The Current State and Future Prospects of Whale-Watching Management, with Special Emphasis on Whale-Watching in British Columbia, Canada
Christopher Duncan Malcolm
B.A., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1993 M.Sc., University of Victoria, 1997
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Geography
O Christopher Duncan Malcolm, 2003 University of Victoria
' All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced, in whole or in part,
Supervisor: Dr. D.A. Duffus
ABSTRACT
Commercial whale-watching has become an important aspect of global marine tourism. Rapid expansion during the 1990s has created a yearly US$1 billion industry, in which approximately 10 million people go whale-watching in nearly 90 countries. While the economic importance of whale-watching is well documented, there remain questions regarding ecological impacts on cetacean populations and the veracity of assumed educational benefits. These two problems call into question the label of ecotourism that is currently applied to whale-watching.
Due to the knowledge gap regarding the ecological impact of whale-watching, science-based management of the activity is difficult. In some areas, whale-watching has become a vital aspect of the economy before managers have been able to participate in its development. In other areas, management has remained at arm's length, letting the industry grow without their participation. The objective of this dissertation is to critically review the current state of whale-watching management and its link to maintenance of sustainable cetacean populations. Research is mainly focussed on whale-watching in British Columbia, Canada.
This dissertation is composed of three separate studies that examine different aspects of whale-watching management: 1) an analysis of global whale-watching protocols and a comparison of cetacean-human versus terrestrial wildlife-human interaction research, 2) a case study of the historical development, current state and future possibilities of whale-watching management in B.C., where the activity has occurred since the early 1980s, and 3) a human dimensions case study of whale-watchers in B.C. to assess the utility of social science research for whale-watching management.
In the first study, whale-watching practices for 87 countries were examined. Sixty-one percent of countries where whale-watching exists do not, or appear to not, possess established whale-watching rules. The presence and developmental extent of whale-watching protocols is related to the number of whale-watchers, rate of increase during the 1990s, and the number of years whale-watching has existed, in a given area. The nature of existing whale-watching protocols is extremely variable. Minimum
approach guidelines, the most common type of practice, show little relationship to size of the whale-watching industry, the general type of cetacean watched (large whales or dolphins), or the predominant activity of focal cetaceans (breeding, migration, feeding).
The first study also compared cetacean-human and terrestrial wildlife-human research papers (n=47 for each). The cetacean-human interaction research was more narrowly focussed, made 20% more speculations, was dependant on overt behaviours observable from the surface, discussed limitations in only 7% of the studies, and did not make use of comparison to terrestrial research. Terrestrial wildlife-human interaction research made more use of physiological measurements and experimental research, which led to management recommendations in 86% of the papers. To be more effective in the future, cetacean-human interaction research needs to make more use of the technology available to measure physiological reactions and employ experimental research designs more often.
In the second study, federal, provincial and whale-watching industry documents, personal interviews and participant observation, were used to create a historical record for the development of the whale-watching industry and its management in British Columbia. This historical record was then analysed, based on commons resource management theory, to identify strengths and weaknesses of current management and explore requirements for successful future management. Strengths identified were industry cooperation, self-regulation, a unified voice/forum in Southern Vancouver Island, and a foundation for more effective management. Weaknesses identified were the lack of biological purpose of whale-watching guidelines, and control of vessel behaviour. Successful whale-watching management in the future in B.C. is dependant on Fisheries and Oceans Canada entering into a co-management type regime, in which the experience and self-regulation guidelines of the existing whale-watching industry are taken into account in amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations.
In the third study, whale-watchers in British Columbia were surveyed at the three main whale-watching centres of Johnstone Strait, Tofino and Victoria (n=1617). Data was analysed for: 1) expectations, satisfactions, attitudes and demographics between whale-watching sites, 2) attitudes between pre-whale-watching and post-whale-watching trip groups, and 3) specialization in whale-watchers between sites. Johnstone Strait
whale-watchers were the most satisfied, followed by Victoria, then Tofino respondents. Johnstone Strait whale-watchers possessed greater previous cetacean education and whale-watching experience, and displayed the most concern for whale management and general resource management issues, followed by Tofino, then Victoria participants. Although there were some significant differences in attitudes between pre- and post-trip groups, it was unclear whether the interpretation aboard the whale-watching vessels was responsible. Whale-watchers already displayed a high level of concern for cetacean and general resource management issues before embarking on whale-watching trips.
A specialization index was developed to classify whale-watchers as Novice, Intermediate, Advance or Expert. The index revealed that 81.6% of whale-watchers were Novice or Intermediate, indicating that whale-watchers in B .C. are generalist-type whale- watchers, with little prior experience or knowledge. Johnstone Strait attracted the most Advance and Expert whale-watchers (34.9%), followed by Tofino (14.1%) and Victoria (9.4%). There is a relationship between increase in percentage of specialized whale- watchers and increase in distance from urban tourism centres. The study reveals that, due to the dominance of generalist whale-watchers in B.C., education needs to start with basic whale and marine ecology to develop a context on which to base more in-depth conservation issues. If whale-watchers are to become part of the management solution, education programs need to aim to develop a greater percentage of specialized whale- watchers.
From this study, there are indications that whale-watching could provide a basis for the sustainable management of cetaceans in the future. However, more research needs to be undertaken towards the development of science-based management, and the development of education programs. In addition, management also needs to take ieto account the efforts of established self-regulated whale-watching industries. Currently, whale-watching management protocols are ad-hoc, inconsistent, and are not based in science. Minimum approach distances may not provide protection while researchers investigate the impact of vessel proximity to cetaceans; therefore minimum approach distances are pseudo-precautionary rather than precautionary. Due to the questions that remain regarding ecological impact and educational benefits, whale-watching can not currently be considered ecotourism.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page...
...
Abstract...
List of Tables List of Figures...
...
List of Appendices Acknowledgements...
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION...
...
1.
1 Ecotourism and Whale-watching...
1.2 Outline of Dissertation...
1.3 References...
CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL STATE OF WHALE-WATCHING...
2.1 Introduction
...
2.2 Management of Whale-watching Activities
2.2.1 Data Collection and Analysis
...
...
2.2.2 Results and Discussion
2.3 Comparison of Terrestrial Wildlife and Cetacean Disturbance
...
Research
...
2.3.1 Impact of Recreation on Wildlife2.3.2 Impact of whale-watching on cetacean populations
...
2.3.3 Methods...
...
2.3.4 Results and Discussion
...
2.4 Conclusion...
2.5 References 1 . . 11 xi ... X l l l xvi xvii 1 1 5 9 13 13 15 15 17 29 29 32 34 36 44 47vii
CHAPTER 3: HINDSIGHT EVALUATION OF WHALE-WATCHING
...
MANAGEMENT IN B.C.3.1 Introduction
...
3.2 Review of Management Regimes...
3.2.1 Regulation Management
...
