Man Got Tet Al 2011 Management Challenges

7/29/2019 Man Got Tet Al 2011 Management Challenges

1/14

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [James Cook University]

On: 20 January 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 930813978]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of EcotourismPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297788

Attraction of dwarf minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata to vesselsand swimmers in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area - themanagement challenges of an inquisitive whaleArnold Hubert Mangotta; Robert Alastair Birtlesb; Helene Marshaa School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia b Schoolof Business/Tourism, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Online publication date: 15 January 2011

To cite this Article Mangott, Arnold Hubert , Birtles, Robert Alastair and Marsh, Helene(2011) 'Attraction of dwarf minkewhales Balaenoptera acutorostratato vessels and swimmers in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area - themanagement challenges of an inquisitive whale', Journal of Ecotourism, 10: 1, 64 76

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14724041003690468URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724041003690468

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297788http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724041003690468http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14724041003690468http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297788


2/14

Attraction of dwarf minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata

to vessels and swimmers in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage

Area the management challenges of an inquisitive whale

Arnold Hubert Mangotta, Robert Alastair Birtlesb and Helene Marsha

aSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Douglas Campus,Townsville, 4811, Australia; bSchool of Business/Tourism, James Cook University, DouglasCampus, Townsville, 4811, Australia

(Received 28 July 2009; final version received 4 February 2010)

A diffuse aggregation of dwarf minke whales occurs in the northern Great Barrier ReefWorld Heritage Area (GBRWHA) during the austral winter months. The whalesvoluntarily approach dive tourism vessels and their passengers and maintain contactfor prolonged periods (mean + SE 3.9 + 0.57 h). We report on 521 industry-widedwarf minke whale encounters (2006 2007) and provide detailed analyses of 20encounters in 2006 and 18 in 2007 from the vessel Undersea Explorer. The whalessurfaced significantly more often within a 60 m radius of the vessel than expected,and aggregated especially around swimmers. The inquisitiveness of the whalescreates several management issues including compliance difficulties for non-swim-with whales endorsed operations. The whales close and prolonged association withvessels and swimmers indicates a strong attraction of these animals to the stimulus

and raises concerns about the wellbeing of the whales and the swimming participants.Preventing these encounters would be difficult without banning dive tourism in theGBRWHA for several months. Several management strategies are highlighted and

broader education is recommended to reduce the potential of adverse impacts on thewhales.

Keywords: behavioural observations; management; wildlife tourism; sustainability;dwarf minke whales; Australia

Introduction

Industries providing the opportunity to swim-with wild cetaceans are increasingly popularthroughout the world (Hoyt, 2001). These industries mainly target smaller cetaceans such as

dolphins, but swimming with larger whales is becoming increasingly widespread (Rose,

Weinrich, & Finkle, 2003; Rose, Weinrich, Iniguez, & Finkle, 2005). There is a fast-

growing list of swim-with operations, but most are undocumented (Samuels, Bejder,

Constantine, & Heinrich, 2003; Samuels, Bejder, & Heinrich, 2000). Many swim-with

industries that target cetaceans are vessel-based (Constantine, 1999) and typically

involve placing swimmers close to travelling or resting animals (Constantine & Baker,

1997; Samuels et al., 2003). For example, most swim with humpback whales occur in

ISSN 1472-4049 print/ISSN 1747-7638 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14724041003690468

http://www.informaworld.com

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Ecotourism

Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2011, 6476


3/14

their winter-breeding grounds and typically swimmers are placed in the vicinity of resting

juveniles and cow calf pairs (Rose et al., 2005).

Cetacean-watching vessels have the potential to change the behaviour of targeted

animals through disturbance. Studies report changes in group cohesiveness (Bejder,

Dawson, & Harraway, 1999; Blane & Jaakson, 1994; Nowacek, Wells, & Solow, 2001;

Ribeiro, Viddi, & Freitas, 2005), movement patterns and swimming speed (Kruse, 1991;

Lemon, Lynch, Cato, & Harcourt, 2006; Scheidat, Castro, Gonzalez, & Williams, 2004;

Williams, Trites, & Bain, 2002), dive and breathing intervals (Janik, 1996; Lusseau,

2003; Richter, Dawson, & Slooten, 2003; Stone, Katona, Mainwaring, Allen, & Corbett,

1992), behavioural states (Constantine, Brunton, & Dennis, 2004; Stockin, Lusseau, Bine-

dell, Wiseman, & Orams, 2008) and phonation rates (Buckstaff, 2004; Lesage, Barrette,

Kingsley, & Sjare, 1999; Scarpaci, Bigger, Corkeron, & Nugegoda, 2000; Van Parijs &

Corkeron, 2001).

