from 121 to 160 dolphins and around 90 of these are regularly sighted (Möller et al. 2002; Möller 2003). A ‘fission-fusion’ grouping pattern, with frequent changes in school size and composition, typical of other coastal populations under long-term observation (e.g. Sarasota Bay, Florida, and Shark Bay, Western Australia – Wells et al. 1987; Smolker et al. 1992; Connor et al. 2000) is evident in Port Stephens (Möller 2001). In another parallel with Sarasota (Wells et al. 1987) and Shark Bay populations (Connor et al. 2000), strong and enduring associations occur between individual adult males in ‘alliances’ (Möller et al. 2001), and females associate at moderate levels with several other females within ‘bands’ or ‘cliques’ (Möller 2001).

There is genetic evidence of sex-biased dispersal in Port Stephens dolphins, females being more philopatric and males dispersing (Möller & Beheregaray 2004). School size in Port Stephens (6.8 ± 0.37 individuals - Möller et al. 2002) is comparable to those of bottlenose dolphins (both T. aduncus and T. truncatus) in enclosed embayments elsewhere in the world (Connor et al. 2000). It remains unclear, however, whether significantly smaller group sizes in Port Stephens than in Jervis Bay (12.3 ± 0.87) are due to social, environmental and/or anthropogenic influences, such as the relative prevalence of boating traffic in Port Stephens (Möller et al. 2002).

4

The potential for disruption to the behaviour and group structure of bottlenose dolphins in Port Stephens from unregulated dolphin watching activity was first highlighted in the late 1990s (Allen & Möller 1999). This followed concerns voiced on a more global scale that, should the growing appeal of wild cetaceans be having detrimental impacts on individuals and populations in the short- and/or long-term, cetacean-based tourism may not be as benign and/or sustainable as once thought (IFAW et al. 1995; IWC 1997a). Since cetacean responses to tourism activity are likely to be species- and site-specific (Constantine 1999; Orams 2004), an assessment of the industry and how bottlenose dolphins in Port Stephens respond to dolphin watching activity was conducted. The goal was to provide a basis for recommendations on future management of the dolphin population and the associated tourism industry.

1.1 Thesis objectives The specific objectives of this thesis are to; •

Overview cetacean-based tourism around Australia,

•

Assess the dolphin watch industry and its current management in Port Stephens,

•

Assess potential impacts of dolphin watching activity on dolphins in Port Stephens, and,

•

Make recommendations for managing the dolphin population and associated industry.

In Chapter Two, an overview is provided of Australia’s cetacean-based tourism industries and the application of the ecotourism label there-upon. Chapter Three provides an assessment of compliance to, and efficacy of, the voluntary Code of Conduct for dolphin watching in Port Stephens as a tool for industry management. In Chapter Four, an assessment of short-term responses by dolphins to the presence of dolphin watch boats in eastern Port Stephens is presented. Chapter Five provides a summary of thesis results and recommendations for future management of dolphins and the associated dolphin watching industry in Port Stephens.

5

Chapter Two: Cetacean-based ‘ecotourism’ around Australia

2.0 Introduction Tourism focusing on cetaceans has been sustaining rapid growth in the number of communities and countries involved, the number of species targeted and the amount of revenue generated around the world for over a decade (Hoyt 2001). Countries that once exploited cetaceans for food, and some that still do, are now utilising them as a renewable tourism resource (e.g. Romero & Hayford 2000; Hoyt 2001; Parsons & Rawles 2003; Kogi et al. 2004). Australia has been at the forefront of the attitudinal shift from whaling to whale watching, leading campaigns for sanctuary areas that encompass international waters and reportedly experiencing an annual average growth in cetacean-based tourism of 15% from 1998 to 2003 (IFAW 2004). This figure represents considerable growth in a difficult period for global tourism.

There are measurable benefits to people through cetacean-based tourism industries around the world, including: substantial economic gains; employment opportunities and infrastructure building; the exposure of visitors to particular regions that may have been otherwise overlooked; logistic and financial support for scientific endeavours; opportunities for marine environmental education; and, the promise of a more sustainable use of cetaceans than directed harvests (e.g. Orams 1997; Hoyt 2001; Orams 2001; Bejder & Samuels 2003; Garrod & Fennell 2004). These positives are often touted as reason to continue to promote and intensify the industry, with recent comment including:

“It is our privilege to present this report on the explosive growth and economic impact of this truly sustainable industry.” (O’Regan 2001)

6

“Whale watching…has become the most economically viable and sustainable use of cetaceans”, and, “…whale watching could be classed as ecotourism, being both environmentally and economically sustainable, with benefits accruing to the local community and ecosystem.” (Woods-Ballard et al. 2003)

“We look forward to the continued development of this industry and to the growing benefits it brings to both animals and people.” (McIntyre 2004)

It is, perhaps, this presumption of long-term sustainability and benefits accruing to target animals as well as people that has lead to cetacean-based tourism now routinely being labelled ‘ecotourism’ (e.g. Blane & Jaakson 1994; Woods-Ballard et al. 2003); and its clientele as ‘ecotourists’ (e.g. Amante-Helweg 1996; Orams & Hill 1998). While there has been some dissent regarding the definition of ecotourism, key points agreed by most are that it be; (1) nature-based, (2) environmentally educative, (3) sustainably managed, and (4) contributing to the conservation of species, habitats or biodiversity (Blamey 1995; Goodwin 1996; Dowling 1997).

