DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2799-z
Compliance with Regulations by “Swim-withDolphins” Operations in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia CAROL SCARPACI* NUGEGODA DAYANTHI RMIT University, Australia Department of Applied Biology and Biotechnology Bundoora Campus GPO Box 2476V Melbourne, Victoria, Australia PETER J. CORKERON Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture Research N-9291 Tromsø, Norway ABSTRACT / Managing the activities of commercial wildlife viewing tends to involve either restricting the number of indus-
The industry of swimming with wild dolphins and dolphin watching is growing rapidly in several countries (Duffus and Deaden 1993, Blane and Jakson 1994, Dudzinski 1998) as people desire interaction with cetaceans in their natural habitat. This industry comes in several forms—land-based observation, whale watching trips, “wild-dolphin” swimming programs and dolphinfeeding programs (Amante-Helweg 1996, Wu¨rsig 1996, Bejder and others 1999). Apart from economic benefits, cetacean tourism may provide a medium for raising environmental awareness (Hughes 1991, Ross 1991, Amante-Helweg 1996). However, demonstrated changes to the behavior of dolphins being observed (Constantine and Baker 1996, Scarpaci and others 2001) suggest there is a cost of these forms of tourism to the individuals and populations of the target animals (Duffus and Dearden 1993). Managing the impacts of these industries on subject animals tends to take two forms: regulating the number of entrants to the industry through licensing commercial operations, and including license conditions that regulate the behavior of operations when in the vicinity of dolphins. KEY WORDS: Compliance; Swim-with-dolphin operations; Tursiops sp. *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed at Victoria University of Technology, Science and Food Technology, PO Box 14428 (W107), MCMC 8001, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; email:
[email protected].
Environmental Management Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 342–347
try participants and/or regulating the activities or industry participants. We report on operator compliance with regulations regarding humans swimming with free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. A total of 128 commercial dolphin-swim trips was studied between September 1998 and April 2000. Four permit conditions were investigated: approach type, swim time, time in proximity of dolphins, and presence of “fetal fold” calves. Results demonstrate noncompliance by operators to all of the four permit conditions studied. Compliance with temporal conditions was poorer than with other conditions. When conducting studies on the extent to which tourism affects cetaceans, investigators should consider whether tourist operations comply with existing regulations or guidelines.
In Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia, the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment has issued five dolphin-swim licences and three dolphin watching licences to separate operations. The boats operate in the southern end of Port Phillip Bay (Scarpaci and others 2000). Bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops sp., are the focus of industry attention. Currently there is no scientific literature defining this population of dolphins as either Tursiops truncatus or Tursiops aduncus. Conditions of the license seem developed primarily to protect both the target animals and swimmers (individuals participating in the dolphin-swim activity). These include four conditions of the permit that clearly relate to reducing impacts on dolphins: these conditions related to approach methods, times in the vicinity of dolphins, and activities when calves are present: ●
Condition 1: It is illegal to approach a dolphin head on (direct approach) or to manoeuvre a vessel into the path of a dolphin (J approach). ● Condition 2: Permit holders must ensure that a dolphin swim does not continue for more than 20 min. ● Condition 3: Tour vessels must not remain within 100 m of a dolphin for more than 20 min. ● Condition 4: A dolphin swim must not commence if a “fetal fold calf” is present. ©
2003 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
“Swim-with-Dolphins” Regulation Compliance
We studied compliance of dolphin-swim operations to these permit conditions. Other conditions that were not studied include distance that tour vessel remained from other tour vessels during encounters, attempts of individuals to touch dolphins while in the water, distance of tour vessels to dolphins within the sanctuary zone, repositioning of tour vessel during a dolphin swim, distance that swimmers enter the water from the dolphins, and the number of swimmers that may enter the water [Wildlife (Whales) Regulations 1998]. There is no enforcement of these license conditions in Port Phillip Bay. We presume that the existence of licence conditions implies an expectation that conditions will be obeyed.