...
3.2.2 Privatization Management...
3.2.3 Co-Management
3.2.4 Voluntary Compliance-based Management of Whale- watching in Canada
...
3.3 Methods...
...
3 -3.1 Dialogue and Interviews...
3.3.2 Archival Research...
3.3.3 Participant Observation
3.4 History of Whale-watching Development and Management in B.C.
...
3.4.1 Site-Specific Growth and Management...
Johnstone Strait...
...
Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds
...
Southern Vancouver Island
...
3.4.2 Institutional Management InitiativesB.C. Ministry of Tourism Report: A Perspective on Whale-Watching and Tourism in British Columbia
...
University of Victoria 1 Fisheries and Oceans Canada...
Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop
British Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory
...
Council
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Pacific Region)
...
...
Vlll
...
3.4.3 Vessel Monitoring / Education3.4.4 Media Interpretation of Whale-Watching in British
Columbia
...
3.4.5 Research of Whale-Watching Vessel . Cetacean Interaction...
in British Columbia...
3.5 Analysis and Discussion3.5.1 Strengths of Current Whale-Watching Management in B.C. Industry Cooperation
...
...
Self-RegulationA Unified VoiceIForum in Southern Vancouver Island
....
A Foundation for More Effective Management in the...
Future3 S.2 Weaknesses of Current Whale-Watching Management in
...
B.C.Biological Purpose of Guidelines
...
Control of Vessel Behaviour...
3.5.3 Future Prospects for Whale-Watching Management in B.C....
3.6 Conclusions
3.7 References
...
...
3.8 Personal CommunicationsCHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY OF WHALE-WATCHERS IN BRITISH
...
COLUMBIA
...
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Literature Review
...
4.2.1 Human Dimensions in Wildlife Management...
4.2.2 Human Dimensions in Whale-Watching...
4.2.3 Attitude...
...
4.2.4 Motivation...
4.3 -5 Satisfaction...
4.2.6 Specialization...
4.2.7 Education as a Management Tool in Whale-Watching...
4.2.8 Summary...
4.3 Methods...
4.3.1 Site Selection...
4.3.1.1 Johnstone Strait...
4.3.1.2 Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds
4.3.1.3 Southern Vancouver IslandISan Juan Islands. Washington
...
...
4.3.2 Data Collection Instrument
...
4.3.3 Data Collection...
4.3.4 Data Processing and Analysis
4.3.5 Question 1 : Difference Between Whale-Watching Sites
...
4.3.6 Question 2: Difference in Attitude Between Pre- and Post-Trip Groups
...
4.3.7 Question 3: Whale-Watcher Specialization at Different Sites...
4.4 Results
...
4.4.1 Response Rate
...
4.4.2 Question 1: Results by Whale-Watching Site
...
4.4.2.1 Previous Whale-Watching Experience...
4.4.2.2 View Towards Whale Management...
4.4.2.3 General Views on the Environment
...
4.4.2.4 Whale- Watcher Expectations...
...
4.4.2.6 Demographics
4.4.3 Question 2: Difference in Attitude Between Pre- and Post-
...
Trip Groups...
4.4.4 Question 3: Whale-Watcher Specialization...
4.4.5 Summary of Results...
4.5 Discussion...
4.6 Conclusions...
4.7 References...
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS...
APPENDICESxi
LIST OF TABLES
...
Table 2.1 : Estimated growth of global whale-watchingTable 2.2. Type of whale-watching management in whale-watching countries
...
Table 2.3. Minimum approach distances for whale-watching around the world...
Table 2.4. Maximum time restrictions for whale-watching around the world...
Table 2.5: "Research foci" in terrestrial wildlife versus cetacean disturbanceresearch by percentage of total studies examined
...
Table 2.6: "Other inclusions" and type of research in terrestrial wildlife versuscetacean disturbance research by percentage of total studies examined Table 3.1 : Number and types of vessels operating from Tofino and Uclulet, by
year
...
Table 3.2. Soundwatch monitoring of commercial whale-watching vessels...
Table 3.3: DFO Marine Mammal Monitoring Project (M3) monitoring ofcommercial and private whale-watching vessels, 2001
...
...
Table 4.1 : Construction of Specialization Index
...
Table 4.2: Survey completion totalsTable 4.3: Mann-Whitney U-tests of views toward whale management between
...
locations
Table 4.4: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general views on the environment (NEP)
...
between locations
Table 4.5: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general trip expectations between locations
..
Table 4.6: Mann-Whitney U-tests of expectations of the guide between locations Table 4.7. Mann-Whitney U-tests of learning expectations between locations...
Table 4.8. Mann-Whitney U-tests of general trip satisfaction between locations...
Table 4.9. Mann-Whitney U-tests of satisfaction of the guide by location...
Table 4.10. Mann-Whitney U-tests of learning satisfaction between location...
Table 4.1 1 : Mann-Whitney U-tests of demographics for pre- and post-trip groupsxii
Table 4.12: Mann-Whitney U-tests of views toward whale management between
...
pre- and post-trip group 232
Table 4.13: Mann-Whitney U-tests of New Environmental Paradigm between
...
pre- and post trip group 233
...
Table 4.14: Calculation of Specialization Index 235
Table 4.1 5: ANOVA and correlation tests of View Toward Whale Management
...
and NEP Scores by specialization group 237
Table 4.16: ANOVA and correlation tests of Expectation Scores by specialization
group
...
238 Table 4.17: ANOVA and correlation tests of Satisfaction Scores by specialization...
...
X l l l
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Vancouver Island. British Columbia
...
Figure 3.2. Johnstone Strait...
Figure 3.3. Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds...
Figure 3.4. Southern Vancouver Island and San Juan Islands. WA...
Figure 3.5: Maximum and average numbers of whale-watching vessels in HaroStrait (1 998-2001)
...
Figure 3.6. Number of whale-watching companies and vessels. by year...
Figure 3.7. Number of whale-watching passengers per year...
Figure 4.1 : Framework for non-consumptive management of whales...
Figure 4.2: Conceptual framework of non-consumptive wildlife-orientedrecreation and tourism
...
Figure 4.3 : Objectives of ecotourism management strategies...
Figure 4.4. Behavioural model of recreation participation...
Figure 4.5. User specialization and site evolution...
Figure 4.6. Features of an effective education program for tourists...
Figure 4.7. Vancouver Island. British Columbia...
Figure 4.8. Johnstone Straight...
Figure 4.9. Clayoquot and Barkely Sounds...
Figure 4.10. Southern Vancouver Island and San Juan Islands. WA...
Figure 4.1 1 : Experience viewing whales in the wild by location...
Figure 4.12: Previous experience on commercial whale-watching trips by location Figure 4.13. Priority of whale-watching by location...
Figure 4.14. Types of learning media used by location...
Figure 4.15. Views toward whale management by location...
xiv Figure 4.16. General views on the environment (NEP) by location
...
