Watching whales, dolphins and porpoises in the wild (in this chapter commonly referred to as whale watching) is a rapidly growing commercial industry that includes land-, boat- and aircraft-based activities (Hoyt, 2001). Unfortunately, management of this industry still ranges from complex and difficult to imple-ment, to inadequate, or indeed completely lacking despite commercial whale watching having been engaged in for over 50 years. Initially, little attention was paid to the potential impacts of commercial whale-watching tours, most opera-tors being pleased to take tourists to see whales in the wild and offer an alterna-tive to the commercial whale hunts that were destroying great whale stocks throughout many of the worlds’ oceans. With whale hunting as a basis for comparison, whale watching was never really considered an activity likely to cause harassment or disturbance to wild cetaceans. However, whale-watching tourism targets specific communities of animals that are repeatedly sought out for prolonged, close-up encounters. Since the early 1990s, concerns over the potential for detrimental consequences to targeted animals have been raised (e.g. IWC, 1996; Samuels et al., 2003; Corkeron, 2004). Repeated disrup-tions of breeding, social, feeding and resting behaviour have long been specu-lated to result in deleterious effects on reproductive success, health, ranging patterns and availability of preferred habitat. Emergent research has now revealed that dolphin watching can cause biologically significant impacts on targeted communities, notably by displacing dolphins from critical habitats and reducing their reproductive success (Lusseau, 2005; Bejder, 2005; Bejder et al., 2006a).
The seriousness of documented impacts on dolphins exposed to dolphin-watching tourism in Shark Bay, Western Australia (WA), was acknowledged by the first decision by a government agency in any country to reduce the number of commercial dolphin-watching licenses from two to one (Ministry Media Statement, 2006). The presiding minister noted that the withdrawal of one license was in the interest of the welfare of the local dolphin population and a
17 Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry: Time for a Paradigm Shift
R. CONSTANTINE AND L. BEJDER
322 R. Constantine and L. Bejder
necessary sacrifice for the long-term sustainability of the area. In other areas where whale watching has been shown to impact on dolphin behaviour, changes in the growth and operation of the local industry have been made. In Kaikoura, New Zealand (NZ), a moratorium on new permits was put in place after research revealed changes in dolphin and whale behaviour in the presence of boats (Barr and Slooten, 1999; Richter et al., 2006). Also, in Kaikoura and Northland, changes have been made to dolphin-watching operators’ permits by creating periods of time when boats are not allowed to interact with dolphins in order to minimize disturbance. These managerial changes are indicative of a growing awareness that whale- and dolphin-watching tourism, whilst once viewed as benign, can have biologically significant impacts that require thoughtful mitiga-tion strategies if the industry is to move towards sustainability. However, these examples are also the exception rather than the norm when it comes to man-agement intervention based on high-quality research on impact assessment of whale watching on target animals. For example, no management action has been taken despite strong evidence of population-level effects on bottlenose dolphins exposed to unsustainable dolphin-watching tourism practices in Fiordland, New Zealand (Lusseau et al., 2006).
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has maintained support for the development of the whale-watching industry, conditional on this develop-ment being in a manner that minimizes the risk of adverse impacts and is, ultim-ately, sustainable (IWC, 1996). During the 2006 annual IWC meeting, the Scientific Committee concluded that there was sufficient evidence that whale watching can have population-level impacts and can endanger the viability of small coastal populations of whales and dolphins (IWC, 2006).
This recent recognition of the extent of impacts of whale and dolphin watch-ing, and the resultant instances of management changes, represent a paradig-matic shift and, accordingly, calls for a revised and more stringent approach to management of the industry to ensure its long-term sustainability.
Economic Value and Growth
Whale watching was first established in the USA in the 1950s. It became a popular tourism activity targeting grey whales along the west coast and hump-back whales along the east and west coasts, as well as in Hawaii (Hoyt, 2002). Industry growth was facilitated by the readily accessible populations of grey whales migrating close inshore to calving grounds in Mexico, and humpbacks migrating to winter breeding grounds of Hawaii and summer feeding grounds off the New England coast. Other than the initial expense of investing in or seasonally leasing boats, whales were a reliable, natural resource that tour operators did not need to pay for. In the 1980s, many other countries began whale-watching tours and it was around this time that dolphin watching and swim-with-dolphin tours were also being established (Samuels et al., 2003). This resulted in the transformation of many small towns and communities as tourists spent increasing amounts of money to travel often great distances to interact with whales and dolphins in the wild.
Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry 323
Globally, the direct income from ticket sales and indirect income from accommodation, food and souvenirs were estimated to be US$14 million with approximately 400,000 participants in 1981 (Hoyt, 2001). In the most recent worldwide survey, Hoyt (2001) estimated that over US$1 billion was spent on whale watching in over 87 countries and territories in 1998. This estimate is now almost a decade old, but with recent trends of 11% growth per annum from 1998 to 2004 in New Zealand (IFAW, 2005) and 15% growth per annum from 1998 to 2003 in Australia (IFAW, 2004), the indus-try would appear to be worth well in excess of US$1 billion per annum today. Whale watching is thus big business, with the potential to contribute signifi-cant financial gains for small towns (e.g. Shark Bay, WA; Kaikoura, NZ) and produce large tourism revenue for otherwise remote countries and communi-ties (e.g. Vava’ u, Tonga; Zanzibar, East Africa; Baja Peninsula, Mexico).
With whale watching bringing literally millions of dollars into an ever-growing number of regions, great challenges for governments lie in balancing ecological values and the viability of cetacean populations with the economic and social benefits whale watching brings to the community. That the eco-nomic gains and social benefits to communities are significant is doubtless, however, recent research findings indicate that enforced management is imper-ative to minimize impacts and ensure the long-term sustainability of the indus-try (Lusseau, 2003b; Scarpaci et al., 2003; Constantine et al., 2004). There are many development models (e.g. government legislation, voluntary guide-lines, codes of conduct and the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) ) available to help newly forming whale-watching operations avoid the pitfalls of a short-sighted approach to business growth; these will be discussed in more detail below. If animals, the very resource upon which these businesses depend avoid boats or swimmers, or become displaced from preferred habitats, the industry will not be able to provide the experience that tourists seek and will fail in the medium to long term.
Legislation
There is a variety of codes of conduct, guidelines and regulations designed to manage the whale-watching industry (see review by Carlson, 2004). The USA was the first country to develop legislation to protect whales from harassment; the Marine Mammals Protection Act (MMPA) 1972. This legislation was designed primarily to minimize harassment and disturbance and required per-mits for ‘takes’, e.g. by-catch in fisheries and hunting of whales and dolphins. The MMPA provided the impetus and guidance for other nations to develop their own protection laws. New Zealand adopted their MMPA in 1978 and, with the development of sperm whale watching and dusky dolphin watching in Kaikoura in the 1980s, the Marine Mammals Protection Regulations were adopted in 1989. These regulations were advanced for their time and, to this day, provide the legal basis for issuing permits to run commercial tours to inter-act with marine mammals and prescribe appropriate operational behaviour for all vessels around marine mammals. These advances allowed management
agencies in New Zealand to have some measure of control over the growth of the whale-watching industry. Nevertheless, this legislation is only as good as its enforcement and recent research findings point towards an urgent need for regu-lation changes to increase their efficacy (e.g. Constantine, 2001; Lusseau, 2003b, 2005; Constantine et al., 2004). The two examples above represent the legislative approach. Many other variations in management techniques have been adopted throughout the world, from simple voluntary guidelines (e.g. New Caledonia, Zanzibar) to industry codes of conduct and creating MPAs (e.g. Brazil), and even banning certain types of whale watching (e.g. only land-based whale watching is allowed in the Cook Islands). Important issues facing manag-ers throughout the world include when to adopt legislation and how to ade-quately enforce legislation. There are a number of examples in which blatant disregard has been shown for the law and, indeed, little or no response by the relevant authorities – due to either inadequate resources, lack of legal security or poor leadership. Such examples include feeding dolphins at Panama City Beach, Florida (Samuels and Bejder, 2004) (see Fig. 17.1) and swim-with-dolphin activi-ties in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria (Scarpaci et al., 2003) and Zanzibar (Stensland and Berggren, 2007). It has become apparent that appropriate legis lative con-trols and enforcement are crucial in allowing the industry to develop sustainably, especially in light of long-term data revealing significant impacts on dolphin populations exposed to tourism. What is clear is that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution and that each country, territory or even local region must decide upon what is an appropriate management regime.