Methods Observations were conducted onboard two of the dolphin-swim vessels. An observer collected data on dolphin groups using 1-min scan samples and continuous observations (Altmann 1974). Data collected in scan samples included behavior, boat traffic, group composition, group size, and location. Data collected by continuous observation were the approach type, the time swimmers entered and exited the water, the time the mermaid lines entered and exited the water, the time the boat approached within 100 m of the focal group, and the time the boat departed from the focal group. The period during which a dolphin-swim vessel was engaged in interaction with dolphins was termed an encounter. One individual was responsible for all data collection. Data were collected as follows. Once the tour operator approached the focal group of dolphins within 100 m, the time was recorded. One-minute scan samples proceeded from this point. A stopwatch would beep at every minute during the encounter: at each beep, information on the group size, group composition, and behavior were recorded. Once a boat approach was made, the approach type and time were recorded. Mermaid lines (lines streamed from the vessel’s stern for swimmers to hold) were either released as soon as the sighting was made or just before the approach. The time the mermaid lines were released into the water was recorded. Generally, the mermaid lines remained in the water until all swims were completed. The time at which the mermaid lines were placed back onboard the tour vessel was recorded. Once a sighting was made, swimmers entered the water on instructions of an employee of the tour company. The time the swimmers entered the water was recorded, and the time they exited was also recorded. Once swimmers completed their swim and reboarded the vessel, the opera-
343
tor would then attempt another approach. This was recorded as a new approach. Once the operator moved beyond 100 m from the dolphin group, the time was recorded and the encounter concluded (Figure 1). Approach type was used to assess compliance with condition 1. Three approach types were observed as defined by Constantine and Baker (1996). They are termed as parallel (line abreast), direct (in path), and (around Boat) J approach; the Constantine and Baker (1996) terms are in the parentheses. The approaches were defined as: ●
Parallel approach—when the tour boat was positioned to either side of a group of dolphins. ● Direct approach—when the tour boat was positioned directly into the middle of a group of dolphins. ● J approach—when a tour boat initially traveled parallel to a dolphin group but then but then moved directly in front of the group (see Figure 2). Two measures of swim time were used to assess condition 2. Individual swim length was calculated as the time between a swimmer entering the water and all swimmers reentering the boat. A license condition is that before swimmers can enter the water, two mermaid lines approximately 15 m long must be streamed from the stern of a vessel. Swimmers are required to hang onto these lines at all times when in the water. License conditions require that swim time be calculated from the time the mermaid lines enter the water until the mermaid lines are retrieved onto the boat. Therefore, we recorded licensed swim time as the length of time the mermaid lines are in the water. More than one individual swim time could be recorded for each encounter. Time in the proximity of dolphins was used to assess condition 3. This time was measured as the time during an encounter when the vessel was within 100 m of a dolphin group. Distance was estimated (by an experienced observer) between the vessel and the nearest member of the dolphin group. The mean total time per trip with a group of dolphins is the time that a vessel spent with one or more groups of dolphins per trip. Presence of “fetal fold” calf was used to assess condition 4. A dolphin swim does not commence if a fetal fold calf is present. In this study a “fetal fold” calf was defined as an individual closely associated with a fully grown dolphin and either approximately one half the size of its accompanying adult or had visible fetal folds. We could not use the presence of fetal folds as the only indicator that an individual dolphin was a calf because fetal folds were not always observable, and this may
344
C. Scarpaci and others
Figure 1. Tactics employed by operators and sites for data collection.
have been because the calf did not always allow the observers the opportunity to view its fetal folds.