Isolating the effects of swimmers on cetaceans from the effects of vessel approach is

challenging as the two effects are usually confounded (Barr & Slooten, 1998; Constantine,

2001; Constantine & Baker, 1997; Lundquist, 2007). Linking short-term behaviouralresponses to long-term behavioural changes (e.g. altered behavioural budget, decreased

fitness) is even more difficult, requiring substantial long-term data to detect responses at

the population level (Bejder & Samuels, 2003; Bejder, Samuels, Whitehead, & Gales,

2006). Attributing these changes solely to the associated tourism industry often proves

impossible (Corkeron, 2004).

Little is known about the impacts of swim-with industries on the behaviour and ecology

of whales. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has recognised the potential of

swim-with industries to impact whales through harassment and disturbance (International

Whaling Commission, 2003). Following the precautionary principle, influential non-gov-

ernmental organisations such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society do notsupport swim-with activities with wild cetaceans, particularly larger whales (WDCS,

2004). The uncertainties about the impact of such operations on larger whales have influ-

enced many countries to ban swim-with whale operations (e.g. Argentina, Canada, New

Zealand, South Africa, UK, USA).

A small, vessel-based tourism industry conducting swims with dwarf minke whales has

developed in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) over the past 15

years (for development of the industry, see Birtles, Arnold, & Dunstan, 2002a; Birtles,

Valentine, Curnock, Arnold, & Dunstan, 2002b; Valentine, Birtles, Curnock, Arnold, &

Dunstan, 2004). Dwarf minke whales are currently recognised as an undescribed subspecies

of the common minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (Arnold, Birtles, Dunstan,Lukoschek, & Matthews, 2005). Dwarf minke whales occur throughout the Southern Hemi-

sphere (Arnold, 1997). Sighting records of these whales show a seasonal distribution/

migration (in the austral winter) along continental shelfs of South America, South Africa

and Australia (Best, 1985). Dwarf minke whales are most often seen on the north-eastern

coast of Australia, between May and September, where their wintering ground overlaps

with an important dive and snorkel tourism industry (Arnold, 1997; Birtles et al., 2002a;

Dunstan, Sobtzick, Birtles, & Arnold, 2007) (Figure 1).

While in the GBRWHA, dwarf minke whales are very inquisitive, regularly approach-

ing vessels and their swimmers (Arnold & Birtles, 1999; Birtles et al., 2002a). Here, we

address two central questions pertaining to the behaviour and management of dwarf

minke whales: (1) how are interacting dwarf minke whales distributed around the vessel

and swimmers, and (2) how effective are the Australian National Guidelines for managing

these interactions?

Journal of Ecotourism 65


4/14

Materials and methods

Legislative background

All vessels encountering cetaceans in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (99% of the

GBRWHA) are obliged to follow the Australian National Guidelines for Whale and

Dolphin Watching (DEH, 2005), a two tiered generic policy aimed at protecting and safe-

guarding all cetacean species. This policy relates to all vessels in the Marine Park and

manages encounters with cetaceans by regulating operational conduct with approach dis-

tances (Tier 1). The guidelines provide options for alternative management for swimming

and diving and accept some flexibility for species-specific management, including limits on

the number of vessels/swimmers (Tier 2). Under Tier 2 of the regulations, the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) issued swim-with dwarf minke whale permits to

nine operators in 2003 (Valentine et al., 2004). Swim-with dwarf minke whale endorsed

operators (from hereon referred to as endorsed operators) are obliged to follow the Code

of Practice, which was developed to manage the conduct of dive/snorkel tourism vessels

encountering dwarf minke whales (Arnold & Birtles, 1999; Birtles et al., 2002b). This

Figure 1. Map of the northern Great Barrier Reef indicating locations where dwarf minke whales areencountered by the tourism industry in the austral winter months (MayAugust).

66 A.H. Mangott et al.


5/14

Code of Practice reflects the current legislation and includes additional guidelines such as

the deployment of ropes to which swimmers (six swimmers per rope recommended by the

Code of Practice) are obliged to hold onto while in the water (for more details on the Code

of Practice, see Birtles et al., 2008).

Behavioural observations

We studied the spatial distribution of interacting dwarf minke whales around the vessel and

swimmers from an endorsed live-aboard dive boat (Undersea Explorer) in June and July

2006 and 2007. Every day during the research period, at least two researchers conducted

a continuous 3608 lookout (1808 when moored at reef sites) for whales during daylight

hours (6.30 am6.00 pm), from the top deck of the vessel at an eye height of approximately

7 m from the water surface. The location of the vessel, wind speed (knots), sea state (Beau-

fort) and boat status (stationary/drifting) were recorded every hour.

