The Current State and Future Prospects of Whale-Watching Management, with Special Emphasis on Whale-Watching in British Columbia, Canada
by
Christopher Duncan Malcolm B.A., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1993 M.Sc., University of Victoria, 1997
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the Department of Geography
We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard
Dr. D. A. Duffus, Supervisor (Department of Geography)
Dr. P. Dearden, Departmental Member (Department of Geography)
Dr. T. L. McDorman, Outside Member (Faculty of Law)
Dr. D. Eastman, Outside Member (School of Environmental Studies)
Dr. R. Rollins, Outside Member (Department of Recreation and Tourism Management, Malaspina University College)
Dr. P. J. Ricketts, External Examiner (Vice-President Academic and Department of Geography, Okanagan University College)
Christopher Duncan Malcolm, 2003 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author.
ii
Supervisor: Dr. D.A. Duffus
ABSTRACT
Commercial whale-watching has become an important aspect of global marine tourism. Rapid expansion during the 1990s has created a yearly US$1 billion industry, in which approximately 10 million people go whale-watching in nearly 90 countries. While the economic importance of whale-watching is well documented, there remain questions regarding ecological impacts on cetacean populations and the veracity of assumed educational benefits. These two problems call into question the label of ecotourism that is currently applied to whale-watching. Due to the knowledge gap regarding the ecological impact of whale-watching, science-based management of the activity is difficult. In some areas, whale-watching has become a vital aspect of the economy before managers have been able to participate in its development. In other areas, management has remained at arm's length, letting the industry grow without their participation. The objective of this dissertation is to critically review the current state of whale-watching management and its link to maintenance of sustainable cetacean populations. Research is mainly focussed on whale-watching in British Columbia, Canada. This dissertation is composed of three separate studies that examine different aspects of whale-watching management: 1) an analysis of global whale-watching protocols and a comparison of cetacean-human versus terrestrial wildlife-human interaction research, 2) a case study of the historical development, current state and future possibilities of whale-watching management in B.C., where the activity has occurred since the early 1980s, and 3) a human dimensions case study of whale-watchers in B.C. to assess the utility of social science research for whale-watching management. In the first study, whale-watching practices for 87 countries were examined. Sixty-one percent of countries where whale-watching exists do not, or appear to not, possess established whale-watching rules. The presence and developmental extent of whale-watching protocols is related to the number of whale-watchers, rate of increase during the 1990s, and the number of years whale-watching has existed, in a given area. The nature of existing whale-watching protocols is extremely variable. Minimum iii
approach guidelines, the most common type of practice, show little relationship to size of the whale-watching industry, the general type of cetacean watched (large whales or dolphins), or the predominant activity of focal cetaceans (breeding, migration, feeding). The first study also compared cetacean-human and terrestrial wildlife-human research papers (n=47 for each). The cetacean-human interaction research was more narrowly focussed, made 20% more speculations, was dependant on overt behaviours observable from the surface, discussed limitations in only 7% of the studies, and did not make use of comparison to terrestrial research. Terrestrial wildlife-human interaction research made more use of physiological measurements and experimental research, which led to management recommendations in 86% of the papers. To be more effective in the future, cetacean-human interaction research needs to make more use of the technology available to measure physiological reactions and employ experimental research designs more often. In the second study, federal, provincial and whale-watching industry documents, personal interviews and participant observation, were used to create a historical record for the development of the whale-watching industry and its management in British Columbia. This historical record was then analysed, based on commons resource management theory, to identify strengths and weaknesses of current management and explore requirements for successful future management. Strengths identified were industry cooperation, self-regulation, a unified voice/forum in Southern Vancouver Island, and a foundation for more effective management. Weaknesses identified were the lack of biological purpose of whale-watching guidelines, and control of vessel behaviour. Successful whale-watching management in the future in B.C. is dependant on Fisheries and Oceans Canada entering into a co-management type regime, in which the experience and self-regulation guidelines of the existing whale-watching industry are taken into account in amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations. In the third study, whale-watchers in British Columbia were surveyed at the three main whale-watching centres of Johnstone Strait, Tofino and Victoria (n=1617). Data was analysed for: 1) expectations, satisfactions, attitudes and demographics between whale-watching sites, 2) attitudes between pre-whale-watching and post-whale-watching trip groups, and 3) specialization in whale-watchers between sites. Johnstone Strait iv
whale-watchers were the most satisfied, followed by Victoria, then Tofino respondents. Johnstone Strait whale-watchers possessed greater previous cetacean education and whale-watching experience, and displayed the most concern for whale management and general resource management issues, followed by Tofino, then Victoria participants. Although there were some significant differences in attitudes between pre- and post-trip groups, it was unclear whether the interpretation aboard the whale-watching vessels was responsible. Whale-watchers already displayed a high level of concern for cetacean and general resource management issues before embarking on whale-watching trips. A specialization index was developed to classify whale-watchers as Novice, Intermediate, Advance or Expert. The index revealed that 81.6% of whale-watchers were Novice or Intermediate, indicating that whale-watchers in B.C. are generalist-type whale- watchers, with little prior experience or knowledge. Johnstone Strait attracted the most Advance and Expert whale-watchers (34.9%), followed by Tofino (14.1%) and Victoria (9.4%). There is a relationship between increase in percentage of specialized whale- watchers and increase in distance from urban tourism centres. The study reveals that, due to the dominance of generalist whale-watchers in B.C., education needs to start with basic whale and marine ecology to develop a context on which to base more in-depth conservation issues. If whale-watchers are to become part of the management solution, education programs need to aim to develop a greater percentage of specialized whale- watchers. From this study, there are indications that whale-watching could provide a basis for the sustainable management of cetaceans in the future. However, more research needs to be undertaken towards the development of science-based management, and the development of education programs. In addition, management also needs to take into account the efforts of established self-regulated whale-watching industries. Currently, whale-watching management protocols are ad-hoc, inconsistent, and are not based in science. Minimum approach distances may not provide protection while researchers investigate the impact of vessel proximity to cetaceans; therefore minimum approach distances are pseudo-precautionary rather than precautionary. Due to the questions that remain regarding ecological impact and educational benefits, whale-watching can not currently be considered ecotourism. v
Examiners:
Dr. D.A. Duffus, Supervisor (Department of Geography)
Dr. P. Dearden, Departmental Member (Department of Geography)
Dr. T.L. McDorman, Outside Member (Faculty of Law)
Dr. D. Eastman, Outside Member (School of Environmental Studies)
Dr. R. Rollins, Outside Member (Department of Recreation and Tourism Management, Malaspina University College)
Dr. P. J. Ricketts, External Examiner (Vice-President Academic and Department of Geography, Okanagan University College) vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………. i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… ii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………….. xi
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………. xiii
List of Appendices ……………………………………………………………….. xvi
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………. xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Ecotourism and Whale-watching …………………………………….. 1
1.2 Outline of Dissertation ……………………………………………….. 5
1.3 References ……………………………………………………………. 9
CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL STATE OF WHALE-WATCHING …………………... 13
2.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 13
2.2 Management of Whale-watching Activities ………………………….. 15
2.2.1 Data Collection and Analysis ………………………………. 15
2.2.2 Results and Discussion ……………………………………... 17
2.3 Comparison of Terrestrial Wildlife and Cetacean Disturbance Research ……………………………………………………………. 29
2.3.1 Impact of Recreation on Wildlife …………………………... 29
2.3.2 Impact of whale-watching on cetacean populations ……….. 32
2.3.3 Methods …………………………………………………….. 34
2.3.4 Results and Discussion …………………………………….. 36
2.4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 44
2.5 References ……………………………………………………………. 47
vii
CHAPTER 3: HINDSIGHT EVALUATION OF WHALE-WATCHING MANAGEMENT IN B.C. …….…………………………………. 54
3.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 54
3.2 Review of Management Regimes ……………………………………. 59
3.2.1 Regulation Management …………………………………… 60
3.2.2 Privatization Management …………………………………. 61
3.2.3 Co-Management ……………………………………………. 61
3.2.4 Voluntary Compliance-based Management of Whale- watching in Canada ………………………………………… 64
3.3 Methods ………………………………………………………………. 68
3.3.1 Dialogue and Interviews …………………………………… 68
3.3.2 Archival Research ………………………………………….. 68
3.3.3 Participant Observation …………………………………….. 69
3.4 History of Whale-watching Development and Management in B.C. ... 70
3.4.1 Site-Specific Growth and Management ……………………. 70
Johnstone Strait …………………………………………... 72
Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds …………………………... 80
Southern Vancouver Island ………………………………. 86
3.4.2 Institutional Management Initiatives ………………………. 95
B.C. Ministry of Tourism Report: A Perspective on Whale-Watching and Tourism in British Columbia ……... 95
University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop ……………………. 97
British Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory Council …………………………………………………… 99
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Pacific Region) Community Meetings …………………………………….. 101 viii