Evaluating Impact: Migratory Versus Non-migratory Species
Research on the effects of both commercial and recreational whale watching began in the 1980s (e.g. Salden, 1988; Baker and Herman, 1989) and
Fig. 17.1. Commercial and recreational dolphin watching in Panama City Beach, Florida, USA. (Photograph L. Bejder.)
Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry 325
increased considerably in the late 1990s. In most cases, studies have been undertaken some years after the establishment of tourism industry activities, providing challenges to scientists when interpreting changes in behaviour or habitat use in the absence of baseline, or ‘pre-impact’, data (Bejder and Samuels, 2003). Nevertheless, significant impacts on whales and dolphins as a direct result of whale watching are being proven and managers are struggling to miti-gate against impacts on target populations.
While watching whales has been occurring for several decades more than dolphin watching, most recent research has focused on the potential impacts on coastal dolphin populations (see below for research examples). There are distinct differences between the effects of whale watching on non-migratory coastal populations of whales or dolphins, and those on the migratory popula-tions of primarily great whales. Coastal, resident populations of dolphins are likely to be exposed to year-round, daily dolphin watching (see Fig. 17.2) or swim-with-dolphin tours, e.g. bottlenose dolphins in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand (Constantine, 2001; Constantine et al., 2004), Zanzibar, Africa (Stensland and Berggren, 2007), Port Stephens, New South Wales (Allen et al., in press a) and Shark Bay, WA (Bejder et al., 2006a,b); killer whales in the waters off Vancouver Island, Canada (see Fig. 17.3, Williams et al., 2002) and dusky and common dolphins in Patagonia, Argentina (Coscarella et al.,2003) and Kaikoura, NZ (Würsig et al., 1997).
Occasionally, portions of a whale population are coastal residents and are the subject of year-round whale-watching tours, for example, sperm whale watching in Kaikoura, New Zealand (Gordon et al., 1992; Richter et al.,2006). This may place greater pressure on the population than that experi-enced by migratory species. For populations which range over many hundreds or thousands of kilometres of coastline (e.g. the bottlenose dolphins of the
Fig. 17.2. Boat-based dolphin watching in Bunbury, Western Australia. (Photograph Bunbury Dolphin Discovery Centre.)
north-east coast of New Zealand), home ranges include several locations where whale-watching tours occur (Constantine et al., 2003). The majority of these tours are thus targeting the same population of dolphins. This cumulative effect is more difficult to assess than that in areas where there is extreme site fidelity and small home ranges (e.g. Doubtful Sound, NZ and individuals in the Port Stephens, NSW and Shark Bay, WA populations). In all cases, however, disturb-ance to behavioural patterns, group structure, habitat use and/or reproductive success has been documented.
In the case of migratory species, the effects of whale-watching tourism are generally isolated to a particular season, e.g. humpback whales on the winter breeding grounds in Hawaii and Tonga, or the summer feeding grounds off New England and Alaska; grey whales in the winter breeding grounds of the Baja lagoon system in Mexico; and southern right whales on their summer breeding grounds in South Africa (Hoyt, 2002). Occasionally, tourism also occurs along the whales’ migratory path, e.g. humpback whale watching off the east Australian coast (IFAW, 2004). There are concerns over the potential for cumulative effects of whale watching since whales may first approach land near south-eastern Australia, then continue migrating north along the New South Wales and Queensland coasts (National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Amendment (Marine Mammals) Regulation 2004). Some individuals continue further on to breeding grounds in New Caledonia where a rapidly developing, unregulated whale-watching industry has developed (C. Garrigue, Operation Cetaces, 2006, personal communication). Exposure to whale watching then continues on their return migration south. This could result in 7 months of exposure to boat-based tourism for some individuals, and while it is still uncertainwhether the same individuals pass close enough to shore to be targeted by boats on the northern and southern migration, in the absence of these data the precautionary principle should be applied to protect this recovering popula-tion (IWC, 1996).