Results The researcher was present on 128 commercial dolphin-swim trips lasting a mean time of 234 min (SD ⫽ 28.9 min, time between departure from and return to dock). These were studied from September 1998 –April 1999 and September 1999 –April 2000. It was possible to document compliance from all licensed dolphin swim operations, as it was common to observe a group of dolphins with more than one operator present. Results are not stratified by individual vessel because, as given the small size of the industry at the study site, this was considered ethically inappropriate. Condition 1—Approach Type A total of 564 boat approaches were observed. There was a significant difference (2 ⫽ 263.6; df ⫽ 2; P ⫽
0.0001) between the commercial tour operators in the type of approach they selected. The most common type observed was the parallel approach (64% of the approaches observed), followed by direct approaches (26.6% of the observed approaches) and J approaches (9.4%). Approximately one third of approaches were illegal, based on Section 78(1)(g) of the Wildlife Act 1975, (Table 1). Condition 2—Swim Time The mean individual swim time was 3.0 min (SD ⫽ 1.8 min; range ⫽ 0.8 –13 min; N ⫽ 316). The mean licensed swim time was 31.9 min (SD ⫽ 20.1 min; Range ⫽ 3–105 min; N ⫽ 77), within this period of time several swim attempts would be made. The percentage of swims that fell within permit conditions was 39% or a total of 30 swims were conducted within conditions from a possible 77. A total of 564 boat approaches were attempted, of which 316 resulted in a
“Swim-with-Dolphins” Regulation Compliance
345
Figure 2. Different approach types used by licensed dolphin-swim operators in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. The parallel approach is the only approach type that allows the dolphins to voluntarily interact with the boat and swimmers. During the direct approach the vessel will move directly into the group, stop, and place swimmers in the water. During the J approach the boat will follow the dolphins initially in a parallel motion, move ahead of the group and then turn the vessel in front of the dolphins’ path.
Table 1. Percentage compliance for the four conditions studied Condition 1 2 3 4
Compliance (%)
Noncompliance (%)
64 39 38.3 69.4
36 61 61.7 30.6
phin swims were conducted with groups that included fetal-fold calves. The human– dolphin swim conducted with adult and adult calves was found to be significantly independent of condition 3 (2 ⫽ 2.3; df ⫽ 1; P ⫽ 0.129). In other words, if the operator interacted with a group of dolphins for more than 20 min, this did not imply that the operators are more likely to swim with a group that included fetal-fold calves. Interactions Between Conditions
dolphin– human swim attempt, i.e., 56% of approaches resulted in a swim. Condition 3—Time in the Proximity of Dolphins The mean time in the proximity of dolphins was 34.78 min (SD ⫽ 28.7 min; range 3–151 min; N ⫽ 107). The percentage of proximity times that fell within the permit conditions was 38.3% (N ⫽ 41). The mean total time per trip with a group of dolphins is 48.9 min (SD ⫽ 32.29 min; range ⫽ 4 –167 min; N ⫽ 76). Condition 4 —Presence of Fetal-Fold Calves A total of 69.4% of human dolphin swims were conducted with adults only and 30.6% of human dol-
There was a significant relationship between approach type and the length of the swim (one-way ANOVA, F ⫽ 4.15; df ⫽ 2, 328; P ⫽ 0.017). Results indicate that the direct approach resulted in the longest swim times (mean ⫽ 144.7 sec; SD ⫽ 149.7, N ⫽ 55) followed by the J approach (mean ⫽ 92.5 sec; SD ⫽ 146.2, N ⫽ 29) and the parallel approach (mean ⫽ 91.7 sec; SD ⫽ 115.2; N ⫽ 247). There was no relationship between approach type used by operators and condition 3 of the permit (2 ⫽ 4.564; df ⫽ 2; P ⫽ 0.102). In other words, if an operator interacted with a group of dolphins, the approach type selected was independent of the length of
346
C. Scarpaci and others
time that the operator interacted with the group of dolphins.