3.4.3 Vessel Monitoring / Education …………………………….. 103
3.4.4 Media Interpretation of Whale-Watching in British Columbia …………………………………………………… 106
3.4.5 Research of Whale-Watching Vessel - Cetacean Interaction in British Columbia ………………………………………… 108
3.5 Analysis and Discussion ……………………………………………... 113
3.5.1 Strengths of Current Whale-Watching Management in B.C. 113
Industry Cooperation ……………………………………... 113
Self-Regulation …………………………………………... 115
A Unified Voice/Forum in Southern Vancouver Island …. 116
A Foundation for More Effective Management in the Future …………………………………………………….. 116
3.5.2 Weaknesses of Current Whale-Watching Management in B.C. ………………………………………………………… 118
Biological Purpose of Guidelines ………………………... 118
Control of Vessel Behaviour ……………………………... 121
3.5.3 Future Prospects for Whale-Watching Management in B.C. 123
3.6 Conclusions …………………………………………………………... 131
3.7 References ……………………………………………………………. 135
3.8 Personal Communications ……………………………………………. 145
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY OF WHALE-WATCHERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA ……………………………………………………... 146
4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………….……….. 146
4.2 Literature Review …………………………………………………….. 149
4.2.1 Human Dimensions in Wildlife Management …….……….. 149
4.2.2 Human Dimensions in Whale-Watching ………….……….. 155
4.2.3 Attitude …………………………………………….……….. 156 ix
4.2.4 Motivation ………………………………………………….. 157
4.3.5 Satisfaction …………………………………………………. 159
4.2.6 Specialization ………………………………………………. 161
4.2.7 Education as a Management Tool in Whale-Watching ……. 163
4.2.8 Summary …………………………………………………… 167
4.3 Methods ………………………………………………………………. 168
4.3.1 Site Selection ……………………………………………….. 168
4.3.1.1 Johnstone Strait ………………………….……….. 168
4.3.1.2 Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds ……..……………. 171
4.3.1.3 Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Islands, Washington ………………………………………. 173
4.3.2 Data Collection Instrument ………………………………… 176
4.3.3 Data Collection …………………………………………….. 177
4.3.4 Data Processing and Analysis ……………………………… 179
4.3.5 Question 1: Difference Between Whale-Watching Sites …... 180
4.3.6 Question 2: Difference in Attitude Between Pre- and Post- Trip Groups ………………………………………………… 180
4.3.7 Question 3: Whale-Watcher Specialization at Different Sites 180
4.4 Results ………………………………………………………………... 183
4.4.1 Response Rate ……………………………………………… 183
4.4.2 Question 1: Results by Whale-Watching Site ……………… 184
4.4.2.1 Previous Whale-Watching Experience …………... 184
4.4.2.2 View Towards Whale Management ……………… 189
4.4.2.3 General Views on the Environment ……………… 193
4.4.2.4 Whale- Watcher Expectations ……………………. 196
4.4.2.5 Whale-Watcher Satisfaction ……………………… 205 x
4.4.2.6 Demographics ……………………………………. 224
4.4.3 Question 2: Difference in Attitude Between Pre- and Post- Trip Groups ………………………………………………… 229
4.4.4 Question 3: Whale-Watcher Specialization ………………... 234
4.4.5 Summary of Results ………………………………………... 240
4.5 Discussion ……………………………………………………………. 242
4.6 Conclusions …………………………………………………………... 254
4.7 References ……………………………………………………………. 257
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………… 265
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………… 275
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Estimated growth of global whale-watching …………………………... 12
Table 2.2: Type of whale-watching management in whale-watching countries ….. 17
Table 2.3: Minimum approach distances for whale-watching around the world….. 20
Table 2.4: Maximum time restrictions for whale-watching around the world ……. 25
Table 2.5: "Research foci" in terrestrial wildlife versus cetacean disturbance research by percentage of total studies examined …………………….. 36
Table 2.6: "Other inclusions" and type of research in terrestrial wildlife versus cetacean disturbance research by percentage of total studies examined 37
Table 3.1: Number and types of vessels operating from Tofino and Uclulet, by year ……………………………………………………………………. 82
Table 3.2: Soundwatch monitoring of commercial whale-watching vessels ……... 105
Table 3.3: DFO Marine Mammal Monitoring Project (M3) monitoring of commercial and private whale-watching vessels, 2001 ……………….. 105
Table 4.1: Construction of Specialization Index ………………………………….. 182
Table 4.2: Survey completion totals ………………………………………………. 184
Table 4.3: Mann-Whitney U-tests of views toward whale management between locations ………………………………………………………………... 192
Table 4.4: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general views on the environment (NEP) between locations ………………………………………………………. 195
Table 4.5: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general trip expectations between locations .. 198
Table 4.6: Mann-Whitney U-tests of expectations of the guide between locations 201
Table 4.7: Mann-Whitney U-tests of learning expectations between locations …... 204
Table 4.8: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general trip satisfaction between locations ... 208
Table 4.9: Mann-Whitney U-tests of satisfaction of the guide by location ……….. 214
Table 4.10: Mann-Whitney U-tests of learning satisfaction between location …… 220
Table 4.11: Mann-Whitney U-tests of demographics for pre- and post-trip groups 230 xii
Table 4.12: Mann-Whitney U-tests of views toward whale management between pre- and post-trip group ………………………………………………. 232
Table 4.13: Mann-Whitney U-tests of New Environmental Paradigm between pre- and post trip group ………………………………………………. 233
Table 4.14: Calculation of Specialization Index ………………………………….. 235
Table 4.15: ANOVA and correlation tests of View Toward Whale Management and NEP Scores by specialization group …………………………….. 237
Table 4.16: ANOVA and correlation tests of Expectation Scores by specialization group …………………………………………………………………. 238
Table 4.17: ANOVA and correlation tests of Satisfaction Scores by specialization group …………………………………………………………………. 239
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Vancouver Island, British Columbia ………………………………….. 72 Figure 3.2: Johnstone Strait ……………………………………………………….. 74
Figure 3.3: Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds ……………………………………….. 81
Figure 3.4: Southern Vancouver Island and San Juan Islands, WA ………………. 88
Figure 3.5: Maximum and average numbers of whale-watching vessels in Haro Strait (1998-2001) ……………………………………………………... 89
Figure 3.6: Number of whale-watching companies and vessels, by year …………. 89
Figure 3.7: Number of whale-watching passengers per year ……………………... 90
Figure 4.1: Framework for non-consumptive management of whales ……………. 151
Figure 4.2: Conceptual framework of non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation and tourism ………………………………………………… 152
Figure 4.3: Objectives of ecotourism management strategies ……………………. 153
Figure 4.4: Behavioural model of recreation participation ……………………….. 154
Figure 4.5: User specialization and site evolution ………………………………… 162
Figure 4.6: Features of an effective education program for tourists ……………… 164
Figure 4.7: Vancouver Island, British Columbia …………………………………. 169
Figure 4.8: Johnstone Straight ……………………………………………………. 170
Figure 4.9: Clayoquot and Barkely Sounds ………………………………………. 172
Figure 4.10: Southern Vancouver Island and San Juan Islands, WA …………….. 175
Figure 4.11: Experience viewing whales in the wild by location …………………. 185
Figure 4.12: Previous experience on commercial whale-watching trips by location 186
Figure 4.13: Priority of whale-watching by location ……………………………… 188
Figure 4.14: Types of learning media used by location …………………………... 189
Figure 4.15: Views toward whale management by location ……………………… 191 xiv
Figure 4.16: General views on the environment (NEP) by location ……………… 194
Figure 4.17: General trip expectations by location ……………………………….. 197
Figure 4.18: Expectations of the guide by location ……………………………….. 200
Figure 4.19: Learning expectations bv location …………………………………... 203
Figure 4.20: General trip satisfaction by location ………………………………… 207
Figure 4.21: General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove ….. 209
Figure 4.22: General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino ……………. 210
Figure 4.23: General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria …………… 211
Figure 4.24: Satisfaction of guide by location …………………………………….. 213
Figure 4.25: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove …….. 215
Figure 4.26: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino ………………. 216
Figure 4.27: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria …………….. 217
Figure 4.28: Learning satisfaction by location ……………………………………. 219
Figure 4.29: Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove …. 221
Figure 4.30: Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino …………… 222
Figure 4.31: Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria ………….. 223
Figure 4.32: Country of origin by location ………………………………………... 225
Figure 4.33: Gender ………………………………………………….……………. 226
Figure 4.34: Age groups by location ……………………………………………… 227
Figure 4.35: Highest level of education completed by location …………………... 228
Figure 4.36: Views toward whale management by pre- and post-trip group ……... 231
Figure 4.37: New Environmental Paradigm by pre- and post-trip group …………. 233
Figure 4.38: Specialization groups by location …………………………………… 236
Figure 4.39: View Toward Whale Management and NEP Scores by specialization group ………………………………………………………………… 237 xv
Figure 4.40: Expectation scores by specialization group …………………………. 238
Figure 4.41: Satisfaction Scores by specialization group …………………………. 239
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 3.1: Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee Management Recommendations ………………………………………………... 275
Appendix 3.2: Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee Draft Guidelines …………………….………………………………….. 281
Appendix 3.3: Johnstone Strait Whale-Watching Guide ………………………… 289
Appendix 3.4: Tofino Whale Watching Operators’ Voluntary Guidelines ……… 293
Appendix 3.5: Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Marine Mammal Viewing Regulations ………………….……………………………………. 296
Appendix 3.6: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Recommended Guidelines for Marine Wildlife Viewing ………………….……... 305
Appendix 3.7: Whale Watch Operators Northwest Guidebook ………………….. 307
Appendix 3.8: Whale Watch Operators Northwest Courtesy Reminder ………… 312
Appendix 3.9: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Guidelines …….. 313
Appendix 3.10: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Best Practices Guidelines ……………………………………………………… 318
Appendix 3.11: Management Recommendations by Duffus & Dearden (1989) … 328
Appendix 3.12: Soundwatch Boater Guidelines …………………………………. 330
Appendix 3.13: Marine Mammal Monitoring Project Voluntary Guidelines ……. 336
Appendix 3.14: Draft of Harmonized Guidelines ……………….……………….. 337
Appendix 4.1: Before Whale-watching Trip Questionnaire ……………………... 338
Appendix 4.2: Post Whale-watching Questionnaire ……………………………... 348
Appendix 4.3: Information Letter for Questionnaire Participants ……………….. 358
Appendix 4.4 Questions From the Surveys Used in this Study ………………… 359
xvii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are numerous people I would like to thank for contributing to the successful completion of this dissertation.