Both migratory and non-migratory populations of cetaceans present unique management challenges as the implications of chronic, year-round tourism dif-fer from the acute, seasonal bursts of tourism activity. In many places where
Fig. 17.3. Boat-based killer whale watching in British Columbia. (Photograph S. Allen.)
Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry 327
whale-watching tours operate, there is additional vessel activity that causes changes in cetacean behaviour, e.g. Moray Firth, Scotland (Janik and Thompson, 1996; Hastie et al., 2003), Panama City Beach, USA (Samuels and Bejder, 2003) and Bay of Islands, New Zealand (Constantine et al., 2004). This must also be carefully considered when managing the growth of an indus-try. In addition, research has shown that there are inter-species differences in responses to particular types of boat handling or swimmer placement (e.g. Constantine and Baker, 1997) and these results need to be incorporated into management plans. Well-designed, quantitative studies are vital and the collec-tion of long-term data is important in providing an accurate picture of the effect of the industry on target animals. The complexity of managing tourism requires caution and the use of an adaptive management plan where all stakeholders are involved in the process, i.e. managers, researchers and tour operators.
Research into Short- and Long-term Impacts
In almost all situations, the lack of pre-tourism data on target animals’ behaviour, habitat use and fecundity, the often urgent need for information as a new whale-watching industry is being developed, and the fact that cetaceans are long-lived, slow-breeding animals makes for a difficult research environment. Even with these limitations, however, many studies have shown clear short-term changes in behav-iour in the presence of tour vessels. Documented short-term impacts include changes in habitat use (Salden, 1988; Lusseau, 2005), behaviour (Corkeron, 1995; Würsig, 1996; Lusseau, 2003a,b; Constantine et al., 2004; Allen et al., in press a), swimming speed and direction (Kruse, 1991; Williams et al., 2002; Scheidat et al., 2004), inter-animal distance (Blane and Jaakson 1995; Bejder et al., 1999, 2006b; Allen et al., in press a) and vocal communication (Scarpaci et al., 2000). Animals are also exposed to vessel traffic not involved in whale watching in many cases (e.g. Janik and Thompson, 1996; Allen and Read, 2000; Nowacek et al., 2001; Van Parijs and Corkeron, 2001; Hastie et al., 2003), which can add extra pressures on populations exposed to tourism.
In some cases, the use of several short-term studies on the same population can provide longer-term information useful to managers employing an adaptive management plan. Short-term studies may be misleading (see Bejder et al., 2006b) however, if repeated over a longer time period these can provide useful measure-ments of behavioural change. One example of this was the comparison of bot-tlenose dolphin responses to swim attempts in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand over two time periods, 1994–1995 and 1997–1998 (Constantine, 2001). Even in this relatively short time period, there was a significant increase in avoidance behav-iour, which was attributed to swimmer placements that left the dolphins no choice of whether to approach the swimmers or not. In response, the New Zealand Department of Conservation (management agency) made placing swimmers line abreast of the dolphins’ path of travel the only option for swimmer placement and included this as a condition of the operators’ permits in Northland.
Ideally, long-term data sets that include a period of pre-tourism data collection provide the most useful information about the effects of whale watching on the
target population. Such data sets are rarely available. The most comprehensive example to date exists in Shark Bay, WA, where data were available both before and during vessel-based dolphin-watching tourism and at two tourism levels (Bejder, 2005; Bejder et al., 2006a). Furthermore, there were subsets of the population with very different levels of exposure to tour vessels – hence providing both before/after and control/impact comparisons. Based on decades of detailed behavioural records, dolphin abundance was compared within adjacent tourism and control sites over three consecutive 4.5-year periods wherein research activity was relatively constant, but tourism levels increased from zero to two operators.