Figure 4.17. General trip expectations by location
...
Figure 4.1 8: Expectations of the guide by location...
...
Figure 4.19: Learning expectations bv location...
Figure 4.20: General trip satisfaction by locationFigure 4.21 : General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove
...
Figure 4.22. General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino...
Figure 4.23. General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria...
...
Figure 4.24: Satisfaction of guide by location
Figure 4.25. Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove
...
...
Figure 4.26: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino
Figure 4.27. Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria
...
...
Figure 4.28: Learning satisfaction by location
Figure 4.29. Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove
....
Figure 4.30. Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino...
Figure 4.3 1 : Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria...
...
Figure 4.32: Country of origin by location
...
Figure 4.33: Gender
...
Figure 4.34: Age groups by location
Figure 4.35. Highest level of education completed by location
...
Figure 4.36. Views toward whale management by pre- and post-trip group...
Figure 4.37. New Environmental Paradigm by pre- and post-trip group...
...
Figure 4.3 8: Specialization groups by location
Figure 4.39: View Toward Whale Management and NEP Scores by specialization group
...
Figure 4.40: Expectation scores by specialization group
.
..
. . . ..
.. .
..
.. .
..
.. . .
. ..
23 8 Figure 4.41 : Satisfaction Scores by specialization group. . .
.
239xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 3.1 : Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee Management
Recommendations
...
Appendix 3.2: Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee Draft...
GuidelinesAppendix 3.3. Johnstone Strait Whale-Watching Guide
...
Appendix 3.4. Tofino Whale Watching Operators' Voluntary Guidelines...
Appendix 3.5: Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Marine Mammal Viewing...
RegulationsAppendix 3.6: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Recommended Guidelines for Marine Wildlife Viewing
...
Appendix 3.7. Whale Watch Operators Northwest Guidebook...
Appendix 3.8. Whale Watch Operators Northwest Courtesy Reminder...
Appendix 3.9. Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Guidelines...
Appendix 3.1 0: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Best Practices...
Guidelines
Appendix 3.1 1 : Management Recommendations by Duffus & Dearden (1 989)
...
Appendix 3.12. Soundwatch Boater Guidelines...
Appendix 3.13. Marine Mammal Monitoring Project Voluntary Guidelines...
Appendix 3.14. Draft of Harmonized Guidelines...
Appendix 4.1 : Before Whale-watching Trip Questionnaire...
Appendix 4.2. Post Whale-watching Questionnaire...
Appendix 4.3. Information Letter for Questionnaire Participants...
Appendix 4.4 Questions From the Surveys Used in this Study...
xvii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are numerous people I would like to thank for contributing to the successful completion of this dissertation.
The following people provided me with official, updated or otherwise unavailable local whale-watching guidelines: Simon Berrow (Ireland), Rochelle Constantine (New Zealand), Sara Magalhaes (Portugal), Joel Ortega-Ortiz (Mexico), Lindsay Porter (Hong Kong), Andrea Ramalho (Tonga), Fabian Ritter and Erika Urquiola (Canary Islands), Jesuina M. de Rocha (Brazil), Tiu Simila (Norway), and Mariano Sironi (Argentina).
At the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ed Lochbaum was instrumental in realising my idea of a British Columbia provincial marine mammal viewing workshop in 1998. Marilyn Joyce, upon replacing Ed, was always willing to discuss whale-watching issues and provided me with information before public release. At Parks Canada, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Wendy Szaniszlo and Bob Hansen always included me in workshops, meetings, and kept me up to date with developments in Clayoquot Sound.
I would not have been able to write the history of whale-watching development in British Columbia without the willing participation of Jim Borrowman, Jamie Bray, Dan Kukat, Rich Osborne, Rod Palm, Alex Rhodes, and Don Travers. Thank you to the Whale-watch Operators Association Northwest, Dan Kukat, President, for allowing me access to Association documents. Kari Koski, Soundwatch, and Lisa Fairley, Marine Mammal Monitoring Project, provided me with early access to vessel monitoring data.
For the human dimensions portion of this dissertation, Rick Rollins provided much appreciated direction in questionnaire development and data analysis. Volunteer
xviii participation by three whale-watching companies was essential for this project: at Stubbs Island Charters in Telegraph Cove, owner Jim Borrowman, head naturalist Jackie Hildering, and former naturalist Nik Dedaluk; at Jamie's Whaling Station in Tofino, owner Jamie Bray and former naturalist Jen Jackson; at Springtide Charters in Victoria, owner Dan Kukat and former head naturalist Chelsea Garside. Data entry for this project was done by University of Victoria student volunteers Leah Gabriel, Chelsea Garside, and Kim Pearce.
Informal discussions with many people (accompanied by too many beers, rye & gingers, whiskeys and margaritas to count) over ten years during the 1990's provided me with the ideas that framed this dissertation: Robin Baird, Anna Bass, Jim Borrowman, Carole Carson, Yolanda Clegg, Vic Cockroft, Rochelle Constantine, Pete Corkeron, Dave Duffus, Graeme Ellis, John Ford, Chelsea Garside, Catherine Giroul, Anna Hall, Kari Koski, Dan Kukat, John Lien, Ed Lochbaum, Sonya Meier, Nadia Menard, Rich Osborne, Mark Packenham, Heather Patterson, Lindsay Porter, Anne Sheridan, Wendy Szaniszlo, Christina Tombach, Kevin Walker, Pam Willis, Steve Wishniowski, and numerous whale-watch naturalists, drivers and operators. If I have forgotten anyone, I apologise.
Thank you to my committee, for patience, direction, and invaluable comments on early drafts of the dissertation: Dave Duffus, Phil Dearden, Rick Rollins, Ted McDorrnan and Don Eastman; Peter Ricketts, who acted as my external examiner, also provided constructive critique and suggestions.
Thanks also to the Department of Geography and Faculty of Science at Brandon University, for patience and light-hearted badgering.
xix Several fluffy characters kept me company during writing in various places: May and Naboo (felis catus) in Victoria, and later Brandon, and Bailey, Ciaran & Darcy (canis familiaris) in Sechelt, who provided comforting, fiiendly (and slightly distracting)
presences while I worked.
This dissertation was undertaken during a difficult time in my life. I would like to thank Dave Duffus, Jason Dunham, Patricia Edmonds, George Floyd, Lindsay Johnston, Brian Kopach, Dan Kukat, Chelsea Garside, Sonya Meier, Heather Patterson, Sandy Peacock, Wendy Szaniszlo, Christina Tombach, Michelle Theberge, and Jackie Trump for emotional support, friendship, and often a place to sleep and work. I would particularly like to thank my parents, Marjorie Anne and Tim, who gave me a place to live and work in their home; words are not enough.
Finally, I thank my wife, Patricia, who inspires me as a quiet source of confidence, encouragement, humour, and understanding.