The following people provided me with official, updated or otherwise unavailable local whale-watching guidelines: Simon Berrow (Ireland), Rochelle Constantine (New
Zealand), Sara Magalhaes (Portugal), Joel Ortega-Ortiz (Mexico), Lindsay Porter (Hong
Kong), Andrea Ramalho (Tonga), Fabian Ritter and Erika Urquiola (Canary Islands),
Jesuina M. de Rocha (Brazil), Tiu Simila (Norway), and Mariano Sironi (Argentina).
At the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ed Lochbaum was instrumental in realising my idea of a British Columbia provincial marine mammal viewing workshop in 1998. Marilyn Joyce, upon replacing Ed, was always willing to discuss whale-watching issues and provided me with information before public release.
At Parks Canada, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Wendy Szaniszlo and Bob Hansen always included me in workshops, meetings, and kept me up to date with developments in Clayoquot Sound.
I would not have been able to write the history of whale-watching development in
British Columbia without the willing participation of Jim Borrowman, Jamie Bray, Dan
Kukat, Rich Osborne, Rod Palm, Alex Rhodes, and Don Travers. Thank you to the
Whale-watch Operators Association Northwest, Dan Kukat, President, for allowing me access to Association documents. Kari Koski, Soundwatch, and Lisa Fairley, Marine
Mammal Monitoring Project, provided me with early access to vessel monitoring data.
For the human dimensions portion of this dissertation, Rick Rollins provided much appreciated direction in questionnaire development and data analysis. Volunteer xviii
participation by three whale-watching companies was essential for this project: at Stubbs
Island Charters in Telegraph Cove, owner Jim Borrowman, head naturalist Jackie
Hildering, and former naturalist Nik Dedaluk; at Jamie’s Whaling Station in Tofino, owner Jamie Bray and former naturalist Jen Jackson; at Springtide Charters in Victoria, owner Dan Kukat and former head naturalist Chelsea Garside. Data entry for this project
was done by University of Victoria student volunteers Leah Gabriel, Chelsea Garside,
and Kim Pearce.
Informal discussions with many people (accompanied by too many beers, rye &
gingers, whiskeys and margaritas to count) over ten years during the 1990’s provided me
with the ideas that framed this dissertation: Robin Baird, Anna Bass, Jim Borrowman,
Carole Carson, Yolanda Clegg, Vic Cockroft, Rochelle Constantine, Pete Corkeron, Dave
Duffus, Graeme Ellis, John Ford, Chelsea Garside, Catherine Giroul, Anna Hall, Kari
Koski, Dan Kukat, John Lien, Ed Lochbaum, Sonya Meier, Nadia Menard, Rich
Osborne, Mark Packenham, Heather Patterson, Lindsay Porter, Anne Sheridan, Wendy
Szaniszlo, Christina Tombach, Kevin Walker, Pam Willis, Steve Wishniowski, and
numerous whale-watch naturalists, drivers and operators. If I have forgotten anyone, I
apologise.
Thank you to my committee, for patience, direction, and invaluable comments on
early drafts of the dissertation: Dave Duffus, Phil Dearden, Rick Rollins, Ted McDorman
and Don Eastman; Peter Ricketts, who acted as my external examiner, also provided
constructive critique and suggestions.
Thanks also to the Department of Geography and Faculty of Science at Brandon
University, for patience and light-hearted badgering. xix
Several fluffy characters kept me company during writing in various places: May and Naboo (felis catus) in Victoria, and later Brandon, and Bailey, Ciaran & Darcy (canis
familiaris) in Sechelt, who provided comforting, friendly (and slightly distracting)
presences while I worked.
This dissertation was undertaken during a difficult time in my life. I would like to
thank Dave Duffus, Jason Dunham, Patricia Edmonds, George Floyd, Lindsay Johnston,
Brian Kopach, Dan Kukat, Chelsea Garside, Sonya Meier, Heather Patterson, Sandy
Peacock, Wendy Szaniszlo, Christina Tombach, Michelle Theberge, and Jackie Trump
for emotional support, friendship, and often a place to sleep and work. I would
particularly like to thank my parents, Marjorie Anne and Tim, who gave me a place to
live and work in their home; words are not enough.
Finally, I thank my wife, Patricia, who inspires me as a quiet source of
confidence, encouragement, humour, and understanding.
1
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.1 ECOTOURISM AND WHALE-WATCHING
Although whale-watching has existed as a commercial enterprise since the
1960’s, when operators based in San Diego, California, began taking tourists to see gray
whales (Eschrichtius robustus), its popularity as a recreational activity did not begin to
surge until the late 1980’s. During the 1990s commercial whale-watching grew into a global phenomenon (cf. Hoyt 2001). It has been a main contributor in establishing marine tourism as the largest growth sector in global tourism, the world’s largest industry
(Hall 2001). In some locations whale-watching has been the catalyst for the establishment and rapid development of tourism industries (IFAW 1999, Hoyt 2001). The proliferation of commercial whale-watching operations around the world has offered the opportunity for millions of people to experience viewing cetaceans in their natural habitat. This increase in popularity of whale-watching is part of a wider growth in popularity of recreation activities focussed on nature, often referred to as ecotourism.
The myriad of ecotourism activities available to the public has created an academic niche focussed on defining the nature of ecotourism and examining the ecological and sociological effects of increased numbers of humans venturing into natural environments. Ecotourism can be generally defined as nature-oriented activities with the express purpose of creating minimal negative ecological impact while experiencing social benefits. Academic definitions frequently stress conservation, education and local economic benefits as the hallmarks of ecotourism (Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996, Lindberg &
Hawkins 1993, Orams 1995, Ryel & Grasse 1991). 2
The growth in ecotourism activities and participants has led to concerns and
questions regarding the environmental, economic and cultural sustainability of
ecotourism (Boo 1990, Duffus & Dearden 1990, Knight & Gutzwiller 1995, Orams 2002,
Roe et al. 1997). For example, researchers have reported negative environmental impacts
(Data & Pal 1993, Higham 1998, Knight & Cole 1995, Lott & McCoy 1990), local
economic shortfalls (Young 1999) and regional cultural effects (Roe et al. 1997).
Controversy is evident, however, as some researchers have reported variable results or been unable to document long-term negative environmental impacts, (Creel et al. 2002,
Gill et al. 2001, Hurlbert 1990, Skagen et al. 2001), while others are advocates of the economic, social and environmental benefits of ecotourism (Forestell 1993, Gössling
1999, Muloin 1998, Orams 2002).
Compared to ecotourism activities such as bird-watching or trekking, whale- watching has received less research attention until recently. Quantitative research has mainly focussed on economic benefits, which are well understood (Hoyt 1992, 1995,
2001), and human dimensions of whale-watchers (Amante-Helweg 1995, Finkler 2001,
Giroul et al. 2001, Russell & Hodson 2002). The economic benefits of whale-watching
are well-understood. Social science investigations have documented the enjoyment
whale-watchers experience but have not yet provided evidence of an educational benefit to the activity. While there is a growing body of research on ecological impacts (Bass
2000, Erbe 2002, Richter 2002, Williams et al. 2002), results are variable. The current state of knowledge regarding the nature, benefits and detriments of whale-watching are perhaps due to the young nature of the activity on a global scale and the inherent 3
difficulties of ocean-based research. Nevertheless, there is concern regarding the
environmental sustainability and social benefits of whale-watching.
This dissertation explores the underlying nature of whale-watching, its
management basis and several applied research questions. These questions developed
during ten years I spent with whales as ecological researcher (Malcolm 1997, Malcolm &
Duffus 2000), management participant (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999), and whale-watch
vessel operator and naturalist. During this time (1993 to 2003), while whale-watching
was growing exponentially around the world, serious questions were being asked about
human use of captive wild animals. Zoos have had to change their primary function from
display to genetic banking and breeding, aimed at wild population conservation, with public viewing maintained as research fund-raising and hopefully a public education tool
(Hansen 2002, Rothfels 2002, Wharten 1995). The maintenance of captive cetaceans, in particular, has become a public controversy, fuelled by the rehabilitation and reintroduction of Keiko, star of the Disney film Free Willy, to the wild. Although pressure to change human practices regarding treatment of wild animals may come from a small but vocal portion of the public, the issues have been made available to the public at large through the media (The Economist 1998, Ottawa Citizen 1997, Vancouver Sun
1993).
Now whale-watching, referred to in this dissertation as the viewing of wild whales from commercially-operated vessels, is falling under similar scrutiny.
Commercial whale-watching is portrayed as a vehicle for conservation (Whale Watch
Operators Association Northwest 2002). However, scientific understanding of vessel- cetacean interactions, potential impacts and consequent management needs has lagged 4
behind the quick establishment and growth of whale-watching industries in virtually
every whale-watching location in the world. As a result, under pressure, managers
scramble to institute whale-watching protocols without sufficient knowledge. Perhaps
due to the crisis-reaction nature of whale-watching management, there has been little
examination of the nature of whale-watching management from a holistic scientific and
historical perspective. Recently, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) have provided forums for discussion of
scientific, socio-economic and educational aspects of whale-watching management
(IFAW 1999, IFAW et al. 1996, 1997, IWC 2000, 2001a,b, 2002). These forums have
identified general concerns regarding industry growth, whale-watching regulations and
the need for improved science in whale-watching management, although they provide
limited specific and readily applicable management recommendations. These workshops,
however, along with compendiums of whale-watching economics (Hoyt 2002) and guidelines / regulations (Carlson 2001), indicate a desire to address whale-watching
issues on a global scale.
Future workshops, discussion and research would benefit from a fundamental
holistic understanding of whale-watching. The goal of this dissertation is therefore to
consolidate and advance knowledge regarding the historical development, current
management and future prospects of whale-watching in order to make a comprehensive
series of statements regarding the nature of the activity; these statements are intended to
guide research and management. These statements are made in the conclusion of this
dissertation, based on the following questions:
5
• What is the current general character of whale-watching?
• What mechanisms have been, and are being, used to manage the activity on global and regional scales?
• What techniques are available for managing the activity given its nature and our state of knowledge?