Whale sighting sheets 20062007

The GBRMPA requires all endorsed operators to complete a Whale Sighting Sheet after

each encounter with dwarf minke whales as a permit condition. We utilised the Whale

Sighting Sheets from 2006 to 2007 to gain an overview of: (1) the total number of encoun-

ters of the endorsed industry, (2) how many interactions the industry had with dwarf minke

whales, (3) whether the interactions occurred when the vessel was stationary or drifting

(boat status) and (4) the distance at which the whales were first sighted. An encounter

was defined as every confirmed sighting of a dwarf minke whale. If whales approached

the vessel within 30 m, it was called an interaction, and a swimmer seeing a whale under-

water was defined as the start of an in-water interaction (after Birtles et al., 2002a).

Ad libitum sampling protocol (2006)

We used an ad libitum sampling protocol (Altmann, 1974) to document dwarf minke whale

behaviour and to gain an overview of the distribution of the whales around the vessel during

all in-water interactions in 2006. However, this method incorporates a risk of collecting

spatially biased data. The time, distance from the vessel and the sector (based on an

imaginary clock face, Figure 2) were recorded every time the whale(s) broke the surface.

Distances of surfacing whales from the vessel were measured with a laser range finder

(Leupold Wind River RB800C) or estimated to the nearest 5 m.

Adaptive scan sampling protocol (2007)

An adaptive scan sampling protocol was used in 2007 to reduce the risk of collecting

spatially biased data. Three observation areas defined by distance from the vessel were

assigned: (1) Inner Area (060 m), (2) Middle Area (61120 m) and (3) Outer

Area (121180 m). Each area was divided in half (Figure 2) for observational purposes.

The six sub-areas were sampled in a random sequence for a set period of time (5 min for

Inner Areas and 1 min for Middle and Outer Areas) followed by a 1 min break. For each

observation of the assigned sub-areas, the time, the distance to the vessel and the location

(sector) was recorded every time a whale broke the water surface. The location (sector) of

the ropes was recorded at the start of each area observation. This protocol was followed for

the duration of the in-water interaction.



6/14

Data analyses

Chi-squared statistics was used to analyse data from the 2007 adaptive scan sampling pro-

tocol. A Chi-square test of independence (a p 0.05) was utilised to test if: (1) boat

status (drifting or stationary) and (2) weather conditions influenced the distribution of

dwarf minke whales around the vessel. To investigate the effect of weather conditions inter-

actions were pooled as follows: (1) 0 10 knots, (2) 11 20 knots and (3) .20 knots of

wind. Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests (a p 0.05) were conducted to determine if the

observed frequencies in the assigned areas deviated from the expected frequencies.Expected frequencies were standardised per unit effort and per unit area. The area closest

to the vessel (Inner Area) was examined further. Data were standardised to the location

of the rope (rope position varied according to currents and wind direction) and pooled

into four quarters: (1) Rope/Swimmer Quarter, (2) Left Quarter, (3) Right Quarter

and (4) Opposite Quarter. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was conducted to investigate

if the observed frequencies deviated from the expected in these four quarters. Test

assumptions followed Roscoe and Byars (1971) and Zar (1999).

Methodological limitations

The total number of individual whales in each encounter was obtained from a parallel

photo-identification study using underwater photos and video. We were rarely able to

Figure 2. Assigned areas (defined by distance to vessel) and sectors (based on an imaginary clock

face) used for data collection on the distribution of interacting dwarf minke whales around the vesseland swimmers.



7/14

identify individual whales from the surface and so could not correct the data for biases

associated with the heterogeneous probability of sampling of individual whales.

However, the patterns we observed were consistent across years and interactions, irrespec-

tive of the number of whales involved.

Results

Whale sighting sheets 2006 and 2007

A total of 521 dwarf minke whale encounters were reported by endorsed industry vessels (n

8) in 2006 and 2007. Fifty-nine percent of encounters developed into in-water inter-

actions (swims). Most often (88%) whales were encountered when vessels were stationary,

either moored at a dive site or anchored in the vicinity of a reef. Crew first sighted whales at

a median distance of 30 m from the vessel. In contrast, the primary observer in this study

detected approaching whales at a median distance of 100 m.

Ad libitum observations 2006

Data for 20 in-water interactions in 2006 indicated that most whales surfaced in the Inner

Area (82%), followed by the Middle Area (15%) and the Outer Area (3%). To test

whether this pattern was an artefact of the heterogeneous sighting probability of individual

whales (unequal probability of detecting individual whales due to behavioural differences)

the data were subdivided into: (1) in-water interactions with 12 animals and (2) in-water

interactions with .2 animals (mean + SE 8.3 + 1.3 animals; Figure 3). A hetero-

geneous sighting probability can lead to misrepresentative data, skewed to only few

individual whales. We detected no significant difference in the relative frequency of

observations in the various areas between the two categories (x2

1.655; df

2, p

0.437), indicating that the sighting probability was not significantly heterogeneous.