CHAPTER 1
:
INTRODUCTION
1.1 ECOTOURISM AND WHALE-WATCHING
Although whale-watching has existed as a commercial enterprise since the 1960 s, when operators based in San Diego, California, began taking tourists to see gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), its popularity as a recreational activity did not begin to surge until the late 1980 s. During the 1990s commercial whale-watching grew into a global phenomenon (cJ: Hoyt 2001). It has been a main contributor in establishing marine tourism as the largest growth sector in global tourism, the world s largest industry (Hall 2001). In some locations whale-watching has been the catalyst for the establishment and rapid development of tourism industries (IFAW 1999, Hoyt 2001). The proliferation of commercial whale-watching operations around the world has offered the opportunity for millions of people to experience viewing cetaceans in their natural habitat. This increase in popularity of whale-watching is part of a wider growth in popularity of recreation activities focussed on nature, often referred to as ecotourism.
The myriad of ecotourism activities available to the public has created an academic niche focussed on defining the nature of ecotourism and examining the ecological and sociological effects of increased numbers of humans venturing into natural environments. Ecotourism can be generally defined as nature-oriented activities with the express purpose of creating minimal negative ecological impact while experiencing social benefits. Academic definitions frequently stress conservation, education and local economic benefits as the hallmarks of ecotourism (Ceballos-Lascur in 1996, Lindberg & Hawkins 1993, Orams 1995, Rye1 & Grasse 1991).
The growth in ecotourism activities and participants has led to concerns and questions regarding the environmental, economic and cultural sustainability of ecotourism (Boo 1990, Duffus & Dearden 1990, Knight & Gutzwiller 1995, Orams 2002, Roe et al. 1997). For example, researchers have reported negative environmental impacts (Data & Pal 1993, Higham 1998, Knight & Cole 1995, Lott & McCoy 1990), local economic shortfalls (Young 1999) and regional cultural effects (Roe et al. 1997). Controversy is evident, however, as some researchers have reported variable results or been unable to document long-term negative environmental impacts, (Creel et al. 2002, Gill et al. 2001, Hurlbert 1990, Skagen et al. 2001), while others are advocates of the economic, social and environmental benefits of ecotourism (Forestell 1993, G ssling 1999, Muloin 1998, Orams 2002).
Compared to ecotourism activities such as bird-watching or trekking, whale- watching has received less research attention until recently. Quantitative research has mainly focussed on economic benefits, which are well understood (Hoyt 1992, 1995, 2001), and human dimensions of whale-watchers (Amante-Helweg 1995, Finkler 2001, Giroul et al. 2001, Russell & Hodson 2002). The economic benefits of whale-watching are well-understood. Social science investigations have documented the enjoyment whale-watchers experience but have not yet provided evidence of an educational benefit to the activity. While there is a growing body of research on ecological impacts (Bass 2000, Erbe 2002, Richter 2002, Williams et al. 2002), results are variable. The current state of knowledge regarding the nature, benefits and detriments of whale-watching are perhaps due to the young nature of the activity on a global scale and the inherent
difficulties of ocean-based research. Nevertheless, there is concern regarding the environmental sustainability and social benefits of whale-watching.
This dissertation explores the underlying nature of whale-watching, its management basis and several applied research questions. These questions developed during ten years I spent with whales as ecological researcher (Malcolm 1997, Malcolm & Duffus 2000), management participant (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999), and whale-watch vessel operator and naturalist. During this time (1993 to 2003), while whale-watching was growing exponentially around the world, serious questions were being asked about human use of captive wild animals. Zoos have had to change their primary fimction from display to genetic banking and breeding, aimed at wild population conservation, with public viewing maintained as research fund-raising .and hopefully a public education tool (Hansen 2002, Rothfels 2002, Wharten 1995). The maintenance of captive cetaceans, in particular, has become a public controversy, fuelled by the rehabilitation and reintroduction of Keiko, star of the Disney film Free Willy, to the wild. Although pressure to change human practices regarding treatment of wild animals may come from a small but vocal portion of the public, the issues have been made available to the public at large through the media (The Economist 1998, Ottawa Citizen 1997, Vancouver Sun 1993).
Now whale-watching, referred to in this dissertation as the viewing of wild whales from commercially-operated vessels, is falling under similar scrutiny. Commercial whale-watching is portrayed as a vehicle for conservation (Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2002). However, scientific understanding of vessel- cetacean interactions, potential impacts and consequent management needs has lagged
behind the quick establishment and growth of whale-watching industries in virtually every whale-watching location in the world. As a result, under pressure, managers scramble to institute whale-watching protocols without sufficient knowledge. Perhaps due to the crisis-reaction nature of whale-watching management, there has been little examination of the nature of whale-watching management from a holistic scientific and historical perspective. Recently, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) have provided forums for discussion of scientific, socio-economic and educational aspects of whale-watching management (IFAW 1999, IFAW et al. 1996, 1997, IWC 2000, 2001a,b, 2002). These forums have identified general concerns regarding industry growth, whale-watching regulations and the need for improved science in whale-watching management, although they provide limited specific and readily applicable management recommendations. These workshops, however, along with compendiums of whale-watching economics (Hoyt 2002) and guidelines / regulations (Carlson 2001), indicate a desire to address whale-watching issues on a global scale.
Future workshops, discussion and research would benefit from a fundamental holistic understanding of whale-watching. The goal of this dissertation is therefore to consolidate and advance knowledge regarding the historical development, current management and future prospects of whale-watching in order to make a comprehensive
series of statements regarding the nature of the activity; these statements are intended to guide research and management. These statements are made in the conclusion of this dissertation, based on the following questions:
What is the current general character of whale-watching?
What mechanisms have been, and are being, used to manage the activity on global and regional scales?
What techniques are available for managing the activity given its nature and our state of knowledge?
Can we currently classify whale-watching as ecotourism or is whale-watching simply an economic exploitation of nature?
These four questions form a basis to answer the primary research question in this dissertation:
Is there a foundation for whale-watching that can encourage sustainable management of cetacean populations?
I have chosen three distinct research projects to explore the above questions. Each project, described below, addresses whale-watching from a management-oriented perspective.
1.2 OUTLINE OF DISSERTATION
This dissertation examines three separate, yet related aspects regarding the management basis for whale-watching. Each chapter can therefore stand alone as a research study. Chapters 2 and 3 take a step back to examine the basis of established whale-watching protocols, scientifically and historically, in order to identify fundamental elements of whale-watching management that require consideration for sustainable whale-watching. Chapter 2 gives the international context and Chapter 3 the context within British Columbia. Chapter 4 is a questionnaire-based human dimensions study that examines social science can contribute to whale-watching management.