• Can we currently classify whale-watching as ecotourism or is whale-watching simply an economic exploitation of nature?
These four questions form a basis to answer the primary research question in this
dissertation:
• Is there a foundation for whale-watching that can encourage sustainable management of cetacean populations?
I have chosen three distinct research projects to explore the above questions.
Each project, described below, addresses whale-watching from a management-oriented
perspective.
1.2 OUTLINE OF DISSERTATION
This dissertation examines three separate, yet related aspects regarding the
management basis for whale-watching. Each chapter can therefore stand alone as a
research study. Chapters 2 and 3 take a step back to examine the basis of established
whale-watching protocols, scientifically and historically, in order to identify fundamental
elements of whale-watching management that require consideration for sustainable whale-watching. Chapter 2 gives the international context and Chapter 3 the context within British Columbia. Chapter 4 is a questionnaire-based human dimensions study that examines social science can contribute to whale-watching management. 6
The first part of Chapter 2 documents the current state of whale-watching
management on a global scale. Although there have been numerous calls for scientifically-based whale-watching management (IFAW et al. 1995, Duffus & Dearden
1990, Duffus & Baird 1995, Richter 2002), it appears that current whale-watching
practices are ad-hoc combinations of proximity, time, approach and number of vessel restrictions. In this chapter global whale-watching practices are compiled and examined
for bases upon which these guidelines and regulations have been established. The
question asked is: are there any consistencies or trends in global whale-watching
practices?
The second portion of Chapter 2 examines current cetacean-human interaction
research. In the face of increasing pressure to avoid negative environmental impact upon
cetacean populations, managers need scientific direction from cetacean researchers.
There may be numerous reasons why there is a currently a lack of scientific knowledge
for managers to consult, one of which may be that there is no impact. However,
terrestrial human-wildlife research has demonstrated that negative ecological impact can
occur from ecotourism. As a young branch of scientific enquiry, human-cetacean
interaction research should look to established research for guidance. In this section of
Chapter 2 terrestrial human-wildlife interaction research is compared to human-cetacean
interaction research to examine whether whale-watching researchers use established research and whether there is more that could be transferred.
Chapter 3 examines the development of whale-watching management in British
Columbia. First, the history of whale-watching and the corresponding development of
management in the three main whale-watching locations in B.C. is documented. Second, 7
this history is used as data to critically analyse the direction along which whale-watching
management developed in B.C. and identify the strengths and weaknesses of current B.C.
whale-watching management. This historical management aspect includes participant observation in the whale-watching industry and management processes. The issue of cetaceans as commons resources and the requirement to develop management based on commons resource theory is used as the basis upon which critique whale-watching management in B.C.
Chapter 4 explores the utility of human dimensions as a management tool for whale-watching through a case study of B.C. whale-watchers. While there have been numerous studies that have documented demographics, perceptions, attitudes and satisfaction of whale-watchers (Amante-Helweg 1996, Duffus 1988, Finkler 2001, Giroul et al. 2000, Wilson 2001), few of the results provide information for management action.
The study presented in Chapter 4 surveyed whale-watchers before and after their trips and collected data to:
1. Compare whale-watchers’ expectations to satisfactions, allowing for
identification not only of what elements were satisfactory and unsatisfactory,
but whether the elements are important or not in the first place,
2. Examine whether whale-watching trips can change whale-watchers’ views
towards specific cetacean management issues and general resource
management concepts, and
3. Classify whale-watchers in B.C. using specialization theory, to analyse
whether managers need to be cognisant of site-specific whale-watcher
characteristics during management development. 8
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 each examine an element of the basis for whale-watching management not previously presented. Although each chapter is a separate research project in itself, the conclusions are all integral to determine whether whale-watching management has been established in such a way as to promote sustainable whale populations. The final chapter of this dissertation, Chapter 6, is therefore a summarizing discussion of the material presented in the previous three chapters, and addresses the questions posed in this introduction. 9
1.3 REFERENCES
Amante-Helweg, V. 1996. Ecotourist’s beliefs and knowledge about dolphins and the development of cetacean tourism. Aquatic Mammals. 22(2):131-140.
Bass, J. 2000. Variations in gray whale feeding behaviour in the presence of whale- watching vessels in Clayoquot Sound, 1993-1995. Ph.D. Dissertation, Whale Research Lab, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls. World Wide Fund for Nature, Washington, D.C.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1996. Introduction. In Ecotourism: a guide for planners and managers, K. Lindberg, M. Epler Wood and D. Engeldrum (Eds.). The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.
Creel, S., J.E. Fox, A. Hardy, J. Sands, B. Garrott, and R.O. Peterson 2002. Snowmobile activity and glutocorticoid stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology 16(3):809-814.
Datta, T. and B.C. Pal 1993. The effect of human interference on the nesting of the openbill stork Anastomus oscitans at the Raiganj Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Biological Conservation 64:149-154.Higham 1998
Duffus, D.A. 1988. The non-consumptive use and management of cetaceana in British Columbia coastal waters. PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Duffus, D.A. and R.W. Baird. 1995. Killer whales, whalewatching and management: a status report. Whalewatcher. Fall/Winter:14-16.
Duffus, D. A. and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework. Biological Conservation. 53:213-231.
The Economist, 1998. From zoo cage to modern ark. 348(8076):81-83.
Erbe, C. 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science 18(2):394-418.
Finkler, W. 2001. The experiential impact of whale-watching: implications for management in the case of the San Juan Islands, USA. MSc Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Forestell, P. H. 1993. If Leviathan has a face, does Gaia have a soul?: incorporating environmental education in marine eco-tourism programs. Ocean & Coastal Management. 20: 267-282. 10
Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland 2001. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by b;ack-tailed godwits Limosa limosa. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:846-856.
Giroul, C., G. Ouellet and R. Soubrier. 2000. Etude des attentes et de la satisfactions de la clientele des croisieres aux baleines dans le secteur du parc marine du Saguenay-Saint-Laurent. Departement des Sciences du Loisir et de la Communication Sociale, University du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres.
Gössling, S. 1999. Human-environmental relations with tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2):539-556.
Hall, C.M. 2001. Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier? Ocean & Coastal Management 44:601-618.
Hansen, E. 2002. Animal attractions: nature on display in american zoos. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Hoyt, E. 2001. Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA.
Hoyt, E. 1992. Whale watching around the world: a report on its value, extent and prospects. International Whale Bulletin, 7:1-8.
Hoyt, E. 1995. The world-wide value and extent of whale watching: 1995. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Bath, UK.
Hurlbert, I.A.R. 1990. The response of ruddy shelduck Tadorna ferruginea to tourist activity in the Royal Chitwan National park of Nepal. Biological Conservation 52:113-123.
International Fund for Animal Welfare 1999. Report of the workshop on the socio- economic aspects of whale watching, Kaikoura, NZ.. IFAW, Oxford, UK.
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tethys Research Institute and Europe Conservation. 1996. Report of the Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Managing Whale Watching, Montecastello di Vibio, Italy, 30th March-4th April, 1995. IFAW, Oxford, UK.
International Fund for Animal Welfare, World Wildlife Fund and Whale and Dolphin Conservtion Society 1997. Report of the International Workshop on the Educational Values of Whalewatching, Provincetown, MA. IFAW, Oxford, UK.
International Whaling Commission 2000. Annex J: Report of the sub-committee on whale-watching. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(suppl): 265- 271. 11
International Whaling Commission 2001a. Annex M: Report of the sub-committee on whale-watching. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3(suppl): 297- 307.
International Whaling Commission 2001b. Annex N: Report of workshop on assessing the long-term effects of whale-watching on cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3(suppl): 308-315.
International Whaling Commission 2002. Annex L: Report of the sub-committee on whale-watching. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4(suppl): 339- 360.
Kellert, 1999. American perceptions of marine mammals and their management. The Humane Society of the United States, Washington D.C.
Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole 1995. Wildlife responses to recreatiionists. In Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA: 51-70
Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.) 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Lindberg, K. and D.E. Hawkins. 1993. Ecotourism: a guide for planners and managers, Volume 1. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, Vermont.
Lott D.F. and M. McCoy 1990. Asian rhinos Rhinoceros unicornis on the run? Impact of tourist visits on one population. Biological Conservation 73:23-26.
Malcolm, C.D. 1997. Micro-scale spatial behaviour of a foraging grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada. M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.
Malcolm, C.D. and D.A. Duffus 2000. Comparison of subjective and statistical methods of dive classification using data from a time-depth recorder attached to a gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(3):2000
Malcolm, C. and E. Lochbaum 1999. Human / marine mammal interaction workshop proceedings, University of Victoria, April 13-15. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.
Muloin, S. 1998. Wildlife tourism; the psychological benefits of whale-watching. Pacific Tourism Review. 2(3/4):199-213.
Orams, M.B. 1995. Towards a more desirable form of tourism. Tourism Management. 16:3-8. 12
Orams, M.B. 2002. Marine tourism as a potential agent for sustainabale development in Kaikoura, New Zealand. International Journal of Sustainable Development. 5(4).
Ottawa Citizen, 1997. Send that tiger packing: The modern zoo comes out from behind bars. Sept. 12: M12
Richter, C. 2002. Sperm whales at Kaikoura and the effects of whale-watching on their surface and vocal behaviour. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ.
Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams, and B. Dalal-Clayton 1997. Take only photographs, leave only footprints: the environmental impacts of wildlife ecotourism. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Rothfels, N. 2002. Savage and beasts: the birth of the modern zoo. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Russell, C.L. and D. Hodson 2002. Whale-watching as critical science education? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 2(4):485- 504.
Ryel, R. and T. Grasse. 1991. Marketing ecotourism: attracting the elusive ecotourist. In Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment, T. Whelan (ed.). Island Press, Covelo, CA. pp. 164-186.