Adaptive scan sampling

We conducted adaptive scan sampling in 18 observed in-water interactions in 2007. The

mean (+SE) in-water interaction time was 3.9 + 0.57 h. The mean (+SE) number of

Figure 3. Proportions of observed surfacing of whales from 20 in-water interactions in 2006 for 1 2animals (N 170) and .2 animals (N 1656).



8/14

whales present was 9.2 + 1.1 animals. Ten interactions occurred while the vessel was drift-

ing, eight when it was stationary. The spatial-surfacing patterns of the whales were indepen-

dent of (1) boat status (x2 2.529, df 2, p 0.282) and (2) weather conditions (x2

7.704, df 4, p 0.133), justifying the use of data from all in-water interactions in sub-

sequent analyses. The whales surfaced significantly more often than expected in the Inner

Area and significantly less often in the Middle Area and the Outer Area(x2 729.374,

df 2, p , 0.001) compared with a homogeneous or equal surfacing distribution around

the vessel (Figure 4(a)). Within the area closest to the vessel (Inner Area), the whales sur-

faced significantly more often than expected in the Rope/Swimmer Quarter and signifi-

cantly less often in the Left Quarter and the Opposite Quarter (x2 48.325, df 3,

p , 0.001; Figure 4(b)). The outcomes indicate that dwarf minke whales interacting

with vessels and their swimmers not only clump around the vessel (,60 m), but aggregate

especially around the swimmers.

Figure 4. Observed versus expected frequencies of surfacing dwarf minke whales (per unit effortand unit area) in the three assigned areas (Inner, Middle and Outer Area) around the vessel from

18 in-water interactions in 2007 (see Figure 3(a) for areas). Figure 4(b). Observed versus expectedfrequencies of surfacing dwarf minke whales in the four assigned quarters (Rope/SwimmerQuarter, Left Quarter, Right Quarter and Opposite Quarter) in the area closest to the vessel (Inner

Area) (n 18 in-water interactions).



9/14

Discussion

In this study, we have shown that the dwarf minke whales in the Great Barrier Reef are

attracted to vessels and swimmers. Dwarf minke whales repeatedly approach dive

tourism vessels, maintain close contact with the vessel (,60 m) for prolonged periods

(mean + SE

3.9 + 0.57 h) and aggregate around swimmers. The behaviour of dwarfminke whales differs from the majority of cetaceans targeted by swim-with industries.

On average, swims with dolphins last only for a couple of minutes and repeated in-path pla-

cements of swimmers may be necessary to maintain the interaction (Barr & Slooten, 1998;

Bejder et al., 1999; Constantine & Baker, 1997). Most swims with other baleen whales (e.g.

humpback whales) are incidental (Samuels et al., 2003) and initiated either by placing

swimmers in the vicinity of resting animals or in the path of travelling animals. These

swims are conducted mainly with mother and calf pairs (Rose et al., 2003, 2005;

Samuels et al., 2003). In contrast, the current understanding of the age composition of

interacting dwarf minke whales shows that all age classes are present, but the interacting

population is skewed towards adolescent whales (Dunstan et al., 2007), and only a few

cowcalf pairs are seen every season (Birtles et al., 2002a).

The active maintenance of such a close and long-lasting association between cetaceans,

vessels and swimmers is unusual. Only the Grey whale in its wintering grounds (e.g. Laguna

San Ignacio; targeted by a vessel-based industry) shows a similar attraction towards vessels

(Dahlheim, Schempp, Swartz, & Jones, 1981; Jones, Swartz, & Leatherwood, 1984).

Birtles et al. (2002a) made an explicit comparison to the Grey whale and found seven

behavioural features in common with the dwarf minke whale: (1) participation by whales

in different size classes; (2) bubble blasts in the vicinity of vessels; (3) approach and main-

tenance of contact with a vessel; (4) apparent accumulative effect resulting in large groups;

(5) chronic curious behaviour of individual whales (6) following slow moving vessels and

(7) attempts to follow vessels departing at speed. Encounters with inquisitive commonand Antarctic minkes have been reported (Leatherwood, Awbrey, & Thomas, 1982;

Roden & Mullin, 2000), however, in contrast to dwarf minke whales in the GBR, such

encounters are infrequent and unpredictable.

The attraction of dwarf minke whales to vessels and swimmers raises concerns for the

well-being of the whales and the swimming participants. Attraction is defined as the

strengthening of a positive association with a repeated stimulus (Knight & Temple,

1995) and manifests itself as an increase in an animals positive attention to a stimulus

(Frohoff, 2004). The concerns are substantiated by the relatively high-resighting rates of

individuals over the season as well as between years (Sobtzick, in preparation). Depending

on the magnitude of the tourism exposure of individual whales within a season and betweenyears, there is the potential for negative consequences on the behaviour of these whales.