The first part of Chapter 2 documents the current state of whale-watching management on a global scale. Although there have been numerous calls for scientifically-based whale-watching management (IFAW et al, 1995, Duffus & Dearden 1990, Duffus & Baird 1995, Richter 2002), it appears that current whale-watching practices are ad-hoc combinations of proximity, time, approach and number of vessel restrictions. In this chapter global whale-watching practices are compiled and examined for bases upon which these guidelines and regulations have been established. The question asked is: are there any consistencies or trends in global whale-watching practices?
The second portion of Chapter 2 examines current cetacean-human interaction research. In the face of increasing pressure to avoid negative environmental impact upon cetacean populations, managers need scientific direction from cetacean researchers. There may be numerous reasons why there is a currently a lack of scientific knowledge for managers to consult, one of which may be that there is no impact. However, terrestrial human-wildlife research has demonstrated that negative ecological impact can occur from ecotourism. As a young branch of scientific enquiry, human-cetacean interaction research should look to established research for guidance. In this section of Chapter 2 terrestrial human-wildlife interaction research is compared to human-cetacean interaction research to examine whether whale-watching researchers use established research and whether there is more that could be transferred.
Chapter 3 examines the development of whale-watching management in British Columbia. First, the history of whale-watching and the corresponding development of management in the three main whale-watching locations in B.C. is documented. Second,
this history is used as data to critically analyse the direction along which whale-watching management developed in B.C. and identify the strengths and weaknesses of current B.C. whale-watching management. This historical management aspect includes participant observation in the whale-watching industry and management processes. The issue of cetaceans as commons resources and the requirement to develop management based on commons resource theory is used as the basis upon which critique whale-watching management in B .C.
Chapter 4 explores the utility of human dimensions as a management tool for whale-watching through a case study of B.C. whale-watchers. While there have been numerous studies that have documented demographics, perceptions, attitudes and satisfaction of whale-watchers (Amante-Helweg 1996, Duffus 1988, Finkler 2001, Giroul
et al. 2000, Wilson 2001), few of the results provide information for management action. The study presented in Chapter 4 surveyed whale-watchers before and after their trips and collected data to:
1
.
Compare whale-watchers' expectations to satisfactions, allowing for identification not only of what elements were satisfactory and unsatisfactory, but whether the elements are important or not in the first place,2. Examine whether whale-watching trips can change whale-watchers' views towards specific cetacean management issues and general resource management concepts, and
3 . Classify whale-watchers in B.C. using specialization theory, to analyse whether managers need to be cognisant of site-specific whale-watcher characteristics during management development.
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 each examine an element of the basis for whale-watching management not previously presented. Although each chapter is a separate research project in itself, the conclusions are all integral to determine whether whale-watching management has been established in such a way as to promote sustainable whale populations. The final chapter of this dissertation, Chapter 6, is therefore a summarizing discussion of the material presented in the previous three chapters, and addresses the questions posed in this introduction.
1.3 REFERENCES
Amante-Helweg, V. 1996. Ecotourist s beliefs and knowledge about dolphins and the development of cetacean tourism. Aquatic Mammals. 22(2): 13 1
-
140.Bass, J. 2000. Variations in gray whale feeding behaviour in thepresence of whale- watching vessels in Clayoquot Sound, 1993-1995. Ph.D. Dissertation, Whale Research Lab, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: the potentials andpitfalls. World Wide Fund for Nature,
Washington, D.C.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996. Introduction. In Ecotourism: a guide forplanners and managers, K. Lindberg, M . Epler Wood and D. Engeldrum (Eds.). The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.
Creel, S., J.E. Fox, A. Hardy, J. Sands, B. Garrott, and R.O. Peterson 2002. Snowmobile activity and glutocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology 16(3):809-814.
Datta, T. and B.C. Pal 1993. The effect of human interference on the nesting of the openbill stork Anastomus oscitans at the Raiganj Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Biological Conservation 64: 149- 154.Higham 1998
Duffus, D.A. 1988. The non-consumptive use and management of cetaceana in British Columbia coastal waters. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Duffus, D.A. and R.W. Baird. 1995. Killer whales, whalewatching and management: a status report. Whalewatcher. FalVWinter: 14-1 6.
Duffus, D. A. and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework. Biological Conservation. 53:213-23 1.
The Economist, 1998. From zoo cage to modern ark. 348(8076):81-83.
Erbe, C. 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science 18(2):394-418.
Finkler, W. 2001. The experiential impact of whale-watching: implications for
management in the case of the San Juan Islands, USA. MSc Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Forestell, P. H. 1993. If Leviathan has a face, does Gaia have a soul?: incorporating environmental education in marine eco-tourism programs. Ocean & Coastal Management. 20: 267-282.
Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland 2001. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by b;ack-tailed godwits Limosa limosa. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:846-856. Giroul, C., G. Ouellet and R. Soubrier. 2000. Etude des attentes et de la satisfactions de
la clientele des croisieres awc baleines dans le secteur du pare marine du Saguenay-Saint-Laurent. Departement des Sciences du Loisir et de la Communication Sociale, University du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres.
G ssling, S. 1999. Human-environmental relations with tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2):539-556.
Hall, C.M. 2001. Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean & Coastal Management 44:601-618.
Hansen, E. 2002. Animal attractions: nature on display in american zoos. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Hoyt, E. 2001. Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic beneJits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA.
Hoyt, E. 1992. Whale watching around the world: a report on its value, extent and prospects. International Whale Bulletin, 7: 1-8.
Hoyt, E. 1995. The world-wide value and extent of whale watching: 1995. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Bath, UK.
Hurlbert, I.A.R. 1990. The response of ruddy shelduck Tadorna ferruginea to tourist activity in the Royal Chitwan National park of Nepal. Biological Conservation 52:113-123.
International Fund for Animal Welfare 1999. Report of the workshop on the socio- economic aspects of whale watching, Kaikoura, NZ.. IFAW, Oxford, UK. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tethys Research Institute and Europe
Conservation. 1996. Report of the Workshop on the Scientzjic Aspects of
Managing Whale Watching, Montecastello di Vibio, Italy, 30"
s arch-4"
April, 1995. IFAW, Oxford, UK.International Fund for Animal Welfare, World Wildlife Fund and Whale and Dolphin Conservtion Society 1997. Report of the International Workshop on the
Educational Values of Whalewatching, Provincetown, MA. IFAW, Oxford, UK. International Whaling Commission 2000. Annex J: Report of the sub-committee on
whale-watching. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(suppl): 265- 271.
International Whaling Commission 2001a. Annex M: Report of the sub-committee on whale-watching. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3(suppl): 297- 307.
International Whaling Commission 2001b. Annex N: Report of workshop on assessing the long-term effects of whale-watching on cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3 (suppl): 3 08-3 1 5.
International Whaling Commission 2002. Annex L: Report of the sub-committee on whale-watching. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4(suppl): 339- 360.
Kellert, 1999. American perceptions of marine mammals and their management. The Humane Society of the United States, Washington D.C.
Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole 1995. Wildlife responses to recreatiionists. In Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA: 5 1-70
Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.) 1995. Wildlge and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Lindberg, K. and D.E. Hawkins. 1993. Ecotourism: a guide forplanners and managers, Volume 1. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.
Lott D.F. and M. McCoy 1990. Asian rhinos Rhinoceros unicornis on the run? Impact of tourist visits on one population. Biological Conservation 73:23-26.
Malcolm, C.D. 1997. Micro-scale spatial behaviouv of a foraging grey whale
(Eschrichtius robustus) in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada. M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.
Malcolm, C.D. and D.A. Duffus 2000. Comparison of subjective and statistical methods of dive classification using data from a time-depth recorder attached to a gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(3):2000
Malcolm, C. and E. Lochbaum 1999. Human /marine mammal interaction workshop proceedings, University of Victoria, April 13- 15. Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.
Muloin, S. 1998. Wildlife tourism; the psychological benefits of whale-watching. Paczjk Tourism Review. 2(3/4): 199-2 13.
Orams, M.B. 1995. Towards a more desirable form of tourism. Tourism Management. 1613-8.
Orams, M.B. 2002. Marine tourism as a potential agent for sustainabale development in Kaikoura, New Zealand. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 5(4). Ottawa Citizen, 1997. Send that tigerpacking: The modern zoo comes out from behind
bars. Sept. 12: M12
Richter, C. 2002. Sperm whales at Kaikoura and the effects of whale-watching on their surface and vocal behaviour. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ.
Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams, and B. Dalal-Clayton 1997. Take onlyphotographs, leave only footprints: the environmental impacts of wildlife ecotourism. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Rothfels, N. 2002. Savage and beasts: the birth of the modem zoo. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Russell, C.L. and D. Hodson 2002. Whale-watching as critical science education? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 2(4):485- 504.
Ryel, R. and T. Grasse. 1991. Marketing ecotourism: attracting the elusive ecotourist. In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, T . Whelan (ed.). Island Press, Covelo, CA. pp. 164-1 86.
Skagen, S.K., C.P. Melcher, and E. Muths 2001. The interplay of habitat change, human disturbance and species interactions in a waterbird colony. American Midland Naturalist 145: 18-28.
Vancouver Sun, 1993. Bidding adieu to the zoo we knew: Wildlife interpretive centre planned. Nov. 8: A9.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2003. Best Practices Guidelines
-
2003. http://www.nwwhalewatchers.org/guidelines.html.Williams, R., A.W. Trites and D.E. Bain. 2002a. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and
experimental approaches. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 256:255- 270.
Wilson, J.M. 2001. Sustainable management of ecotourism: whale-watching in ToJino, British Columbia; a case study. M A Thesis, Whale Research Lab, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Young, E.H. 1999. Balancing conservation with development of small-scale fisheries: is ecotourism an empty promise? Human Ecology 27:58 1-620.
CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL STATE OF WHALE-WATCHING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The growth, economic revenue, and participation in whale-watching has been well documented since 1991. Hoyt (2001) reports participation and revenues of global whale-watching in 1998, tracing its growth through two previous studies of the same aspects in 1991 and 1994 (Hoyt 1992, 1995). In this most recent global compendium, over 9 million people went whale-watching in 87 countries and produced an estimated US$1.05 billion in total revenues (including travel, hotel food, souvenirs). These numbers represent 12.1 % passenger and 18.6% revenue increases per year since 199 1 (Table 2.1). In 1998 commercial whale-watching occurred in 492 communities around the world (Hoyt 1995,2001).
Table 2.1 : Estimated growth of global whale-watching.
2001
*
I
1
10.1 million1
1,253 (total)Year 1991 1994 1998
*
author's estimate at time of printing; increase calculated at 50% of average passenger and revenue rates given above (Hoyt 2001).No. of countries 3 1 65 8 7 No. of Whale- watchers 4 million 5.4 million > 9 million Revenue (million $US) 77 (direct) 3 17 (total) 122.4 (direct) 504.3 (total) 299.5 (direct) 1, 049 (total)
Hoyt (1991, 1995, 2001) documented two benefit streams from the growth of whale-watching: recreation and economic. There are three other key elements of whale- watching however, that remain problematic: education, management, and disturbance research. Education of whale-watchers in marine conservation issues is often assumed to be a positive benefit and therefore a marketing strategy for whale-watching (e.g. Carlson
1996, Forestell 1993, Hoyt 1998 in Finkler 2001, IFAW 1997). However, this benefit has yet to be documented through empirical research. This issue is discussed at length in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.
The second and third of these problems are addressed in this chapter. Management of whale-watching activities is extremely variable in form fi-om one location to another, and often lacks a scientific basis. This variability is examined here in detail on a global scale, focussing on the two most common regulation tools: minimum approach distance to whales and maximum time allotted with whales. The most critical issue regarding whale-watching at present concerns potential negative impact upon cetacean populations from the presence of whale-watching vessels. The issue is unclear and is hampered by weak, inconsistent research that is not linked to biological theory. Terrestrial wildlife disturbance research has existed since the beginnings of industrial wildlife tourism in the late 1960's and 1970's (Boyle & Samson 1985). A sample of wildlife disturbance research is compared to cetacean disturbance research to compare and contrast research goals and designs, results and conclusions.
The purpose of this analysis is to: 1) identify whether there are any common trends among whale-watching management schemes around the world and the bases upon which they have been established, and 2) identify whether terrestrial wildlife disturbance
research possesses attributes that could inform and direct cetacean disturbance research.
2.2 MANAGEMENT OF WHALE-WATCHING ACTIVITIES
Whale-watching management practices around the world are variable. Protocols, where they exist, range from federal or statelprovincial legislation, to federal or statelprovincial guidelines, to codes of conduct developed by local whale-watch operators, NGO's or local researchers. The most common means of control is minimum distance of approach to focal animal(s), coupled in some cases with proximity time restrictions. Minimum distances and maximum time applied to whale-watching activities around the world are variable as well.
While there is an understanding that whale-watching protocols are far from comprehensive world-wide (IFAW et al. 1995), a detailed examination of the discrepancies did not exist before this study. This section presents: 1) a compilation and comparison of whale-watch protocols throughout the world, focussing on minimum distances and maximum viewing periods, and 2) an examination of whether there are any correlations between socio-economic and biological aspects of whale-watching activities and the guidelines or regulations that have (or have not) been established.
2.2.1 Data Collection and Analysis
The data compiled by Hoyt (2001) were used for each country in which whale- watching occurred in 2000. These consist of numbers of whale-watchers in 1991 and 1998, the year whale-watching started, and species watched. For each country, the
number of years whale-watching has occurred and the increase in number of whale- watchers between 1991 and 1998 was calculated. Species watched were classed either as "large whales", incorporating all baleen whales as well as sperm whales, or "dolphins." "Large whales" were classified as "feeding", "breeding" or "migrating", according to their main activity in the area.