At this location, when comparing periods in which there was no tourism and then one operator within the tourism site, there was no change in dolphin abun-dance per square kilometre; however, as tour operator numbers increased from one to two, there was a significant average decline of 14.9% in dolphins per square kilometre, approximating a decline of one per seven individuals. Concurrently, within the control site there was a non-significant average increase of 8.5% in dol-phins per square kilometre. While acknowledging that research vessels are likely to have contributed to the documented effects, it was concluded that, given the sub-stantially greater presence and proximity to dolphins of tour vessels relative to research vessels, tour vessel activity was identified as the most significant contribu-tor to declining dolphin numbers within the tourism site (Bejder et al., 2006a).
While few study sites have such extensive data sets, the benefits of long-term data collection on cetacean populations are numerous. Recent work on bottlenose dolphins in Fiordland, New Zealand, revealed significant differences between the ways in which male and female dolphins respond to boat disturbance, and that these responses were exacerbated for female dolphins when boats violated regula-tions prescribing appropriate boat handling around dolphins (Lusseau, 2003a,b). It is likely that the energetic demands for female dolphins are different from those of male dolphins, especially when accompanied by calves. Research on the bot-tlenose dolphin populations in Fiordland was initiated in Doubtful Sound in 1991, with data being collected on population size and ranging behaviour (e.g. Williams et al., 1993; Schneider, 1999; Lusseau, 2003b, 2005). There has been a decrease in dolphin population size in Doubtful Sound from 67 to 56 individuals between 1997 and 2005 which is of concern for such a small population (Lusseau et al., 2006). With demonstrated impacts of boating traffic on dolphin behaviour (Lusseau, 2003b), an increase in boat traffic operating in the narrow fjord system and no changes to tourism management in response to research findings and rec-ommendations (Lusseau and Higham, 2004; Lusseau et al., 2006), this does not represent a picture of long-term sustainability.
A Case Study of Unsustainable Dolphin-watching Tourism Management
Fiordland is a popular tourism destination in New Zealand. Scenic cruises are one of the main activities visitors can experience there, and those tours interact on a daily basis with bottlenose dolphins in three fjords. In Milford Sound, one of
Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry 329
those three fjords, the dolphins leave the area altogether during cruising peak times as the disturbance from boat traffic is too high (Lusseau, 2005). With Milford Sound becoming too crowded, many tourists are attracted towards other fjords and the visitor volume to Doubtful Sound is now increasing significantly (D. Lusseau, Dalhousie University, 2006, personal communication). From 1999 to 2002, a study by Lusseau (2003a) showed that the levels of tourism activities in Doubtful Sound were putting significant biological stress on bottle nose dol-phins residing there. Dolphins tended to avoid interactions with boats and the energetic costs of these avoidance strategies were greater for females, especially mothers who already had an added energetic burden due to calf dependence (Lusseau, 2003b). These findings presented a warning that tourism could affect the reproductive success of this population and potentially trigger a decline in abundance. Managers, the New Zealand Department of Conservation, were advised to create a multi-level reserve, establishing no-go areas to eliminate interactions with tour boats during the more sensitive times for dolphins and still allowing for further growth of the industry (Lusseau and Higham, 2004). Despite this advice, no management actions were taken and the industry was allowed to grow unchecked. This inaction has been followed by a decline in the abundance of the dolphin population (Lusseau et al., 2006). In mid-2007, managers finally produced a discussion document after having the research findings for four years and the 2006 advice from the IWC urging New Zealand to act speedily to increase the protection of the Doubtful Sound bottlenose dolphin population (IWC, 2006). Lusseau et al. (2006) warn of the likelihood that the population will become extinct within the next 50 years if no action is taken. It is hoped that action will soon be taken to afford greater protection to this vulnerable species.