Reduction of the animals cautious behaviour to human activity can lead to an increase in

vulnerability of individuals (Samuels et al., 2003) and can increase the probability of boat

strikes or entanglement in fishing gear or marine debris (Spradlin, Barre, Lewandowski, &

Nitta, 2001; Stone & Yoshinaga, 2000). Two recent incidents where a dwarf minke whale

became entangled in the rope where swimmers hold onto provide evidence for the increased

vulnerability resulting from a reduction in the animals cautious behaviour (Birtles et al.,

2008; Mangott, 2010).

The close proximity of dwarf minke whales to vessels and swimmers for extended

periods also generates concerns about the safety of swimmers. There are numerous docu-mentation where humans were threatened, injured and even killed while in contact with

cetaceans (Shane, Templey, & Costello, 1993; Samuels & Bejder, 2004; Santos, 1997).



10/14

Most of the studies report on odontocetes, but there have been incidents from baleen

whales. Only recently two swimmers were seriously injured by a humpback whale cow

which turned aggressive when her calf was approached too close (Rose, Parsons, & Sell-

ares, 2007). We rarely observed whales making physical contact with a dinghy, the rope

and passengers. However, given their size, weight and agility, the close proximity of

dwarf minkes to human observers alone increases the likelihood of accidents (Birtles

et al., 2002a).

Management challenges

The IWC (2000) stated that swim-with programs vary among species and there is the need

to assess such operations on a case by case basis. The Australian National Guidelines are

suited for most cetaceans found around Australia as the animals are either very large and

thus easily detected (e.g. humpback and right whales), do not approach vessels on a

regular basis (e.g. right whales, sperm whales) or spend only a minimal time (several

minutes) with boats (e.g. dolphins). However, this policy does not take into account the be-haviour of dwarf minke whales, which are not detected by the vessel crews until well within

100 m of the boat, as a result of their small size and inconspicuous surfacing behaviours

(Birtles et al., 2002a). A further problem is that dwarf minke whales voluntarily interact

with tourism boats on a regular basis and maintain close contact for several hours.

The inquisitive behaviour of dwarf minke whales and the difficulty of detecting dwarf

minke whales provide challenges for non-endorsed vessels to conduct their leisure activities

(in particular over June and July) without breaching the whale watching guidelines.

According to the guidelines, if a dwarf minke whale approaches closer than 100 m, passen-

gers are not allowed to enter the water. People already in the water will encounter the whales

incidentally and are not in breach of the law. Passengers still on the boat would be obliged toremain there, sacrificing their leisure activities and creating inevitable dissatisfaction, and

potentially jeopardising the success of businesses dependent on customer satisfaction.

Thus, there is a clear trade-off between business success and compliance (Scarpaci,

Dayanthi, & Corkeron, 2003; Whitt & Read, 2006). Management is compounded by the

remoteness of the location (i.e. outer Great Barrier Reef in the Cairns/Cooktown

Section), where enforcement is difficult.

The extent of incidental interactions between non-endorsed vessels (their swimmers)

and dwarf minke whales in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has not been documented.

Anecdotal information indicates that incidental interactions occur frequently. It is therefore

currently impossible to gauge the cumulative effects of swim-with whales tourism on theanimals. A comprehensive overview would require all vessels operating within the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park to record and report every encounter with dwarf minke whales.

This requirement would be very difficult to enforce.

Management options

Three main management options have been applied elsewhere to safeguard cetaceans

targeted by swim-with operations: (1) bans, (2) space-time closures to tourism operations

and (3) regulation and education. The most common approach has been to ban such oper-

ations and this has been adopted by many countries around the world, and is supported by

Non-Governmental Organisations such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservations Society.

Our findings demonstrate that a ban on such operations for dwarf minke whales in the

northern Great Barrier Reef would be ineffective.



11/14

Spatial or temporal closures to tourism operations can be an effective way of protecting

marine mammals (Dawson & Slooten, 1993; Lusseau & Higham, 2004; Williams et al.,

2002). Spatial closures typically protect areas of critical ecological importance, e.g. areas

for feeding, resting and breeding (Lusseau & Higham, 2004). Similarly temporal closures

encompass critical habitats and provide protection for a particular time period, i.e. areas

used for calving and breeding in migratory cetaceans. Such areas have been successfully

implemented in many migratory species, for example the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary

and Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary for humpback whales (Lusseau &

Higham, 2004). More extensive studies on dwarf minke whale distribution, resident

times, behaviour, and abundance in the context of the spatial patterns of industry effort

are needed to evaluate the appropriateness of such an approach. Closing an area would

also need to take into consideration the full range of uses of the area (e.g. recreational, com-

mercial, charter, commercial fishing) and the impact of such closure on existing operations.