In Australia, cetacean-based tourism is referred to as ecotourism in scientific literature (e.g. Birtles et al. 2002), advertised as such by local governments (e.g. Hunter Councils 2004), and a variety of operators have won State and Australian Tourism Awards for Ecotourism from 19992004 (e.g. Rockingham Dolphins 2004; Dolphin Boat 2004). Furthermore, operators can gain ‘Advanced Ecotourism Accreditation’ (e.g. a resort at which dolphins are provisioned – Monkey Mia 2004; a swim-with-dolphins operation – Rockingham Dolphins 2004; dolphin and whalewatching enterprises – Imagine Cruises 2004) if they adhere to ten principles within the triple bottom line of ecologically sustainable development (Ecotourism Australia 2003; Table 2.0).

7

Table 2.0: The ten principles within the triple bottom line of sustainable development that a product must strictly comply with in order to be awarded Advanced Ecotourism Accreditation (adapted from Ecotourism Australia 2003). Triple bottom line

Ecotourism product principles

Principle

Economic

1. Business management and

Sound business management and operational procedures are integral to the delivery of

Sustainability

operational planning

economic sustainability, which, together with environmental and social sustainability, provide the basis for a “triple bottom line” approach

2. Business ethics

The business and all its personnel adopt and follow ethical business practices

3. Responsible marketing

Marketing is accurate and leads to realistic expectations

4. Customer satisfaction

Ecotourism consistently meets customer expectations

Environmental

5. Natural area focus

Ecotourism focuses on directly and personally experiencing nature

Sustainability

6. Environmental sustainability

Ecotourism represents best practice for environmentally sustainable tourism

7. Interpretation and education

Ecotourism provides opportunities to experience nature in ways that lead to greater understanding, appreciation and enjoyment

8. Contribution to conservation

Ecotourism positively contributes to the conservation of natural areas

Social

9. Working with local communities

Ecotourism provides constructive ongoing contributions to local communities

Sustainability

10. Cultural respect and sensitivity

Ecotourism is sensitive to the value of interpretation and involves different cultures, particularly Indigenous culture

This industry does involve aspects of ecotourism, for example, it is nature-based and can be environmentally educative (e.g. Orams 1997; Mann & Kemps 2003). Concerns have been raised, however, over disturbance to target animals and the potential for this to lead to population level impacts (e.g. IFAW et al. 1995; Constantine 1999; Richter et al. 2000; IWC 2001). Early reports on changes through time in short-term responses to vessel approaches by a variety of whale species were largely descriptive (e.g. Watkins 1986). More recently, recorded impacts of cetacean-based tourism have included: noise trauma and displacement from habitat (Richardson et al. 1995; Allen & Read 2000), fatality or injury from vessel strike (Laist et al. 2001), and disruption of resting and socialising behaviours (Lusseau 2003b; Constantine et al. 2004).

8

In their reviews of studies on human disturbance of wild animals, Nisbet (2000) and Gill et al. (2001) point out that short-term behavioural response may not reflect impacts at the population level, and indeed biologically significant impacts of cetacean-based tourism remain largely unproven. This may mean that: (a) population level impacts are not occurring, or (b) fitness costs such as changes in survival and fecundity of long-lived, slow-reproducing and relatively inaccessible species are difficult to assess without comprehensive, long-term data sets on potentially impacted populations. Few sites have access to such data. However, where such data does exist, the short-term impacts highlighted above are being linked to longer-term negative impacts on behavioural budgets (Constantine 2001; Lusseau 2004), habitat use (Bejder et al. 2004) and reproductive success (Bejder 2005). Regardless of the lack of evidence indicating population level impacts, these results challenge whether or not localised cetacean-based tourism industries are operating sustainably or could be considered as contributing to conservation of species, habitats or biodiversity.

Accordingly, the exponential growth of cetacean-based tourism has been questioned (e.g. Corkeron 2004), and doubt cast over whether the industry deserves the oft-cited label of ‘ecotourism’ (Samuels & Bejder 2004). This follows broader debate over whether or not ecotourism as a whole amounts to anything more than existing nature-based tourism with a green label applied to increase its appeal, and, whether or not ecotourism can actually be considered a sustainable endeavour (e.g. Orams 1999 pp. 83-84; Bejder & Samuels 2003 p. 229).

With around 33000 km of coastline extending from cold-temperate to tropical waters and a number of both resident and migratory cetacean species, Australia has well-established cetaceanbased tourism industries that can be grouped into three main categories: provisioning-, swimming with-, and viewing wild cetaceans. This chapter presents: 9

•

An overview of operations, recorded impacts, and management regimes in place for the three forms of cetacean-based tourism around Australia, and,

•

Discussion of the ecotourism label and the need for collaborations between commercial tourism operations and research into potential impacts in order to guide future management of cetacean-based tourism.

