Student workshop 17th ECS annual meeting “Interactions between humans and marine mammals”
Resume of the first two sessions by Line A. Kyhn
After a welcome and short introduction this year’s student workshop opened with the first speaker:
Jeremy Kiszka: ”Interactions between humans and marine mammals: “The case of solitary and “sociable” dolphins”.
Solitary and sociable dolphins (SSD) were here defined from the following “which accept to be touched and in general become tourist attractions” (Lockyer 1990). SSD’s first appeared at the end of the nineteenth century (a Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus) in 1888 (Baker, 1974)). The first SSD case of a Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) appeared in 1955 (Alpers, 1963).
There have been 53 incidences of SSD’s and 90% of these have been Bottlenose Dolphins. Besides Risso’s and Bottlenose Dolphins the following species have also been involved: Indo-Pacific Hump-backed Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) (n=1), Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (Stenella frontalis) (n=1), Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) (n=2), Dusky Dolphin (Lagenorhyncus obscurus) (n=1).
The reason for the high representation of Bottlenose Dolphins is probably that it is a coastal cosmopolitan species with high ecological and behavioural plasticity. In general SSD’s occur where the species involved occur (particularly where sedentary groups occur).
SSD’s have a worldwide distribution and New Zealand is the most concerned country. On the other hand occurrences on the coasts of South America and Africa are rarely reported. This is probably due to different (from “European”) human cultures in these areas.
There are several hypotheses regarding as to why Solitary and Sociable Dolphins occur.
It can be sterile individuals rejected by their group (Cousteau and Diolé, 1975). Or sub-adult males rejected by adult males; to avoid competition (Caldwell and Caldwell, 1972) as this phenomenon has been observed in captivity. There has been lots of speculation.
Regarding age and sex ratios; in SS- Bottlenose Dolphins an app. equal sex distribution has been observed. Adults and sub-adults have also appeared equally likely, whereas old and juvenile individuals only made up 6% each (Müller, 1998).
Behaviour of SSD’s.
When developing into a SSD a dolphin will in general first avoid human interaction, but then sociability will gradually increase. The reason is that humans and the species involved exploit the same coastal area. Some individuals though remain timid during several years. SSD’s will closely follow boats and approach boat propellers within centimetres. They will approach when humans make special noises; e.g. splashing on the water surface etc. They will often allow people to swim with them and/or to touch them.
SSD’s probably does not perform abnormal behaviour as they “use” humans, in particular swimmers as a substitute and they try to interact with humans in a similar way as they do with conspecifics (Müller, 1998).
Humans can pose a threat to dolphins by interacting with SSD’s. Swimmers and boats can harass them. The dolphins can be disturbed in their basic behaviour patterns e.g. foraging and resting (and therefore require more energy). They can be injured or killed by people that are angry about their presence. They can appear in polluted waters or be contaminated by humans.
But humans themselves can also be put at risk be interacting with SSD’S. They can be injured by the dolphin (biting, slapping it’s tail etc.). Humans can be drawn out to the open sea and into dangerous areas by the dolphin. Male dolphins often become aggressive and endanger swimmers because of dominant and sexual behaviour. All of these possibilities have been observed in interactions between humans and SSD’s.
As SSD’s and humans can pose a threat to one another and SSD’s often attract several hundred people it is very wise to manage the presence of SSD’s.
Based on experiences with a solitary and sociable Bottlenose Dolphin in France in 2002 the following guidelines proved useful to manage the presence of this animal:
Presence of a naturalist/specialist to inform the general public.
Intervene in the media and press.
Be present in the field as much as possible to prevent “bad interactions”.
If necessary ask the ban of interactions between people and the dolphin to prevent accidents and to preserve the animal (and people security if the dolphin occasionally is aggressive).
Cooperate with
local authorities and specialists.
The experiences in France in conjunction with the “Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society“ and GECC (?) also led to development of a code of conduct which could be very useful in interactions with future SSD’s.
Keep your distance. Never go closer than 100 meters. The dolphin will approach you if it wants.
Never drive head on to the dolphin. If unsure of it’s movements, simply stop and put the engine to neutral to prevent any risk of accidents.
Maintain a steady direction and no wake speed. Do not steer erratically.
Please spend no longer than 15 min. with the dolphin.
Never try to swim with or touch the dolphin for your safety and the safety of the dolphin (contaminants etc.)
This code of conduct is very reasonable but in the field it is impossible to implement any code of conduct!