Management Directions
So what should managers do? We suggest that there needs to be a widespread paradigm shift away from attempting to demonstrate impact subsequent to the establishment of a regional whale-watching industry. It is time to shift the bur-den of proof on to the industry to show that their activities are sustainable and not detrimental to the health of target populations (Mangel et al., 1996). The current systems of either reactive (constantly playing ‘catch-up’) or proactive management that attempt to minimize impact until research can prove that the industry is not causing biologically significant changes is unrealistic and does not afford the animals the protection they require (Corkeron, 2004). There are so few studies that have the longevity to demonstrate biological impact that managers must pay attention to those that exist and draw inference from these studies to design an adaptive management system. This, of course, represents an enormous challenge, but considering the financial and educational gains that a sustainable whale-watching industry can contribute over the long term, this also presents an enormous opportunity. Small, isolated populations of cetaceans are most vulnerable to disturbance (evidence from the Shark Bay, WA, and Fiordland, NZ studies) and this can lead to biologically significant impacts on the population. Obviously, long-term studies provide us with the
most informed management advice, but the ever-increasing volume of studies demonstrating short-term impacts can provide useful proxies.
Management for sustainability requires the introduction of whale-watching ‘no-go’ protected areas based on research that demonstrates preferred habitats in which behaviours vulnerable to disturbance occur (such as resting or foraging; e.g. Lusseau, 2003b; Constantine et al., 2004). A system of multi-levelled marine mammal sanctuaries has been proposed for the tourism-impacted dolphin popu-lation in Fiordland, allowing for a continuing dolphin-watching industry while also allowing the dolphins, the resource upon which the industry depends, critical habi-tat free of boating activity (Lusseau and Higham, 2004; Lusseau et al., 2006).
Other management options include creating ‘no-go’ times of day in which interactions with cetaceans are prohibited, greater minimum approach distances, capping the number of boats allowed within a particular distance of target animals and prohibiting or restricting intrusive activities such as swimming with cetaceans. Similar stipulations are already in place in various parts of the world, either as vol-untary codes, guidelines or governmental legislation, but they are frequently ren-dered ineffective by a lack of monitoring or enforcement (Samuels and Bejder, 2003; Scarpaci et al., 2003; Allen et al., in press b). The whale-watching industry is yet to demonstrate effective self-regulation and infringements of codes and laws are reported even when operators are aware of some assessment of their activities (Scarpaci et al., 2003; Allen et al., in press b).
Whale watching has been occurring for over half a century, yet even the highest-quality research, designed specifically to provide managers with potential solutions to resource management challenges, is rarely acted upon. In only one case has a permit been withdrawn due to demonstrated impacts on the target animals – that being Shark Bay, Australia (Ministry Media Statement, 2006). In a few other cases, amendments have been made to whale-watching tour operat-ing permits such that disturbance was minimized (Bay of Islands and Kaikoura, NZ). While these instances represented steps in the right direction, the reality is that little monitoring or enforcement occurs even in these areas and that the industry continues to grow on a broad scale. As an example, permits continue to be issued to watch and swim with humpback whales in Tonga despite a distinct lack of data on the quality of operations and the potential impacts on the whales. The industry is vital to this small community (Orams, 1999), but the increase in the number of permitted operators without monitoring this recovering popula-tion of whales on their calving grounds, and no guideline enforcement, cannot be described as ‘sustainable development’. Humpback whale watching also con-tinues to spread on the New South Wales coast of Australia without a permit sys-tem and the potential for a cumulative impact is of concern (IFAW, 2004).
Conclusion
The whale-watching industry has enormous potential to educate people and provide them with a once-in-a-lifetime experience, which hopefully will encour-age people to protect cetaceans and their environment. Bejder and Samuels (2003) urged for more high-quality, quantitative research to evaluate the poten-
Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry 331
tial impacts of whale watching to help managers ensure the long-term sustaina-bility of the industry. We are now beginning to see the results of these studies and the concern raised by scientists is being echoed by the IWC and some of the non-governmental organizations (such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society). The IWC is urging member states to take the threats to populations impacted by whale watching seriously and, in some places, this has occurred. Sadly though, despite all the potential economic, educational and conservation benefits, many places are failing to protect their cetaceans. If the burden of proof is shifted on to the industry and managers to show sustainability, then the industry will grow cautiously. As Corkeron (2004) pointed out, it is time to raise the question as to when and where whale watching should not occur; with the evidence we have in hand it is time for a paradigm shift.