Data pertaining to guidelines and regulations were gathered primarily from Carlson (2001), but also from the following: 1) protocols listed on government websites, 2) guidelines listed on whale-watching company websites, and 3) local guidelines collected from whale-watching companies and researchers via the Marine Mammal Discussion List (MARMAM), email and personal contact. Minimum distances were separated into "caution areas", where restricted vessel operation, such as slower speeds, is permitted, and "absolute minimum distance", where vessels must stop. Protocols for whale-watching activities in each country listed by Hoyt (2001) were classified as "regulations", "guidelines", or "nothing".
Chi-square statistics, which test for correlation between groups of nominal, ordinal or non-parametric interval data, were used to test for relationships between:
1. . . 11.
. .
. 111. iv. v. vi.number of whale-watchers (1 998) versus type of whale-watching protocol increase in number of whale-watchers between 199 1 and 1998 versus type of protocol
years whale-watching has existed versus type of protocol number of whale-watchers versus "absolute minimum distance"
main type of species watched ("large whales", "dolphins" or "both") versus "absolute minimum distance"
As dolphins tend to be year-round residents, this group could not be classified by dominant activity, making it impossible to test dolphins versus absolute minimum distance. Protocols pertaining to calves were not tested due to the small number of instances where absolute minimum distances are stated for calves (n=6).
2.2.2 Results and Discussion
Table 2.2 lists the countries and overseas territories in which whale-watching occurs (Hoyt 2001), classified according to type of whale-watching management. Sixty- one percent of countries where whale-watching occurs do not, or apparently do not, operate under an established operating protocol, indicating that development of whale- watching in these areas has occurred, or is occurring, at a faster rate than management. Alternatively, directed whale-watching management may not be planned in the future. In many of these areas whale-watching activities remain small in size, some with only one or two vessels. Of countries with whale-watching industries greater than 10,000 whale- watchers per year, 35% have legislated whale-watching rules, 39% have unlegislated guidelines established by governmental agencies, NG07s or local researchers, and 27% have no whale-watching protocols. There are three countries where both legislated regulations and unlegislated guidelines exist. In the United States, the National Marine Fisheries Service has developed whale-watching guidelines for each of its jurisdictions. In addition, legislated whale-watching rules for specific species exist in Alaska and Hawaii for humpback whales, and New England for north Atlantic right whales. In the Dominican Republic, legislation exists in the Silver Bank Sanctuary, while unlegislated
Table 2.2: Type of whale-watching management protocol Regulations Argentina Azores (Sp.) Brazil Canary Islands (Sp.) Mexico New Zealand Puerto Rico (US)
South AfXca St. Lucia Guidelines Australia /' Bahamas Belize
British Virgin Islands (UK) Canada
**
Chile Colombia Dominica Domincan Republic* Franceialapagos Islands (Ecuador Guadaloupe Hong Kong Ireland Iceland Japan Madagascar
**
Norway Oman Portugal Tanzania Tonga Turcs and CaicosUnited Kingdom United StatesM
** In process of drafting regulations
A Guidelines at federal level. r e d a t i o n s at state level
Nothing / No Information Located
Antarctica Bermuda Bonaire China Costa Rica Croatia Cyprus Egypt Eritrea Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands Fiji French Polynesia Gambia Germany Gibralter Greece Greenland Grenada Guam Honduras India Indonesia Italy Kenya Maldives Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Micronesia Midway Monaco Mozambique Namibia Nepal New Caledonia Niue Panama Peru Philippines Russia Senegal Solomon Is Sri Lanka St. Kitts & Nevis St. Vincent & Grenadines
Taiwan
**
ThailandTurkey US Virgin Islands
, u
Natinal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines for each area of jurisdiction, regulations in AK, HI for
guidelines refer to coastal whale-watching. In Australia, whale-watching is legislated on a state-by-state basis, while guidelines also exist on a federal level.
The development and type of whale-watching protocols is related to the socio- economic characteristics of whale-watching in each location. There is a relationship between number of whale-watchers and the type of regulation that exists (x2=24.649, df54, p<0.000); countries with more-whale-watchers tend to have more developed protocols (i.e. regulations rather than guidelines). Increase in number of whale-watchers from 1991 to 1998 is also associated with type of protocol (x2= 22.598, d g 6 , p=0.001). For the most part, locations with high increases of whale-watchers during the 1990's have more developed regulatory frameworks. Lastly, the number of years whale-watching has occurred in a country is correlated with the type of regulation in effect (X2=12.862, d 6 6 , p=0.045), although the relationship is weaker than number of, and increase in number of, whale-watchers. There are several locations, such as Bermuda, Peru, Gibraltar and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, where whale-watching has occurred for 10 to 20 years, yet no protocols for whale-watching exist. However, these locations have relatively few whale-watchers per year. These three results indicate that numbers of whale-watchers are more important in development of whale-watching protocols than the length of time local whale-watching industries have existed.
The presence and development of regulations is therefore related to the number of whale-watchers, increase in whale-watching during the 1990's, and to a lesser degree, the number of years whale-watching has existed. However, it is unclear at present whether legislation is a superior control mechanism than unlegislated guidelines. The logistical difficulties of enforcement allow for non-compliance with both laws and guidelines. It is
apparent that this occurs both in areas with legislated whale-watching protocols (Constantine 1999, Allen & Harcourt 2001, Rivarola et al. 2001) and unlegislated guidelines (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999, Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park 1997, Wiley 1995).
The existence of whale-watching operating protocols, legislated or unlegislated, indicates a recognition that whale-watching requires management of its activities in a particular area. However, there is also variability in the restrictions on whale-watching activities around the world.
Table 2.3 classifies minimum approach distances for whale-watching vessels. Blue text represents "caution areas," where vessels are allowed movement and approach towards cetaceans in a restricted manner. Restrictions for the most part designate "no wake" speed (e.g. 5 knots) but also include angle of approach to animals (e.g. no approach from ahead of the animal(s)). Red text indicates "absolute minimum approach distance" to cetaceans. Text in bold designates a legislated regulation. For the sake of clarity, metres and yards are treated as equal. In cases where local guidelines repeat federal guidelines, local guidelines are omitted. In cases where local guidelines differ from federal guidelines the local area is given in parentheses following the name of the country. Specialized protocols (e.g. for calves or large versus small vessels) are given where they exist.