A decision tree for delineation and management of critical habitats could be used to opti-

mise the design of such an area (Lusseau & Higham, 2004).

The GBRMPA currently uses a two tier management approach that involves: (1) enfor-cing the generic policy (Tier 1) for all vessels in the marine park encountering cetaceans,

and (2) providing options for species-specific management (Tier 2). Tier 2 management of

dwarf minke whales has involved the use of permits with the aim of limiting and controlling

dedicated interactions. Our findings suggest that the generic policy (Tier 1) is often inap-

propriate and insufficient for managing encounters between vessels, divers and dwarf

minke whales. We recommend that all boats with the potential to encounter dwarf minke

whales in the northern Great Barrier Reef region should be made aware of the current legis-

lation and Best Practice Guidelines included in this Code of Practice. Educational sessions

in the lead-up to the dwarf minke whale season (April/May) currently provide endorsed

operators with the knowledge about how to manage their encounter to minimise theirimpacts on the whales (Valentine et al., 2004). The audience for such workshops needs

to be extended to all operators in the area.

The appropriateness of the current management approach will be reviewed by the

GBRMPA in 2010. Depending on the findings of ongoing research, other more stringent

measures of protection (e.g. maximum interaction time, maximum cumulative interaction

time, temporal or spatial exclusion zones), as provided for in the Tier 2 of the National

Guidelines, may need to be considered. One option would be, for the GBRMPA, to

declare a Special Management Area as this is an existing management provision that

could be used to manage encounters with seasonal spatial controls. The continuation of

research to assess and monitor the impact this industry has on the whales behaviourover time is critical to enable future management to consider cumulative impacts.

References

Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behaviour, 49(3), 227265.Arnold, P.W. (1997). Occurrence of dwarf minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) on the north-

ern Great Barrier Reef, Australia (Report to the International Whaling Commission No. SC/48/SH18). Monaco: IWC.

Arnold, P.W., & Birtles, R.A. (1999). Towards sustainable management of the developing dwarf minke whale tourism industry in northern Queensland (Technical Report No. 27). Townsville:

CRC Reef Research Centre.Arnold, P.W., Birtles, R.A., Dunstan, A., Lukoschek, V., & Matthews, M. (2005). Colour patterns of

the dwarf minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata sensu lato: Description, cladistic analyses andtaxonomic implications. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 51(2), 277307.



12/14

Barr, K., & Slooten, E. (1998). Effects of tourism on dusky dolphins at Kaikoura (Report to theInternational Whaling Commission No. SC/50/WW10). Antigua: IWC.

Bejder, L., Dawson, S.M., & Harraway, A.J. (1999). Responses by Hectors dolphins to boats andswimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 15(3), 738750.

Bejder, L., & Samuels, A. (2003). Evaluating the effects of nature-based tourism on cetaceans. In N.J.Gales, M.A. Hindell, & R. Kirkwood (Eds.), Marine mammals: Fisheries, tourism and manage-ment issues (Vol. 1, p. 446). Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing.

Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., & Gales, N. (2006). Interpreting short-term behaviouralresponses to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behaviour, 72, 11491158.

Best, B.P. (1985). External characters of southern minke whales and the existence of a diminutiveform. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, 36, 133.

Birtles, R.A., Arnold, P., Curnock, M., Salmon, S., Mangott, A., Sobtzick, S., Valentine, P., Caillaud,A., & Rumney, J. (2008). Code of practice for dwarf minke whale interactions in the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.Birtles, R.A., Arnold, P.W., & Dunstan, A. (2002a). Commercial swim programs with dwarf minke

whales on the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia: Some characteristics of the encounterswith management implications. Australian Mammalogy, 24, 2338.

Birtles, R.A., Valentine, P.S., Curnock, M., Arnold, P.W., & Dunstan, A. (2002b). Incorporating

visitor experiences into ecologically sustainable dwarf minke whale tourism in the northernGreat Barrier Reef (Technical Report No. 42). Townsville: CRC Reef Research Centre.

Blane, J.M., & Jaakson, R. (1994). The impact of ecotourism boats on the St Lawrence beluga whales.Environmental Conservation, 21(3), 267269.

Buckstaff, K.C. (2004). Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic behaviour of bottlenose dolphinsTursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 20, 709725.

Constantine, R. (1999). Effects of tourism on marine mammals in New Zealand. Wellington,New Zealand: Department of Conservation.

Constantine, R. (2001). Increased avoidance of swimmers by wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiopstruncatus) due to long-term exposure to swim-with-dolphin tourism. Marine Mammal Science,17(4), 689702.