References
Allen, M.C. and Read, A.J. (2000) Habitat selection of foraging bottlenose dolphins in relation to boat density near Clearwater, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 16, 81–84.
Allen, S., Constantine, R., Bejder, L., Waples, K. and Harcourt, R. (in press a) ‘Can’t sleep, can’t eat – let’s split’: Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin responses to tour boats in Port Stephens, Australia. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management.
Allen, S., Smith, H., Waples, K. and Harcourt, R. (in press b) The voluntary code of conduct for dolphin-watching in Port Stephens, Australia: is self-regulation an effective management tool? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management.
Baker, C.S. and Herman, L.M. (1989) Behavioral Responses of Summering Humpback Whales to Vessel Traffic: Experimental and Opportunistic Observations. Report to National Parks Service, US Department of the Interior, NPS-NR-TRS-89-01.
Barr, K. and Slooten, L. (1999) Effects of Tourism on Dusky Dolphins at Kaikoura. Conservation Advisory Science Notes 229, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Bejder, L. (2005) Linking short- and long-term effects of nature-based tourism on cetaceans. PhD thesis, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Bejder, L. and Samuels, A. (2003) Evaluating the effects of nature-based tourism on cetaceans. In: Gales, N., Hindell, M. and Kirkwood, R. (eds) Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 229–256.
Bejder, L., Dawson, S.M. and Harraway, J.A. (1999) Responses by Hector’s dolphins to boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 15, 738–750.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Gales, N., Mann, J., Connor, R., Heithaus, M., Watson-Capps, J., Flaherty, C. and Krützen, M. (2006a) Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long-term disturbance. Conservation Biology 20, 1791–1798.
Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H. and Gales, N. (2006b) Interpreting short-term behavioural responses to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behaviour 72, 1149–1158.
Blane, J.M. and Jaakson, R. (1995) The impact of ecotourism on the St. Lawrence beluga whales. Environmental Conservation 21, 267–269.
Carlson, C. (2004) A Review of Whale Watch Guidelines and Regulations around the World. Report to the International Whaling Commission Meeting Scientific Committee, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
Constantine, R. (2001) Increased avoidance of swimmers by wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) due to long-term exposure to swim-with-dolphin tourism. Marine Mammal Science 17, 689–702.
Constantine, R. and Baker, C.S. (1997) Monitoring the Commercial Swim-with-Dolphin Operations in the Bay of Islands. Science for Conservation No.56, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Constantine, R. Brunton, D.H. and Baker, C.S. (2003) Effects of Tourism on Behavioural Ecology If Bottlenose Dolphins of Northeastern New Zealand. DoC Science Internal Series 153, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Constantine, R., Brunton, D.H. and Dennis, T. (2004) Dolphin watching tour boats change bottle-nose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation 117, 299–307.
Corkeron, P.J. (1995) Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hervey Bay, Queensland: behaviour and responses to whale-watching vessels. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73, 1290–1299.
Coscarella, M.A., Dans, S.L., Crespo, E.A. and Pedraza, S.N. (2003) Potential impact of unregulated dolphin-watching activities in Patagonia. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5, 77–84.
Gordon, J., Leaper, R., Hartley, F.G. and Chappell, O. (1992) Effects of Whale-watching Vessels on the Surface and Underwater Acoustic Behaviour of Sperm Whales off Kaikoura, New Zealand. Science and Research Series No. 52, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Hoyt, E. (2001) Whale Watching 2000: Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures, and Expanding Socioeconomic Benefits. Report to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
Hoyt, E. (2002) Whale watching. In: Perrin, W.F., Würsig, B. and Thewissen, J.G.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, California, pp. 1305–1310.
IWC (1996) Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission Meeting 48, Washington, DC.
IWC (2006) Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission Meeting 58, Washington, DC.
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) (2004) The Growth of Whale Watching Tourism in Australia. A report for IFAW – the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) (2005) The Growth of the New Zealand Whale Watching Industry. A report for IFAW – the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts.
Janik, V.M. and Thompson, P.M. (1996) Changes in the surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 12, 597–602.
Hastie, G., Wilson, B., Tufft, L.H. and Thompson, P.M. (2003) Bottlenose dolphins increase breathing synchrony in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 19, 74–84.