Discussion Results from this study indicate that commercial operations licensed to offer “swim-with-dolphins” tours in Port Phillip Bay do not always adhere to regulations that are conditions of their licences. Conditions dealing with the length of time during which operations can be conducted in the presence of dolphins (conditions 2 and 3) were disregarded almost twice as often as they were obeyed. Conditions regarding how to approach and who not to approach for dolphin swims (conditions 1 and 4) were obeyed approximately twice as often as they were ignored. There was no clear pattern of interaction between conditions. These results possibly represent levels of compliance at their best, as the presence of the observer onboard the vessels may have influenced operators’ behaviour. Unfortunately, this is impossible to assess from the data available. As the permit conditions investigated here appear to have been instituted to reduce the likelihood that the industry will have a negative effect on local dolphins, this seems a failure in the management of these wildlife tourism operations. Options available to improve the level of compliance in this industry include operator education, tourist education, and enforcement of regulations. We cannot assess which of these is likely to result in greater compliance, and all may be appropriate courses of action. As noncompliance to the temporal regulations is more prevalent than noncompliance to other regulations, initial attempts to improve compliance could address temporal issues. Introducing an enforcement regime will be a change from past management of this industry, but may be necessary. The other management option in place in Port Phillip Bay is controlling the number of commercial ventures engaged in cetacean interaction. Given the current situation, increasing the number of operators in this industry seems unlikely to improve the status of the local population of bottlenose dolphins. A temporary cap on the number of permits issued for dolphinswim operations has been imposed recently, maintaining numbers at their present level in at least the short term (personal communication, Brian Doolan, 2001). Whether this should change is a matter for negotiation between all stakeholders. Studies investigating the extent to which tourism affects cetaceans have tended to ignore whether tourist vessels obey existing regulations (e.g., Blane and Jakson 1994, Corkeron 1995, Janik and Thompson 1996, Bejder and others 1999, Constantine 2001, Nowacek and
others 2001). The manner in which these interactions affect cetaceans depends on the behavior of both the animals and the vessels engaged in the interaction. Vessel behavior in turn depends not only on the regulations established to manage the behavior of vessels, but also on whether operations comply with existing regulations. Our study demonstrates that compliance can not be assumed.
Acknowledgments We thank B. Wu¨rsig and P. Gill for critical input in improving the manuscript, and B. Mason for his statistical advice. The authors would also like to thank the three reviewers for their constructive advice in improving the manuscript. This project was made possible by two operators that made space onboard their vessels to conduct research (Polperro Dolphin Swims and Moonraker Charters). In-kind support came from Pioneer Electrics, Samson Springs, and the Coffs Harbour Pet Porpoise Pool. The project was permitted by the Department of Natural Resources, Victoria, as part of the study undertaken at RMIT University. We thank all volunteers for their time and dedication. We are grateful to the three referees and the editor for their critical input and amendments in improving the manuscript.
Literature Cited Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267. Amante-Helweg, V. 1996. Ecotourists’ beliefs and knowledge about dolphins and the development of cetacean ecotourism. Aquatic Mammals 22:121–140. Bejder, L., S. M. Dawson, and J. A. Harraway. 1999. Responses by Hector’s dolphins to boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 15:738 –750. Blane, J. M., and R. Jakson. 1994. The impact of ecotourism boats on the St Lawrence Beluga whales. Environmental Conservation 21:267–269. Constantine, R. 2001. Increased avoidance of swimmers by wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) due to longterm exposure to swim-with-dolphin tourism. Marine Mammal Science 17(4):689 –702. Constantine, R., and C. S. Baker. 1996. Monitoring the commercial swim-with-dolphin operators in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand. Investigation No. 1993. Contract to University Services, University of Auckland. Corkeron, P. J. 1995. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hervey Bay, Queensland: behaviour and responses to whale-watching vessels. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 1290 –1299. Dudzinski, K. 1998. The best-kept secret in dolphin swim programs is in Japan. ACS Whalewatcher 31:14 –17. Duffus, D. A., and P. Deaden. 1993. Recreational use, valua-
“Swim-with-Dolphins” Regulation Compliance
tion, and management of killer whales (Orcinus orcas) on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Biological Conservation 20:149 –156. Hughes, K. 1991. Tourists satisfaction: a guided ‘cultural’ tour in northern Queensland. Australian Psychologist 26:166 –171. Janik, V. M., and P. M. Thompson. 1996. Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 12:597– 602. Nowacek, S. M., R. S. Wells, A. R. Solow. 2001. Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17(4): 673– 688.
347
Ross, G. F. 1991. Tourist destination images of the wet tropical rainforests of North Queensland. Australian Psychology 5:111–138. Scarpaci, C., S. W. Bigger, P. J. Corkeron, D. Nugegoda. 2000. Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, increase whistling in the presence of “swim-with-dolphin” tour operators. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2:183–186. Wildlife (Whales) Regulations. 1998. Statutory Rule No. 152/ 1998, Victoria. Published by Anstat Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia. Wu¨rsig, B. 1996. Swim-with-dolphin activities in nature: weighing the pros and cons. Whalewatcher 30:11–15.