Constantine, R., & Baker, S.C. (1997). Monitoring the commercial swim-with-dolphin operations in

the Bay of Islands. Science for Conservation, 56, 159.Constantine, R., Brunton, D.H., & Dennis, T. (2004). Dolphin-watching tour boats change bottlenose

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation, 117, 299307.Corkeron, P.J. (2004). Whale watching, iconography, and marine conservation. Conservation Biology,

18(3), 847849.Dahlheim, M.E., Schempp, J.D., Swartz, S.L., & Jones, M.L. (1981). Attraction of gray whales,

Eschrichtius robustus, to underwater outboard engine noise in Laguna San Ignacio, BajaCalifornia Sur, Mexico. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 70(1), S83S84.

Dawson, S.M., & Slooten, E. (1993). Conservation of Hectors dolphins: The case and process whichled to establishment of the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary. Aquatic Conservation:

Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 3, 207221.DEH (2005). Australian National Guidelines for whale and dolphin watching. Canberra: Australian

Government.Dunstan, A., Sobtzick, S., Birtles, R.A., & Arnold, P.W. (2007). Use of videogrammetry to estimatelength to provide population demographics of dwarf minke whales in the northern Great BarrierReef. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 9(3), 215223.

Frohoff, G.T. (2004). Behavioral indicators of stress in odontocetes during interactions with humans:A preliminary review and discussion. Paper presented at the International Whale WatchingConference, South Africa.

Hoyt, E. (2001). Whale watching 2001. Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expandingsocio-economic benefits. Yarmouth Port, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare.

International Whaling Commission. (2000). Report of the Scientific committee, 52nd meeting of theInternational Whaling Commission. Adelaide: Author.

International Whaling Commission. (2003). Report of the sub-committee on whalewatching. Berlin:Author.

Janik, V.M. (1996). Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response to boat traffic.Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 597602.



13/14

Jones, M.L., Swartz, S.L., & Leatherwood, S. (1984). The gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus.London: Academic Press, INC.

Knight, R.L., & Temple, S.A. (1995). Origins of wildlife responses to recreationists. In R.L. Knight &K.J. Gutzwiller (Eds.), Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through management andresearch (pp. 8191). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Kruse, S. (1991). The interaction between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. In K. Pryor& K.S. Norris (Eds.), Dolphin societies. Discoveries and puzzles (pp. 150159). Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Leatherwood, S., Awbrey, F.T., & Thomas, J.A. (1982). Minke whale response to a transiting surveyvessel (Report to the International Whaling Commission No. 32). Brighton: IWC.

Lemon, M., Lynch, T.P., Cato, D.H., & Harcourt, R.G. (2006). Response of travelling bottlenosedolphins (Tursiops aduncus) to experimental approaches by a powerboat in Jervis Bay, NewSouth Whales, Australia. Biological Conservation, 127, 363372.

Lesage, V., Barrette, C., Kingsley, M.S.C., & Sjare, B. (1999). The effect of vessel noise on the vocalbehavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1),6584.

Lundquist, D.J. (2007). Behavior and movement of Southern Right Whales: Effects of boats andswimmers (Unpublished Master of Science thesis). Texas A&M University.

Lusseau, D. (2003). Male and female bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. have different strategies toavoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Marine Ecology ProgressSeries, 257, 267274.

Lusseau, D., & Higham, S.E.J. (2004). Managing the impacts of dolphin-based tourism through thedefinition of critical habitats: The case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sound,

New Zealand. Tourism Management, 25, 657667.Mangott, A. (2010).Behaviour of dwarf minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) associated with a

swim-with industry in the northern Great Barrier Reef(Unpublished PhD thesis). James CookUniversity, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

Nowacek, S.M., Wells, R.S., & Solow, A.R. (2001). Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenosedolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 673688.

Ribeiro, S., Viddi, F.A., & Freitas, T.R.O. (2005). Behavioural responses of Chilean dolphins

(Cephalorhynchus eutropia) to boats in Yaldad Bay, southern Chile. Aquatic Mammals, 31(2),234242.

Richter, C.F., Dawson, S.M., & Slooten, E. (2003). Sperm whale watching off Kaikoura, NZ: Effectsof current activities on surfacing and vocalisation patterns. Science for Conservation, 219, 178.

Roden, C.L., & Mullin, K.D. (2000). Sightings of cetaceans in the northern Caribbean Sea andadjacent waters, winter 1995. Caribbean Journal of Science, 36(3 4), 280288.

Roscoe, J.T., & Byars, J.A. (1971). An investigation of the restraints with respect to sample sizecommonly imposed on the use of the chi-square statistic. Journal of the American Statistical

Association, 66(336), 755759.Rose, N.A., Parsons, E.C.M., & Sellares, R. (2007). Swim-with-whale tourism: An update on devel-

opment of a questionnaire, (Report to the Scientific Committee No. SC/59/WW6). Anchorage:IWC.