The most common absolute minimum distance given is 100 metres (n=12), followed by 50 metres (n=ll); when identified, greater absolute minimum distances are imposed for cows with calves (n=6). However, absolute minimum distances are extremely variable. Absolute minimum viewing distances range from 300 metres
(Chile, Madagascar) to 30 metres (Mexico, Norway, and NMFS NE jurisdiction, U.S.A.), a tenfold difference. Minimum distances for swimmers with cetaceans also range from 300 metres (Queensland, Australia) to 30 metres (Australian federal policy, Columbia, and Tonga). Minimum distances for cows with calves range from 400 metres (Madagascar) to 100 metres (Azores). Further, some locations strictly forbid any approach to calves (e.g. Argentina and Australia (federal policy)), while others forbid approach when calves are alone (e.g. Galapagos Islands, Guadaloupe), and some instruct to avoid placement of vessel between a mother and calf (e.g. British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong). Most locations do not specify protocols for calves in particular ( c j Carlson 2001).
Statistical tests were performed to determine whether there are any correlations between approach distances and number of whale-watchers, main type of species watched and large whale dominant activity. For these tests only locations with legislated regulations or unlegislated guidelines that state explicit absolute minimum approach distances were included (n=25). On the assumption that greater numbers of whale- watchers indicates a greater incursion into cetacean habitat, and therefore an increased possibility of negative impact, a chi-square statistic was calculated between number of whale-watchers and absolute minimum distance (X2=7.716, d e 8 , p=0.462). The lack of relationship between number of whale-watchers and absolute minimum distance indicates that whale-watching pressure is not a factor in the restrictions imposed by regulations or guidelines. For example, more whale-watchers per year does not translate into greater minimum viewing distances.
On the assumption that the ecological aspects of the focal cetaceans should be a factor in whale-watching protocols, two tests were performed to examine whether the
species watched and their dominant activities were related to absolute distance restrictions. There is no relationship between the main type of species watched (i.e. "large whales", "dolphins", or "both) and absolute minimum distance (x2=7.489, dfi8, p=0.485), or large whale dominant activity (i.e. feeding, breeding, or migrating) and absolute minimum distance (x2=2.390, df-6, p=O.881). The lack of correlation in the first tests indicates that there may be little consideration given to the difference between large whales and dolphins, which display extremely different behaviours, in the establishment of minimum distances for whale-watching. Only four locations (Australia (federal), New Zealand, Oman, and U.S.A. (NMFS SE)) state separate protocol for dolphins. In each case the distance given is less than that for large whales. The second test reveals that the dominant activity by large whales in the viewing area may not be factor in establishment of minimum distances either.
Some locations also state minimum time restrictions while in proximity to cetaceans, although much less often than minimum distance restrictions (Table 2.4). Legislated regulations are indicated by bold text. There are not enough time restriction guidelines on which to perform statistical tests. Thirty minutes is the most common time restriction, however there is variability. In Canada, time restrictions include one hour in Southern Vancouver Island (stated as 113 of trip time, which is usually three hours), thirty minutes in Johnstone Strait and fifteen minutes in Clayoquot Sound.
When coupled with minimum distance restrictions, the variability in global whale-watching protocols is particularly evident. For example, while Madagascar, Puerto Rico and Mexico all limit proximate viewing time to thirty minutes, Madagascar's
Table 2.4: Maximum time restrictions for whale-watching around the world 1 hour U.S.A. (San Juan 1s)lCanada): stated as 113 of trip; avg. trip = 3 hrs; local guidelines 30 minutes Azores Canada (Bay of Fundy): local guidelines Canada (Johnstone Strait): nultiple vessels within 100-20 m; local guidelines Chile lominican Republic (legislate in Silver Bank Sanctuary)
Madagascar Mexico Puerto
Rico South Africa: total viewing time
*
St. Lucia Tanzania U.S.A. (NMFS SE): unless yo are sure you are not disturbin: the animal Less than 30 minutes 20 minutes Canada (Johnstone Strait): single vessel within 200-300 Dominica: dolphins m; local guidelinest
South Africa: @ 50 m 15 minutes Canada (Tofino): @ 50 m ; local guidelines United Kingdom: Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society U.S.A. (NMFS NE): when other vessels waiting for close approach U.S.A. (Kenai Fjords, Alaska): multiple vessels; local guidelines -L I L : individual whales may only be approached 2 times per day with minimum 2 hours between approachminimum distance is 300 metres, Puerto Rico's, 100 metres, and Mexico's, 30 metres. All three locations are primarily viewing large whales on breeding grounds. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) South East, U.S.A., leaves the issue of time restriction to the discretion of the observer, stating a time period of 30 minutes, unless "you are absolutely sure that you are not causing disturbance or any changes in behavior" (NMFS 2003). This assumes that viewers can identify behaviour that indicates harassment.
This analysis illustrates variability in global whale-watching management protocols. It also suggests that the type of management (legislated, unlegislated, or none at all) is related to the size and scale of increase of the whale-watching industry during the 1990's, as well as the number of years whale-watching has existed in a particular area. However, in areas where whale-watching protocols exist, whether legislated or unlegislated, absolute approach distances within management schemes possess little relation to the size of the whale-watching industry or type and dominant behaviour of whales in the area. Therefore, whale-watching protocols, which are ultimately meant to protect whales, seem to be more related to the industry's historical and size characteristics than to ecological aspects of cetaceans tested here.
The variability in absolute minimum distances and time restrictions is likely linked to scientific uncertainty with respect to potential impacts of whale-watching on cetaceans. There is no rationale supplied in any whale-watching protocol that restrictions such as 100 metres or 30 minutes represent measures of biological significance to any cetacean species. Presently, the minutiae of distance and time restrictions primarily exist as ad-hoc establishments, perhaps based on precedent (e.g. 100 metres), or personal bias of the manager(s), which may or may not emanate from an ecological perspective.
Particular cases, such as the NMFS NE legislated 500 metre minimum distance to north Atlantic right whales, and the Canadian 400 metre restriction for St. Lawrence beluga whales, have been developed to protect endangered populations. However, these restrictions are also arbitrary, possessing no scientific basis.
It is likely that temporal and spatial determinants of behaviour and individual variability of cetaceans will make it difficult to create comprehensive distance and time restrictions. Minimum distances and maximum viewing periods may be defended as "precautionary" measures against short- or long-term negative impact, however, there is little consistent scientific evidence that the presence of a vessel at 300 metres has any more or less negative biological impact upon a cetacean than at 30 metres (but see Erbe (2002) for a theoretical modelling exercise of potential acoustic impact on killer whales); observed behaviour alterations such as heading changes, group cohesiodseparation, or increased swimming speed have not been linked to long-term fitness. Additionally, while some studies report behavioural changes in the presence of whale-watching vessels, variability in the data has often confounded demonstration of consequent negative impact (e.g. Bass 2000, Richter 2002). Therefore, existing distance and time restrictions are in reality pseudo-precautionary, as there is no evidence that they in fact constitute precautionary measures.
For whale-watching protocols to be an effective tool to mitigate potential negative biological impacts, they must be based on ecological understanding of focal cetaceans. Since the establishment of scientifically-based cetacean viewing regulations is so inherently difficult at present, where may managers look for management strategies to effectively regulate whale-watching? Answers will likely not be immediate, however, the