2.1 Cetacean-based tourism – operations, impacts and management 2.1.1 Dolphin provisioning Feeding marine mammals is prohibited in Australia at the Federal level under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth of Australia 1999; Commonwealth of Australia 2000) and under some State legislation (e.g. Western Australia’s (WA) Wildlife Conservation Notice 1998 and Queensland’s (Qld) Nature Conservation Act 1982). However, four commercial dolphin provisioning programs that pre-date or commenced despite such legislation being in place have been granted permits and/or exemption, allowing them to continue under the observation of State government agencies and/or researchers (Table 2.1).

Each provisioning program involves people wading into shallow water where dolphins are fed by: rangers and tourists (Monkey Mia); Dolphin Discovery Centre staff only (Bunbury); resort staff and guests (Tangalooma); or, tourists only (Tin Can Bay). Non-permitted provisioning occurs in places such as Cockburn Sound (WA), Whyalla and Port Pirie (South Australia), and the Great Sandy Straits (Qld) (R. Donaldson; K. Bilgmann; K. Wortel pers. comm., respectively). These are not commercial operations and are thus beyond the scope of this review.

10

Table 2.1: Overview of Australian sites where tourists feed dolphins. ‘Scope’ refers to the number of animals involved and whether this number has increased (+), remained consistent (rc), or decreased (-) over the last five years. ‘EIA / Research’ refers to whether or not any form of Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out prior to the operation’s commencement and whether or not the operation has been, or is currently, associated with research into the local cetacean population or impacts of tourism activity. Locations

Species

Scope

Regulation

Monkey Mia,

Bottlenose

4 animals

Licensed by

W.A.

dolphins

(-)

CALM

EIA /

Published references

Research

on impacts

No / Yes

Mann & Smuts 1999 Mann et al. 2000 Mann & Kemps 2003

Tursiops sp. Bunbury,

Bottlenose

6-15 animals

Licensed by

W.A.

dolphins

(rc)

CALM

No / No

None (But referred to in Samuels et al. 2000 and 2003)

Tursiops sp. Tangalooma,

Bottlenose

6-9 animals

Licensed by

Qld.

dolphins

(rc)

QNPWS

No / Yes

Orams 1995, 1997 Orams et al. 1996 Neil & Brieze 1998

Tursiops sp. Tin Can Bay,

Indo-Pacific

1 animal

Monitored

Qld.

humpback dolphins

(-)

by QNPWS

No / No

None (But see Garbett & Garbett 1995 and Hodda 1999)

Sousa chinensis

Impacts similar to those reported when provisioning terrestrial mammals (e.g. Craighead & Craighead 1971; Wrangham 1974; Altmann & Muruthi 1988) have been reported at provisioning sites around Australia, including overt aggression between animals and toward people (e.g. Connor et al. 1992; Orams et al. 1996). Protocols to reduce impacts have been introduced at each of the four sites. Clear signage regarding provisioning rules, training staff to avoid reenforcement of inappropriate behaviour (on the part of both dolphins and tourists), maintaining spacing between individual dolphins during provisioning, discouraging touching of dolphins and improving the quality (and reducing the amount) of fish provided are common themes. 11

These management actions have generally required researcher or State agency intervention for their implementation and have met with varying degrees of success. Entanglement and mortality events associated with provisioned animals were recorded at Monkey Mia in 1989 and 1994, for example, and a subsequent review identified physical abuse of animals by humans, significant alteration to the behaviour of provisioned dolphins and high mortality of provisioned female’s offspring (Wilson 1994; Mann et al. 2000). Strict controls were implemented for the management of the feeding regime in 1995 and negative impacts manifest prior to these changes have been virtually eliminated (Mann & Kemps 2003).

Dolphins have been provisioned at Monkey Mia since the 1960s and a long-term study of the broader population has been underway since 1982 (Connor & Smolker 1985; Mann & Kemps 2003). This program has thus had the benefit of intense scrutiny by researchers, tour operators and rangers for over a decade, although some issues remain. The interaction between dolphins and people is closely monitored during provisioning hours, but tourists attempt to touch dolphins that approach the beach outside these times and dolphins are occasionally provisioned outside the monitored area (i.e. from boats - D. Charles pers. comm.). Mann & Kemps (2003) also highlight that maternal care is still significantly reduced during provisioning and have again recommended refinements to the regime at Monkey Mia to further reduce dolphin-human interaction time.

Dependence of dolphins on provisioning and aggression, both between dolphins and directed toward humans, have been documented at Tangalooma (Orams 1995; Orams et al. 1996). This operation subsequently adopted a protocol that affords separation of dolphins during provisioning and short duration of provisioning periods, along with extensive guidance and strict control over tourist behaviour, whilst still allowing opportunities for close-quarters interaction for many guests (Orams 1997; Neil & Brieze 1998). 12

The provisioning that occurs in the Bunbury ‘Interaction Zone’ involves a protocol similar to that at Monkey Mia. It differs in that; it occurs on a smaller scale in terms of tourist numbers, only staff members feed dolphins, and dolphins are apparently proffered smaller amounts of fish (