Rose, N.A., Weinrich, M., & Finkle, M. (2003). Swim-with-whales tourism a preliminary reviewof commercial operations. Berlin: IWC (Report to the IWC Scientific Committee No. SC/55/WW4).

Rose, N.A., Weinrich, M., Iniguez, M.A., & Finkle, M. (2005). Swim-with-whales tourism anupdated review of commercial operations (Report to the IWC Scientific Committee No. SC/57/WW6). Korea: Ulsan.

Samuels, A., & Bejder, L. (2004). Chronic interaction between humans and free-ranging bottlenosedolphins near Panama City Beach, Florida, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research and

Management, 6(1), 6977.Samuels, A., Bejder, L., Constantine, R., & Heinrich, S. (2003). Swimming with wild cetaceans in the

southern hemisphere. In N. Gales, M. Hindell, & R. Kirkwood (Eds.), Marine mammals:Fisheries, tourism and management issues (pp. 277303). Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

Samuels, A., Bejder, L., & Heinrich, S. (2000). A review of the literature pertaining to swimming with

wild dolphins. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, Maryland, USA, 57 pp.Santos, M.C.d.O. (1997). Lone sociable bottlenose dolphin in Brazil: Human fatality and manage-

ment. Marine Mammal Science, 13(2), 335336.



14/14

Scarpaci, C., Bigger, S.W., Corkeron, P.J., & Nugegoda, D. (2000). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiopstruncatus) increase whistling in the presence of swim with dolphin tour operations. Journalof Cetacean Research and Management, 2(3), 183185.

Scarpaci, C., Dayanthi, N., & Corkeron, P.J. (2003). Compliance with regulations by swim-with-dolphins operations in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Environmental Managment, 31(3),342347.

Scheidat, M., Castro, C., Gonzalez, J., & Williams, R. (2004). Behavioural responses of humpbackwhales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whalewatching boats near Isla de la Plata, Machalila

National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 6, 6368.Shane, S.H., Templey, L., & Costello, L. (1993). Life threatening contact between a woman and a pilot

whale captured on film. Marine Mammal Science, 9(3), 331336.Sobtzick, S. (in preparation). Dwarf minke whale biology and implications for tourism

management (Unpublished PhD thesis). James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.Spradlin, T.R., Barre, L.M., Lewandowski, J.K., & Nitta, E.T. (2001). Too close for comfort: Concern

about the growing trend in public interactions with wild marine mammals. Marine MammalSociety Newsletter, 9, 35.

Stockin, K.A., Lusseau, D., Binedell, V., Wiseman, N., & Orams, B.M. (2008). Tourism affects thebehavioural budget of the common dolphin Delphinus sp. in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand.

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 355, 287295.Stone, G.S., Katona, S.K., Mainwaring, A., Allen, J.M., & Corbett, H.D. (1992). Respiration and

surfacing rates of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) observed from a lighthouse tower.Reports of the International Whaling Commission 42, 739745.

Stone, G.S., & Yoshinaga, A. (2000). Hectors dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori calf mortalities mayindicate new risk from boat traffic and habituation. Pacific Conservation Biology, 6, 162170.

Valentine, P.S., Birtles, R.A., Curnock, M., Arnold, P., & Dunstan, A. (2004). Getting closer towhales-passenger expectations and experiences, and the management of swim with dwarfminke whale interactions in the Great Barrier Reef. Tourism Management, 25, 647655.

Van Parijs, S.M., & Corkeron, P.J. (2001). Boat traffic affects the acoustic behaviour of Pacifichumpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis. Journal of the Marine Association, UK, 81, 533538.

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. (2004). Whale watching. Policy on swimming with

dolphins. Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www.wdcs.org/connect/whale_watch/story_details.php?select=60

Whitt, A.D., & Read, A.J. (2006). Assessing compliance to guidelines by dolphin-watching operatorsin Clearwater, Florida, USA. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3(2), 117130.

Williams, R., Trites, A.W., & Bain, D.E. (2002). Behavioural responses of killer whales ( Orcinusorca) to whale-watching boats: Opportunistic observations and experimental approaches.

Journal of Zoology London, 256, 255270.Zar, J.H. (1999). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

http://www.wdcs.org/connect/whale_watch/story_details.php?select=60http://www.wdcs.org/connect/whale_watch/story_details.php?select=60http://www.wdcs.org/connect/whale_watch/story_details.php?select=60http://www.wdcs.org/connect/whale_watch/story_details.php?select=60

Documents

Man Got Tet Al 2011 Management Challenges