Skagen, S.K., C.P. Melcher, and E. Muths 2001. The interplay of habitat change, human disturbance and species interactions in a waterbird colony. American Midland Naturalist 145:18-28.
Vancouver Sun, 1993. Bidding adieu to the zoo we knew: Wildlife interpretive centre planned. Nov. 8: A9.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2003. Best Practices Guidelines - 2003. http://www.nwwhalewatchers.org/guidelines.html.
Williams, R., A.W. Trites and D.E. Bain. 2002a. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 256:255- 270.
Wilson, J.M. 2001. Sustainable management of ecotourism: whale-watching in Tofino, British Columbia; a case study. MA Thesis, Whale Research Lab, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Young, E.H. 1999. Balancing conservation with development of small-scale fisheries: is ecotourism an empty promise? Human Ecology 27:581-620.
13
CHAPTER 2 : GLOBAL STATE OF WHALE-WATCHING
. .2.1 INTRODUCTION
The growth, economic revenue, and participation in whale-watching has been well documented since 1991. Hoyt (2001) reports participation and revenues of global whale-watching in 1998, tracing its growth through two previous studies of the same aspects in 1991 and 1994 (Hoyt 1992, 1995). In this most recent global compendium, over 9 million people went whale-watching in 87 countries and produced an estimated
US$1.05 billion in total revenues (including travel, hotel food, souvenirs). These numbers represent 12.1% passenger and 18.6% revenue increases per year since 1991 (Table 2.1).
In 1998 commercial whale-watching occurred in 492 communities around the world
(Hoyt 1995, 2001).
Table 2.1: Estimated growth of global whale-watching. No. of Whale- Revenue Year No. of countries watchers (million $US) 77 (direct) 1991 31 4 million 317 (total) 122.4 (direct) 1994 65 5.4 million 504.3 (total) 299.5 (direct) 1998 87 > 9 million 1, 049 (total) 2001* 10.1 million 1, 253 (total) * author’s estimate at time of printing; increase calculated at 50% of average passenger and revenue rates given above (Hoyt 2001).
14
Hoyt (1991, 1995, 2001) documented two benefit streams from the growth of
whale-watching: recreation and economic. There are three other key elements of whale-
watching however, that remain problematic: education, management, and disturbance
research. Education of whale-watchers in marine conservation issues is often assumed to
be a positive benefit and therefore a marketing strategy for whale-watching (e.g. Carlson
1996, Forestell 1993, Hoyt 1998 in Finkler 2001, IFAW 1997). However, this benefit has yet to be documented through empirical research. This issue is discussed at length in
Chapter 4 of this dissertation.
The second and third of these problems are addressed in this chapter.
Management of whale-watching activities is extremely variable in form from one
location to another, and often lacks a scientific basis. This variability is examined here in detail on a global scale, focussing on the two most common regulation tools: minimum
approach distance to whales and maximum time allotted with whales. The most critical
issue regarding whale-watching at present concerns potential negative impact upon
cetacean populations from the presence of whale-watching vessels. The issue is unclear and is hampered by weak, inconsistent research that is not linked to biological theory.
Terrestrial wildlife disturbance research has existed since the beginnings of industrial
wildlife tourism in the late 1960’s and 1970’s (Boyle & Samson 1985). A sample of
wildlife disturbance research is compared to cetacean disturbance research to compare
and contrast research goals and designs, results and conclusions.
The purpose of this analysis is to: 1) identify whether there are any common
trends among whale-watching management schemes around the world and the bases upon 15
which they have been established, and 2) identify whether terrestrial wildlife disturbance
research possesses attributes that could inform and direct cetacean disturbance research.
.2.2 MANAGEMENT OF WHALE-WATCHING ACTIVITIES
Whale-watching management practices around the world are variable. Protocols,
where they exist, range from federal or state/provincial legislation, to federal or
state/provincial guidelines, to codes of conduct developed by local whale-watch
operators, NGO’s or local researchers. The most common means of control is minimum
distance of approach to focal animal(s), coupled in some cases with proximity time
restrictions. Minimum distances and maximum time applied to whale-watching activities
around the world are variable as well.
While there is an understanding that whale-watching protocols are far from comprehensive world-wide (IFAW et al. 1995), a detailed examination of the
discrepancies did not exist before this study. This section presents: 1) a compilation and
comparison of whale-watch protocols throughout the world, focussing on minimum
distances and maximum viewing periods, and 2) an examination of whether there are any
correlations between socio-economic and biological aspects of whale-watching activities
and the guidelines or regulations that have (or have not) been established.
.2.2.1 Data Collection and Analysis
The data compiled by Hoyt (2001) were used for each country in which whale- watching occurred in 2000. These consist of numbers of whale-watchers in 1991 and
1998, the year whale-watching started, and species watched. For each country, the 16
number of years whale-watching has occurred and the increase in number of whale-
watchers between 1991 and 1998 was calculated. Species watched were classed either as
“large whales”, incorporating all baleen whales as well as sperm whales, or “dolphins.”
“Large whales” were classified as “feeding”, “breeding” or “migrating”, according to
their main activity in the area.
Data pertaining to guidelines and regulations were gathered primarily from
Carlson (2001), but also from the following: 1) protocols listed on government websites,
2) guidelines listed on whale-watching company websites, and 3) local guidelines collected from whale-watching companies and researchers via the Marine Mammal
Discussion List (MARMAM), email and personal contact. Minimum distances were separated into “caution areas”, where restricted vessel operation, such as slower speeds, is permitted, and “absolute minimum distance”, where vessels must stop. Protocols for whale-watching activities in each country listed by Hoyt (2001) were classified as
“regulations”, “guidelines”, or “nothing”.
Chi-square statistics, which test for correlation between groups of nominal, ordinal or non-parametric interval data, were used to test for relationships between:
i. number of whale-watchers (1998) versus type of whale-watching protocol
ii. increase in number of whale-watchers between 1991 and 1998 versus type of protocol
iii. years whale-watching has existed versus type of protocol
iv. number of whale-watchers versus “absolute minimum distance”
v. main type of species watched (“large whales”, “dolphins” or “both”) versus “absolute minimum distance”
vi. “large whale” dominant activity versus “absolute minimum distance”
17
As dolphins tend to be year-round residents, this group could not be classified by dominant activity, making it impossible to test dolphins versus absolute minimum distance. Protocols pertaining to calves were not tested due to the small number of instances where absolute minimum distances are stated for calves (n=6).
.2.2.2 Results and Discussion
Table 2.2 lists the countries and overseas territories in which whale-watching occurs (Hoyt 2001), classified according to type of whale-watching management. Sixty- one percent of countries where whale-watching occurs do not, or apparently do not, operate under an established operating protocol, indicating that development of whale- watching in these areas has occurred, or is occurring, at a faster rate than management.
Alternatively, directed whale-watching management may not be planned in the future. In many of these areas whale-watching activities remain small in size, some with only one or two vessels. Of countries with whale-watching industries greater than 10,000 whale- watchers per year, 35% have legislated whale-watching rules, 39% have unlegislated guidelines established by governmental agencies, NGO’s or local researchers, and 27% have no whale-watching protocols. There are three countries where both legislated regulations and unlegislated guidelines exist. In the United States, the National Marine
Fisheries Service has developed whale-watching guidelines for each of its jurisdictions.
In addition, legislated whale-watching rules for specific species exist in Alaska and
Hawaii for humpback whales, and New England for north Atlantic right whales. In the
Dominican Republic, legislation exists in the Silver Bank Sanctuary, while unlegislated
18
Table 2.2: Type of whale-watching management protocol
Regulations Guidelines Nothing / No Information Located Argentina Australia ^ Antarctica Martinique Azores (Sp.) Bahamas Bermuda Mauritania Brazil Belize Bonaire Mauritius Canary Islands (Sp.) British Virgin Islands (UK) China Micronesia Mexico Canada ** Costa Rica Midway New Zealand Chile Croatia Monaco Puerto Rico (US) Colombia Cyprus Mozambique South Africa Dominica Egypt Namibia St. Lucia Domincan Republic* Eritrea Nepal France Faeroe Islands New Caledonia Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) Falkland Islands Niue Guadaloupe Fiji Panama Hong Kong French Polynesia Peru Ireland Gambia Philippines Iceland Germany Russia Japan Gibralter Senegal Madagascar ** Greece Solomon Is Norway Greenland Sri Lanka Oman Grenada St. Kitts & Nevis Portugal Guam St. Vincent & Grenadines Tanzania Honduras Taiwan ** Tonga India Thailand Turcs and Caicos Indonesia Turkey United Kingdom Italy US Virgin Islands United States^^ Kenya Maldives * Regulations in Silver Bank Whale Sanctuary, guidelines for coastal whale-watching ** In process of drafting regulations ^ Guidelines at federal level, regulations at state level ^^ Natinal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines for each area of jurisdiction, regulations in AK, HI for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) regulations in MA for right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 19
guidelines refer to coastal whale-watching. In Australia, whale-watching is legislated on
a state-by-state basis, while guidelines also exist on a federal level.
The development and type of whale-watching protocols is related to the socio-
economic characteristics of whale-watching in each location. There is a relationship
between number of whale-watchers and the type of regulation that exists (χ2=24.649,
df=4, p<0.000); countries with more-whale-watchers tend to have more developed
protocols (i.e. regulations rather than guidelines). Increase in number of whale-watchers
from 1991 to 1998 is also associated with type of protocol (χ2= 22.598, df=6, p=0.001).
For the most part, locations with high increases of whale-watchers during the 1990’s have more developed regulatory frameworks. Lastly, the number of years whale-watching has occurred in a country is correlated with the type of regulation in effect (χ2=12.862, df=6,
p=0.045), although the relationship is weaker than number of, and increase in number of,
whale-watchers. There are several locations, such as Bermuda, Peru, Gibraltar and St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, where whale-watching has occurred for 10 to 20 years, yet
no protocols for whale-watching exist. However, these locations have relatively few whale-watchers per year. These three results indicate that numbers of whale-watchers are
more important in development of whale-watching protocols than the length of time local
whale-watching industries have existed.