Kruse, S. (1991) The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. In: Pryor, K and Norris, K.S. (eds) Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, pp. 149–159.
Lusseau, D. (2003a) The effects of tourism activities on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Fiordland, New Zealand. PhD thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Lusseau, D. (2003b) Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins: using Markov chains to model anthropogenic impacts. Conservation Biology 17, 1785–1793.
Lusseau, D. (2005) Residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops spp., in Milford Sounds, New Zealand, is related to boat traffic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295, 265–272.
Lusseau, D. and Higham, J.E.S. (2004) Managing the impacts of dolphin-based tourism through the definition of critical habitats: the case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sounds, New Zealand. Tourism Management 25, 657–667.
Managing the Whale- and Dolphin-watching Industry 333
Lusseau, D., Slooten, L. and Currey, R.J.C. (2006) Unsustainable dolphin watching tourism in Fiordland, New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments 3, 173–178.
Mangel, M., Talbot, L.M., Meffe, G.K., Agardy, M.T., et al. (1996) Principles for the conserva-tion of wild living resources. Ecological Applications 6, 338–362.
Ministry Media Statement (2006) Available at: http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/media/media.nsf/news/958A19167C70F7934825719900206D69. West Australian Government.
Nowacek, S.M., Wells, R.S. and Solow, A.R. (2001) Short-term effects of boat traffic in bottle-nose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17, 673–688.
Orams, M.B. (1999) The Economic Benefits of Whale Watching in Vava’u, The Kingdom of Tonga. Centre for Tourism Research, Massey University at Albany, North Shore, New Zealand.
Richter, C., Dawson, S. and Slooten, E. (2006) Impacts of commercial whale watching on male sperm whales at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 22, 46–63.
Salden, D.R. (1988) Humpback whale encounter rates offshore of Maui, Hawaii. Journal of Wildlife Management 52, 301–304.
Samuels, A. and Bejder, L. (2004) Chronic interaction between humans and free-ranging bot-tlenose dolphins near Panama City Beach, Florida, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6, 69–77.
Samuels, A., Bejder, L., Constantine, R. and Heinrich, S. (2003) Swimming with wild cetaceans, with a special focus on the Southern Hemisphere. In: Gales, N., Hindell, M. and Kirkwood, R. (eds) Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia, pp. 277–303.
Scarpaci, C., Bigger, S.W., Corkeron, P.J. and Nugegoda, D. (2000) Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) increase whistling in the presence of ‘swim-with-dolphin’ tour opera-tions. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2, 183–185.
Scarpaci, C., Nugedoga, D. and Corkeron, P. (2003) Compliance with regulations by ‘swim-with-dolphins’ operations in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Environmental Management31, 342–347.
Scheidat, M., Castro, C., Gonzalez, J. and Williams, R. (2004) Behavioural responses of hump-back whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whale watch boats near Isla de la Plata, Machalilla National Reserve, Ecuador. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6(1), 63–68.
Schneider, K. (1999) Behaviour and ecology of bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, Fiordland, New Zealand. PhD thesis, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Stensland, E. and Berggren, P. (2007) Behavioural changes in female Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins in response to boat-based tourism. Marine Ecology Progress Series 332, 225–234.
Van Parijs, S.M. and Corkeron, P.J. (2001) Boat traffic affects the acoustic behaviour of Pacific humpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis. Journal of the Marine Biology Association, UK 81, 1–6.
Williams, J.A., Dawson, S.M. and Slooten, E. (1993) The abundance and distribution of bottle-nosed dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 2080–2088.
Williams, R.M., Trites, A.W. and Bain, D.E. (2002) Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of Zoology, London 256, 255–270.
Würsig, B. (1996) Swim-with-dolphin activities in nature: weighing the pros and cons. Whalewatcher 30, 11–15.
Würsig, B., Cipriano, F., Slooten, E., Constantine, R., Barr, K. and Yin, S. (1997) Dusky dol-phins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) off New Zealand: status of present knowledge. Reportfor the International Whaling Commission 47, 715–722.