It is very difficult to manage SSD’s, especially as they keep attracting the general public to such a large extend. BUT: their presence can (and should) be utilized to inform the general public about marine wildlife and their threats (efficiency proved in France).
Second talk was by Deborah Benham on her PhD. project “Investigating relationships between wildlife tourism and sea otters in Monterey Bay, California”.
Monterey Bay is one of world’s most diverse ecosystems. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) was designated in 1992 and encompasses 5,322 sq. miles of ocean and 276 miles of coast.
It is popular for whale watching, wildlife tours, kayaking, diving, snorkelling, fishing and sailing. Tourism generated $634 million in 1995 and ecotourism and Wildlife Tourism (WT) generated $65 millions in the mid 1990’s.
During the last 10 years there have been dramatic increases in recreational boating, diving and wildlife viewing and the implications of this for the wildlife is presently unknown.
The California Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis)
The California Sea Otter is a keystone species in kelp bed habitats. It protects biodiversity due to its diet of sea urchins (sea otters have a limiting effect on sea urchin populations. Without this control sea urchins will eat up all the kelp, which can have catastrophically implications for inflicted coastal food webs and the coast itself).
The otter is also an indicator of ocean health- a bioindicator of contaminants.
It was hunted to near extinction and later protected since 1911 (MMPA and ESA).
The present population is at 2100, following declines in the 1980’s and current decline since 1996.
Possible causes for these declines are disease, contamination, interactions with fisheries and stress from human disturbances.
The California Sea Otter is particularly vulnerable to disturbances because it has no fat stores and a fast metabolism. It therefore needs to have a food intake of 25% of its body weight a day. It also has long grooming and resting periods. This means that disturbances lead to an increased energy expenditure.
The California Sea Otter is therefore energetically ‘on the edge’ (e.g. nursing mothers, diseased/contaminated animals).
Previous wildlife research has shown that wildlife tourism in general can lead to interruption of biologically important behaviours e.g. feeding, resting, reproduction. Changes in respiration and heart rate. Abandonment of important habitats. Increases in levels of stress hormones. (E.g. Allen 1984, Baker et. al 1983, Fernandez and Azkona 1993, Higham 1998, Fowler 1999, Duchesne 2000, Cassini 2001).
For sea otters very limited information is available regarding human disturbances. Curland (1997, MSc Thesis) found an increased travelling in areas with more commercial and recreational disturbance. Garshelis and Garshelis (1984) and Udevitz (1995) found avoidance of foraging areas that had heavy boat traffic.
Currently no information is available regarding: What factors contribute to sea otter disturbance.
Whether changes in behaviour are biologically significant or has long-term effects. What the social/human aspect of disturbance is and how to manage it.
The following aims for research
in the Monterey Bay were therefore set up in order to improve sustainable management of the of the Sanctuary:
1.Assess wildlife tourism in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS).
2. Investigate sea otter behaviour in response to recreational activities.
3.Conduct social research to determine demographics, motivations, attitudes and satisfaction of visitors.
4.Assess current management of wildlife disturbance and availability of educational resources.
5.Hold discussions with stakeholders (e.g. tour operators, scientists, educators, NGO’s, tourists).
The research is based on the following questions:
What is otter density, intensity of recreational use and otter density related to site use?
What are the time/activity (T/A) budgets at varying degrees of site use?
Extrapolation of T/A budgets into energy expenditure.
Are there specific disturbance behaviours?
Sequences of behaviour?
Factors affecting behaviour? E.g. group dynamics, age/sex class, type of boat, speed of approach etc.
What are the effects of distance from source of disturbance?
Besides studying the effect of
wildlife tourism (WT) on the sea otters, the human aspect was also studied based on the following questions:
Interviews with operators, wildlife managers, scientists, NGOs and educators examining questions on:
Opinions on wildlife tourism/sea otter interactions
Anecdotal evidence of past interactions
Current regulations, guidelines and educational programs
Suggestions for management of WT
Questionnaire Surveys: Examining tourists regarding:
Demographics
Environmental values
Motivations
Important factors for satisfaction
Awareness of impacts
Suggestions for management
There are different forms of wildlife tourism and tourists can have different effects on the wildlife on both small and large scales.
Some definitions
Ecotourism: (IUCN)
“Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed, natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of the local populations”.