The presence and development of regulations is therefore related to the number of
whale-watchers, increase in whale-watching during the 1990’s, and to a lesser degree, the
number of years whale-watching has existed. However, it is unclear at present whether
legislation is a superior control mechanism than unlegislated guidelines. The logistical
difficulties of enforcement allow for non-compliance with both laws and guidelines. It is 20 apparent that this occurs both in areas with legislated whale-watching protocols
(Constantine 1999, Allen & Harcourt 2001, Rivarola et al. 2001) and unlegislated guidelines (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999, Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park 1997,
Wiley 1995).
The existence of whale-watching operating protocols, legislated or unlegislated, indicates a recognition that whale-watching requires management of its activities in a particular area. However, there is also variability in the restrictions on whale-watching activities around the world.
Table 2.3 classifies minimum approach distances for whale-watching vessels.
Blue text represents “caution areas,” where vessels are allowed movement and approach towards cetaceans in a restricted manner. Restrictions for the most part designate “no wake” speed (e.g. 5 knots) but also include angle of approach to animals (e.g. no approach from ahead of the animal(s)). Red text indicates “absolute minimum approach distance” to cetaceans. Text in bold designates a legislated regulation. For the sake of clarity, metres and yards are treated as equal. In cases where local guidelines repeat federal guidelines, local guidelines are omitted. In cases where local guidelines differ from federal guidelines the local area is given in parentheses following the name of the country. Specialized protocols (e.g. for calves or large versus small vessels) are given where they exist.
The most common absolute minimum distance given is 100 metres (n=12), followed by 50 metres (n=11); when identified, greater absolute minimum distances are imposed for cows with calves (n=6). However, absolute minimum distances are extremely variable. Absolute minimum viewing distances range from 300 metres 21
Table 2.3: Minimum approach distances for whale-watching around the world
1000 m 880 m 500m 400 m 300 m 200 m U.S.A. (San Juan Japan (Ogasawara): large Is)/Canada (S. Canada (St. Lawrence R.): British Virgin Islands Australia (federal): whales Australia (NSW) vessels Vancouver Is): local beluga whales guidelines Domincan Republic: waiting vessels (when Australia (Queensland): jetski, Dominica Canary Is: > 3 vessels more than 1 large & 2 swimmers, > 3 vessels small vessels) Colombia: "smaller" Guadaloupe Galapagos Is Azores: waiting vessels vessels Hong Kong: waiting Madagascar: calves or >4 Iceland: waiting vessels vessels (when 1 vessel Canada (federal) whales (when 1 vessel closer) closer than 500 m) Japan (Ogasawara): small Turks and Caicos Puerto Rico: > 2 vessels Canary Is vessels U.S.A. (NMFS NE): New Zealand: cow with St. Lucia Chile right whales calf
St. Lucia: "resting" Columbia: "larger" vessels St. Lucia: cow with calf whale
U.S.A. (Glacier Bay AK): Dominica: waiting vessels United Kingdom (general):
humpbacks (when >2 vessels with whales) > 1 vessel Japan (Ogasawara): large U.S.A. (NMFS NE) vessels Japan (Zamami)
Madagascar
New Zealand Norway Oman South Africa
South Africa: cows with calves
Tonga
22
150 m 100 m 80 m 60 m 50 m 30 m No Distance Given Dominican Republic: Australia (federal): calves (legislated in Canary Is: single Australia (federal): Argentina: engines on Argentina: engines off Tanzania dolphins Silver Bank vessels swimmers Sanctuary)
Mexico: waiting Australia (federal): Argentina: swimmers Colombia: swimmers vessels 2 vessels at 30) dolphins
Australia (federal): Mexico: maximum 2 Azores: single vessel whales vessels Australia (Queensland): <3 Norway: maximum 1 Brazil: swimmers vessels, swimmers vessel with dolphins Canada (Tofino): local Australia (Western) Tonga: swimmers guidelines U.S.A. (NMFS NE): Azores: calves Dominica single vessel Dominican Republic Brazil (legislated in Silver Bank Sanctuary)
British Virgin Islands France
Guadaloupe: moving Canada whales Dominica Iceland Guadaloupe: stationary Japan (Ogasawara):
whales small vessels Hong Kong Japan (Zamami) Japan (Ogata) New Zealand New Zealand: Oman: dolphins swimmers Norway: engines idle South Africa U.S.A. (NMFS SE): Oman: whales dolphins
23
150 m 100 m 80 m 60 m 50 m 30 m No Distance Given Puerto Rico: single U.S.A. (NMFS NW):
vessel swimmers St. Lucia Tonga
Turcs and Caicos
United Kingdom
(general): single vessel U.S.A. (NMFS NE):
>1 vessel U.S.A. (NMFS SE,
NW, SW) U.S.A. (San Juan Is)/Canada: local guidelines U.S.A. (NFMS
Alaska): humpbacks U.S.A. (NFMS
Hawai'i): humpbacks
24
(Chile, Madagascar) to 30 metres (Mexico, Norway, and NMFS NE jurisdiction, U.S.A.),
a tenfold difference. Minimum distances for swimmers with cetaceans also range from
300 metres (Queensland, Australia) to 30 metres (Australian federal policy, Columbia,
and Tonga). Minimum distances for cows with calves range from 400 metres
(Madagascar) to 100 metres (Azores). Further, some locations strictly forbid any
approach to calves (e.g. Argentina and Australia (federal policy)), while others forbid
approach when calves are alone (e.g. Galapagos Islands, Guadaloupe), and some instruct
to avoid placement of vessel between a mother and calf (e.g. British Virgin Islands, Hong
Kong). Most locations do not specify protocols for calves in particular (cf. Carlson 2001).
Statistical tests were performed to determine whether there are any correlations between approach distances and number of whale-watchers, main type of species watched and large whale dominant activity. For these tests only locations with legislated regulations or unlegislated guidelines that state explicit absolute minimum approach distances were included (n=25). On the assumption that greater numbers of whale- watchers indicates a greater incursion into cetacean habitat, and therefore an increased possibility of negative impact, a chi-square statistic was calculated between number of whale-watchers and absolute minimum distance (χ2=7.716, df=8, p=0.462). The lack of
relationship between number of whale-watchers and absolute minimum distance indicates
that whale-watching pressure is not a factor in the restrictions imposed by regulations or
guidelines. For example, more whale-watchers per year does not translate into greater
minimum viewing distances.
On the assumption that the ecological aspects of the focal cetaceans should be a
factor in whale-watching protocols, two tests were performed to examine whether the 25 species watched and their dominant activities were related to absolute distance restrictions. There is no relationship between the main type of species watched (i.e.
“large whales”, “dolphins”, or “both”) and absolute minimum distance (χ2=7.489, df=8, p=0.485), or large whale dominant activity (i.e. feeding, breeding, or migrating) and absolute minimum distance (χ2=2.390, df=6, p=0.881). The lack of correlation in the first tests indicates that there may be little consideration given to the difference between large whales and dolphins, which display extremely different behaviours, in the establishment of minimum distances for whale-watching. Only four locations (Australia
(federal), New Zealand, Oman, and U.S.A. (NMFS SE)) state separate protocol for dolphins. In each case the distance given is less than that for large whales. The second test reveals that the dominant activity by large whales in the viewing area may not be factor in establishment of minimum distances either.
Some locations also state minimum time restrictions while in proximity to cetaceans, although much less often than minimum distance restrictions (Table 2.4).
Legislated regulations are indicated by bold text. There are not enough time restriction guidelines on which to perform statistical tests. Thirty minutes is the most common time restriction, however there is variability. In Canada, time restrictions include one hour in
Southern Vancouver Island (stated as 1/3 of trip time, which is usually three hours), thirty minutes in Johnstone Strait and fifteen minutes in Clayoquot Sound.
When coupled with minimum distance restrictions, the variability in global whale-watching protocols is particularly evident. For example, while Madagascar, Puerto
Rico and Mexico all limit proximate viewing time to thirty minutes, Madagascar’s 26
Table 2.4: Maximum time restrictions for whale-watching around the world
1 hour 30 minutes Less than 30 minutes 20 minutes 15 minutes U.S.A. (San Juan Is)/Canada): Canada (Johnstone Strait): Canada (Tofino): @ 50 m ; local stated as 1/3 of trip; avg. trip = Azores single vessel within 200- Dominica: dolphins guidelines 3 hrs; local guidelines 300 m; local guidelines Canada (Bay of Fundy): United Kingdom: Whale and South Africa: @ 50 m local guidelines Dolphin Conservation Society Canada (Johnstone Strait): U.S.A. (Kenai Fjords, U.S.A. (NMFS NE): when other multiple vessels within 100- Alaska): single vessel; local vessels waiting for close 200 m; local guidelines guidelines approach U.S.A. (Kenai Fjords, Alaska): Chile multiple vessels; local guidelines Dominican Republic (legislated in Silver Bank Sanctuary) Madagascar Mexico Puerto Rico South Africa: total viewing
time * St. Lucia Tanzania U.S.A. (NMFS SE): unless you are sure you are not disturbing the animal * individual whales may only be approached 2 times per day with minimum 2 hours between approach 27
minimum distance is 300 metres, Puerto Rico’s, 100 metres, and Mexico’s, 30 metres.
All three locations are primarily viewing large whales on breeding grounds. National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) South East, U.S.A., leaves the issue of time restriction
to the discretion of the observer, stating a time period of 30 minutes, unless “you are
absolutely sure that you are not causing disturbance or any changes in behavior” (NMFS
2003). This assumes that viewers can identify behaviour that indicates harassment.
This analysis illustrates variability in global whale-watching management
protocols. It also suggests that the type of management (legislated, unlegislated, or none
at all) is related to the size and scale of increase of the whale-watching industry during the 1990’s, as well as the number of years whale-watching has existed in a particular
area. However, in areas where whale-watching protocols exist, whether legislated or
unlegislated, absolute approach distances within management schemes possess little
relation to the size of the whale-watching industry or type and dominant behaviour of
whales in the area. Therefore, whale-watching protocols, which are ultimately meant to
protect whales, seem to be more related to the industry’s historical and size
characteristics than to ecological aspects of cetaceans tested here.
The variability in absolute minimum distances and time restrictions is likely
linked to scientific uncertainty with respect to potential impacts of whale-watching on
cetaceans. There is no rationale supplied in any whale-watching protocol that restrictions
such as 100 metres or 30 minutes represent measures of biological significance to any
cetacean species. Presently, the minutiae of distance and time restrictions primarily exist
as ad-hoc establishments, perhaps based on precedent (e.g. 100 metres), or personal bias
of the manager(s), which may or may not emanate from an ecological perspective. 28
Particular cases, such as the NMFS NE legislated 500 metre minimum distance to north
Atlantic right whales, and the Canadian 400 metre restriction for St. Lawrence beluga whales, have been developed to protect endangered populations. However, these restrictions are also arbitrary, possessing no scientific basis.
It is likely that temporal and spatial determinants of behaviour and individual variability of cetaceans will make it difficult to create comprehensive distance and time restrictions. Minimum distances and maximum viewing periods may be defended as
“precautionary” measures against short- or long-term negative impact, however, there is little consistent scientific evidence that the presence of a vessel at 300 metres has any more or less negative biological impact upon a cetacean than at 30 metres (but see Erbe
(2002) for a theoretical modelling exercise of potential acoustic impact on killer whales); observed behaviour alterations such as heading changes, group cohesion/separation, or increased swimming speed have not been linked to long-term fitness. Additionally, while some studies report behavioural changes in the presence of whale-watching vessels, variability in the data has often confounded demonstration of consequent negative impact
(e.g. Bass 2000, Richter 2002). Therefore, existing distance and time restrictions are in reality pseudo-precautionary, as there is no evidence that they in fact constitute precautionary measures.
For whale-watching protocols to be an effective tool to mitigate potential negative biological impacts, they must be based on ecological understanding of focal cetaceans.
Since the establishment of scientifically-based cetacean viewing regulations is so inherently difficult at present, where may managers look for management strategies to effectively regulate whale-watching? Answers will likely not be immediate, however, the 29
longer history and greater effort in terrestrial wildlife disturbance research may provide
some direction. In the next section terrestrial wildlife disturbance is compared to cetacean disturbance research to examine whether there are any lessons to learn.
.2.3 COMPARISON OF TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE AND CETACEAN DISTURBANCE RESEARCH
.2.3.1 Impact of recreation on wildlife
Potential negative impact on wildlife populations from non-consumptive ecotourism activities, such as backcountry hiking, snow-shoeing, snowmobiling, mountaineering, as well as wildlife viewing and photography, has become an increasing concern as wilderness recreation has grown in popularity over the past few decades
(Knight & Gutzwiller 1995). Reviews of wildlife disturbance research up to the 1990’s
found that, for the most part, research was focussed on immediate and short-term impacts
using overt behaviour indicators such as flushing responses (Boyle & Samson 1985,
Knight & Cole 1995a). Many studies produced weak results due to limited time periods
of data collection, lack of control groups or replications, inadequate treatment of
intervening variables or reliance on anecdotal data (Hurlbert 1984, Wiens 1984).
Few studies attempted to address long-term impacts, although numerous studies
that link human presence to a change in wildlife behaviour mention the possibility of long
term impacts (e.g. Datta & Pal 1993, Giese 1996, Higham 1998, Jacobson & Lopez 1994,
Lott & McCoy 1990), most researchers have found it difficult to assess long-term impact
potential at the population level due to reasons such as incomparability of research
designs and knowledge gaps due to scientific uncertainty. 30
Gutzwiller (1991) suggests that knowledge gaps regarding human disturbance of wildlife can only be resolved through development of “well-designed experimental
studies.” The term “well-designed” implies at least an experimental design that poses
explicit questions related to long-term fitness and management needs. For example,
Knight & Cole (1995a) state that research designs need to address energetic impacts of disturbance. Knight & Cole (1995b) further suggest that human disturbance of wildlife populations could play a role in selection of individuals more fit to adapt to intrusion.
More recently there has been a recognition that past research has not produced the precise knowledge needed for effective management prescriptions: without control groups, replication, or identification of intervening variables, natural variability in
behaviour cannot be separated from human-caused changes in behaviour (Morrison et al.
2001, Stewart-Oaten & Bence 2001). Several authors state that frameworks aiming to address long-term management of wildlife ecotourism must be adaptive and incorporate
both information about recreational use and the establishment of indicators to monitor
wildlife (e.g. Duffus & Dearden 1990, Davis et al. 1997, Reynolds & Braithwaite 2001,
Simpson & Terry 2000, Wilson & Shacklton 2001, Wilson & Tisdell 2001). Novel
suggestions have also recently been presented; for example Frid & Dill (2002), Moberg
(2000) and Williams et al. (2002a) suggest that wildlife viewing disturbance may be
interpreted by focal wildlife as predatory behaviour, eliciting prey-type responses. This
suggestion provides a behavioural and physiological framework on which to develop
future research designs.
To be effective, frameworks developed to address negative impact issues in the
long term should recognize that the recreational activity in question can not be examined 31 in isolation. Wildlife avoidance of human recreational activities could move animals into contact with other potentially threatening anthropogenic activities (Knight & Cole 1995b) or expose them to greater chance of predation. For example, in South Wales, Bell &
Austin (1985) found that waterfowl, when disturbed by people fishing along the banks of a reservoir, retreated to deeper waters until the fishermen left. However, when sailboats using deeper waters, not normally creating any impact on the waterfowl, were also present, the waterfowl were deprived of any area of the reservoir. In addition, research must be explicitly linked to prey availability. For example, van der Zande and Verstral
(1984) found that human disturbance of kestrels in the Netherlands was greater in years of low vole populations. Therefore, intrinsic ecological stress related to energy availability can potentially reduce a population’s ability to withstand extrinsic stress such as human intrusion.
Ultimately, to be effective in founding management, research designs should emanate from biological theory. Without specific questions based on a sound theoretical foundation, research designs will produce incomparable results due to varying methods and scales of analysis. For example, research examining recreation impacts on small populations will be more effective when research designs are based on the small population paradigm, incorporating increased vulnerability to genetic problems, anthropogenic disturbance and environmental fluctuations. Providing knowledge for effective management programs via effective research is discussed with respect to global whale-watching in the next section.
32
.2.3.2 Impact of whale-watching on cetacean populations
The difficulties in wildlife disturbance studies discussed above notwithstanding, it is worth exploring whether knowledge gained in terrestrial wildlife disturbance studies can inform cetacean disturbance research. Currently, cetacean disturbance research suffers from many of the same weaknesses reviewed in terrestrial wildlife disturbance discussed above. While calls for scientifically-based whale-watching management plans have been made (IFAW et al. 1995), systematic research aimed at answering fundamental questions regarding ecological cause-effect linkages between vessel presence and fitness of cetacean populations has not been forthcoming.
Variability is the norm in cetacean disturbance studies. Research on vessel– cetacean interaction have reported behavioural changes such as loss of pod integrity
(Finley & Davis 1984), shorter surface intervals (Evans 1987, Evans et al. 1992, Gordon et al. 1992, Stone et al. 1992), shorter dive durations (Richardson et al. 1985, Stone et al.
1992), longer dive durations (Blane & Jaakson 1996, Stone et al. 1992), reduced nursing and feeding duration (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1988), increased swimming speeds (Kruse 1991), ignoring or approaching vessels (Phillips and Baird
1993), and inconsistent long term changes from 1) avoiding vessels to ignoring or approaching them, as well as 2) approaching to ignoring vessels (Watkins 1986). Bass
(2000) reports an increase in dive cycle duration (i.e. surface time plus subsequent dive time) yet no change in mean dive cycle ventilation rate for foraging gray whales.
Some of the results reported in the research above are contradictory, even when comparing the same species (e.g. Phillips and Baird (1993) versus Kruse (1991) for killer whales (Orcinus orca)). Results for much of this body of work are also suspect. 33
Insufficient sample sizes, insufficient variations in time (e.g. of day, of year) to make comparisons and generalizations, use of poorly defined variables, poorly executed experimental designs (e.g. lack of control group), lack of attention to intervening variables, and unfounded meaning ascribed to observed behaviours are present (e.g percussive behaviours, such as pectoral or fluke slapping, as indications of irritation)
(Duffus & Baird 1995).
Richter (2002) reviewed of 60 studies that investigated vessel-cetacean interactions and made the following findings:
1) Only 16% of the studies appeared in peer-reviewed media.
2) Most studies (76%) focussed either on respiration, surface behaviour or general movement.
3) Sixty-seven percent of studies used presence/absence of vessels as independent variables, while only 15% examined behaviour of vessels.
4) Seventy-eight percent of the data were collected opportunistically, including 91% of peer-reviewed studies.
5) Over half the studies (58%) were undertaken from boat-based platforms, 37% from land.
6) Forty-four percent of statistical procedures used were non-parametric, while 35% were unspecified.
Richter’s findings indicate that, similar to the variability in global whale-watching protocols, whale-watching disturbance research is inconsistent and lacking in focus. It 34
can be argued that cetacean disturbance research has been operating in an isolated arena,
as very few studies include reference to comparative terrestrial disturbance research (but
see Williams et al. 2002a). Due to a longer history and extensive library of research, terrestrial wildlife disturbance studies may hold lessons for cetacean disturbance research.