Wildlife Tourism: (Duffus and Dearden 1990)
“Tourism based on consumptive (e.g. hunting) or non-consumptive (wildlife viewing) interactions with wildlife”
In general terms the aim of ecotourism is protection and sustainability of natural areas and this is based on generation of revenue, environmental education and local involvement
.
Ecotourism is a balance of opposing effects on the natural habitat in question.
Positive effects can be: That it is an alternative to consumptive industries. That it can contribute to conservation of natural resources and biological diversity. By insuring revenue and employment ecotourism can also have a positive economic effect on local communities. Environmental education can be part of ecotourism. Last visitor enjoyment and satisfaction leads to
sustainability.
Negative effects can be: Habitat degradation and over-development. Harassment and disturbance of wildlife. Leakage of revenue from local communities to external operators. Socio-cultural impacts. Visitor dissatisfaction can lead to
exploitation of new pristine areas.
According to several authors (Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001), Ross and Wall (1997) and Duffus and Dearden (1990))
management of ecotourism should be with a multidisciplinary approach incorporating as well consideration of the focal animal, the recreational user and the historical context of the human/wildlife relationship, realizing that as the usage of a site evolves and becomes more popular larger numbers of visitors will arrive and this can potentially lead to a negative effect on the area in question. Further, that different personality types (of tourists, wildlife managers and operators) can lead to tension.
The ideal situation will be to increase visitor satisfaction while minimizing impacts on the wildlife. It is therefore important to analyse: Human/wildlife interactions (ecological impacts) and personality/motivations of wildlife tourists and other groups. This can lead to a more effective management that includes consideration of both wildlife and all stakeholders.
Environmental education should be included in ecotourism as it:
Increases visitor enjoyment of the wildlife tourism experience.
Instils enhanced awareness of habitats/wildlife and encourages conservation ethics.
Gives information about appropriate behaviour for visitors to ET and wildlife tourism destinations.
Educates local communities about benefits of ET and wildlife tourism and natural resource conservation.
Educates tour operators about best way to operate within ET and wildlife tourism destinations.
Environmental education is cheap, effective, easy to implement.
(e.g. Orams 1997, Kimmel 1999)
Biological Methods: (Pilot Study 2000 (before PhD)).
Observing sea otter behaviour and recreational activities.
Four study sites chosen with varying levels of recreational use.
Several protocols used (Altmann 1974)
Tallies: Continuous measure of otter and vessel density over time and total number of disturbance events.
Scan Sampling: Data collected from multiple individuals. Can determine time (%) animals spend in various activities and compare between sites.
Focal Sampling: Detailed sequences of behavioural states and events from one particular individual or situation. True representation of entire behavioural repertoire over a period of time. More rigorous statistics possible.
Environmental Data: (weather, visibility, sea state, temperature) can affect animal behaviour and quality of data collection.
Social Methods (pilot study 2002)
Interviews: Opinions and experiences of various stakeholder groups. Excellent way to collect detailed, in-depth information regarding opinions, attitudes, knowledge, concerns etc. (e.g. Kavalinis and Pizam 1994, Warburton et. al. 1999).
Q
uestionnaires: Allow large sample of visitors. Data collected on demographics, attitudes, motivation, knowledge and satisfaction (e.g. Amante-Helweg 1996, Davis et. al 1997, Orams 1997, Corral-Verdugo and Armendariz 2000, Trobe and Acott 2000, Ryan et. al 2000, Orams 2001).
Assessment of educational resources: Survey of literature, signage, orientation talks, videos available to visitors covering wildlife tourism issues. Identify areas of weakness.
Developing Social Research Methods
The social aspect of wildlife based recreational activities (WBRA) is studied because it is easier to manage people than to manage natural environments and wildlife (
biological research can only identify environmental problems).
When managing people a good understanding of the groups involved facilitates the development of effective strategies.
All groups concerned with wildlife based recreational activities in a certain area should be included when developing a management protocol because there are a variety of management techniques available e.g. legislation, fines/fees/licenses, voluntary codes of conduct, education programs etc. and each group will have different opinions on the appropriateness of each method.
Management should therefore:
Take into account the needs of local businesses.
Protect natural resources and benefit habitats and wildlife.
Be cost effective, enforceable and easy to implement.
Be based on sound scientific research.
Promote environmental education.
Maximize visitor satisfaction.
As a first step toward protection of the
California Sea Otter in the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Deborah Benham and cooperates have developed signboards telling about the different wildlife in the area. These signs are going to be put on some kayaks in the bay. Hereafter she will study if/what effect the boards will have on the tourists.