.2.3.3 Methods
Terrestrial and cetacean disturbance research publications were compared based on particular “research foci” to examine trends in selection of disturbance indicators.
Research foci are defined as a particular vital currency, rate, or behaviour, measured as an indicator of disturbance. Research foci were classified as either “explicitly measured,” when the research design produced empirical results, or “speculation,” when empirical research prompted the authors to suggest or predict impacts not indicated by their data.
In addition to research foci, data were also collected on “other inclusions”:
whether the authors discussed limitations of their research, included experimental
research, designed or applied a model, or included management, research or education
recommendations. The papers were classified either as “recreation research,” which
included non-consumptive-type activities such as wildlife viewing, boating, hiking,
snowmobiling, and cross-county skiing, or “other disturbance,” such as industrial
activities, land development and wildlife population censes.
In order to examine research designs, results, and conclusions in detail only
complete research publications were used; i.e. conference abstracts and research reviews
were not included (as opposed to Richter (2002)). Initially, only peer-reviewed 35
publications were planned to be included. However, as indicated by Richter’s (2002)
study, the large proportion of published cetacean disturbance studies are not peer-
reviewed. Therefore, book chapters, technical reports and “grey literature,” such as
published conference papers, were used to supplement peer-reviewed publications for
cetacean disturbance research. Research reports for each type were selected based on the
following protocols:
Cetacean Disturbance Research
All peer-reviewed publications listed in the Webspirs Biological Abstracts
(1985-2002) and Zoological Record (1978-2002) databases using the keywords “(whale*
OR dolphin*) AND (disturbance OR impact OR watch* OR view*)” that met the
characteristics described above were selected. In addition, reference lists of the selected
papers were used to identify applicable non-peer-reviewed reports, book chapters and
conference papers. A total of 47 publications were obtained, with a modal publication
date of 2001.
Terrestrial Wildlife Disturbance Research
To obtain a similar modal publication date to the cetacean disturbance research
publications, the first 47 publications listed by the Webspirs Biological Abstracts (1985-
2002) database (which lists by publication year) using the key words “wildlife AND
(disturbance OR impact OR watch* OR view* OR recreation)” that met the characteristics discussed above were selected. “Terrestrial” research included mammal and avian research. The modal publication date was also 2001, indicating a similar 36 period of research and therefore equivalent access to previous research, established theory, and technology for data collection and analysis.
.2.3.4 Results and Discussion
Results of the comparison are presented in Table 2.5. Values in the table represent the percentage a “research foci” or “other inclusion” appears in the 47 publications examined for each of terrestrial wildlife and cetacean disturbance research. Presence of a research foci in the table does not signify either a positive or negative impact, only that the foci was examined or speculated upon.
There are several general trends that differentiate terrestrial and cetacean studies
(Tables 2.5, 2.6). Overall, there were a greater total number of “research foci” examined in the terrestrial studies. The mean number of foci “explicitly measured” per publication was 4.3 for terrestrial and 3.3 for cetacean studies. There was a greater amount of speculation in cetacean disturbance studies. In the 47 terrestrial wildlife disturbance studies, researchers examined 200 research foci and made 55 speculations, a ratio of
1:0.28. In 47 publications, cetacean disturbance researchers examined 141 research foci and made 68 speculations, a ratio of 1:0.48. Cetacean researchers made almost 50% as many speculations as explicit measurements, 20% more often than in the terrestrial wildlife disturbance publications analysed.
Thus, cetacean disturbance research has been more restrictive in examined research foci and more speculative. Cetacean disturbance research has primarily
37
Table 2.5: “Research foci” in terrestrial versus cetacean disturbance research by percentage of total studies examined (n=47 for each)
Terrestrial Cetaceans Research foci Explicitly Explicitly Speculation Speculation Measured Measured Activity budgets1 27.9 2.3 18.6 11.6 Adult/young separation 2.3 2.3 0 0 Alertness/agitation/agonistic 27.9 0 14.0 2.3 Alteration in spatial orientation2 16.3 0 51.2 0 Behavioural state (before vs. after) 4.7 0 30.2 7.0 Carrying capacity / density 25.6 4.7 0 2.3 Communication between individuals3 2.3 0 16.3 11.6 Critical effect size 2.3 0 0 0 Differentiation of male/female/juvenile 18.6 2.3 11.6 0 responses Distance from disturbance source 34.9 0 60.5 4.7 Duration of disturbance 27.9 7.0 4.7 2.3 Energy expended 4.7 11.6 0 2.3 Fitness/population dynamics 2.3 14.0 0 23.3 Flight response4 39.5 0 27.9 2.3 Foraging efficiency 14.0 9.3 0 9.3 Group dispersion/cohesion 11.6 0 11.6 7.0 Group size 7.0 0 0 0 Guild theory 4.7 0 0 0 Habituation (or lack of) 25.6 23.3 0 16.3 Inter-species interaction 7.0 0 0 0 Intervening variables 11.6 20.9 4.7 18.6 Intra-species variation 16.3 2.3 16.3 2.3 Number of simultaneous disturbance sources 4.7 4.7 18.6 0 Observer effects 2.3 0 0 4.7 Physiological response5 14.0 0 0 4.7 Predator/prey interaction 0 14.0 0 2.3 Range/habitat selection 48.8 0 9.3 2.3 Reproduction efficiency/success 18.6 9 0 2.3 Seeking refuge 11.6 0 0 0 Type(s) of disturbance 30.2 0 27.9 2.3 Undefined behavioural response6 0 0 4.7 16.3 1for cetaceans includes e.g. number of breaths per surfacing, surfacing interval, dive time, etc. 2e.g. small-scale alteration of place, change of travel heading 3cetacean vocalization is commonly accepted to constitute communication 4e.g. flushing, swimming speed increase 5e.g. heart rate, glucocorticoid level 6represents assumed negative reactions not explicitly defined in paper
38
Table 2.6: “Other inclusions” and type of research in terrestrial versus cetacean disturbance research by percentage of total studies examined (n=47 for each)
Other Inclusions Terrestrial Cetacean Recognition of limitation1 27.9 7.0 Includes experiment 32.6 14.0 Modelling 18.6 14.0 Management recommendation 74.4 30.2 Research recommendation 48.8 44.2 Education recommendation 7.0 4.7
Type of Research
Recreation 74.4 69.8 Other disturbance 27.9 32.6 1 e.g. small sample size/ methodological weaknesses/limits of generalization
focussed on distance from disturbance source (60.5% of studies), type of
disturbance (27.9%), and number of simultaneous disturbance source(s) (18.6%) as
independent variables and alteration in spatial orientation (51.2%), behavioural state
(before versus after) (30.2%) and flight response (27.9%) as dependent variables.
Terrestrial studies relied mainly on distance from disturbance source (34.9% of studies), type(s) of disturbance (30.2%), and duration of disturbance (27.9%) as independent variables, rarely utilizing number of simultaneous disturbance sources
(4.7%). Important dependent variables in terrestrial studies were range/habitat selection
(48.8%), flight response (39.5%), activity budgets (27.9%), alert/agitated/agonistic behaviour (27.9%), carrying capacity/density (25.6%) and habituation (25.6%). Specific research foci explicitly measured in greater than ten percent of terrestrial papers but missing in cetacean studies included carrying capacity/density (25.6% of terrestrial studies), foraging efficiency (14.0%), physiological response (14.0%), reproduction efficiency/success (18.6%) and seeking refuge (11.6%). 39
Independent variables used in cetacean studies are overt behaviours, visible at the surface from boat- and land-based observation platforms. The dependence on such indicators in current cetacean disturbance research is comparable to 1980’s and 1990’s reviewer comments of terrestrial disturbance research discussed above (e.g. Boyle &
Samson 1985, Hurlbert 1984, Knight & Cole 1995, Wiens 1984). While it is evident that overt behaviour responses such as flight response are still important in terrestrial disturbance research, aspects such as carrying capacity, foraging efficiency, physiological response and reproduction efficiency add significantly more to the knowledge base. This broader knowledge base may be reflected in the percentage of management recommendations made in the terrestrial (68.1%) versus cetacean (30.2%) disturbance papers.
The research foci studied and results reported in terrestrial studies can provide a foundation for thinking about how to develop research that advances current knowledge regarding cetacean disturbance. Changes in behaviour alone are not a sufficient indicator of cause and effect (Moen et al. 1982). Reliance on these types of overt behaviours as dependent variables may also result in data collection that is at too coarse of a scale to ignore multiple interpretations and eliminate the effect of intervening environmental factors (Duffus 1995). For example, Gerlatto & Fréon (1992) found that sardine
(Sardinella aurita) schools exhibit vertical avoidance to passing boats. Unobservable vertical avoidance of fish to a passing whale-watching vessel following foraging cetaceans could affect observed surfacing patterns.
Therefore, in order to assess cetacean disturbance caused by whale-watching vessels, more precise types of reactions need to be measured. Terrestrial wildlife 40 disturbance research has demonstrated the value of indicators such as physiological reactions, reproductive efficiency and foraging efficiency. Although such research is inherently more difficult to undertake on cetaceans than most terrestrial wildlife, it is not out of the question. Some of this research involves adopting a different attitude to research on cetaceans, one in which some invasive techniques are necessary. For example, greater use of telemetry tags that are capable of measuring dive profiles, velocity and heart rate would be beneficial. Dive profiles and swimming speed can be indicative of foraging activities (e.g. Baird et al. 2003, Baird 2000, Malcolm & Duffus
2000) and when coupled with surveys of fish movement (sensu Gerlotto & Fréon 1992) may provide informative data on disturbance of foraging cetaceans. Flight response behaviour can be examined more rigorously: velocity data from telemetry tags are continuous and much more accurate than calculation of constant/average, direct line speed between successive surfacings from theodolite fixes, which do not incorporate travel path sinuosity below the surface or changes in swimming speed while submerged.
Range/habitat selection can be examined using a combination of telemetry tag data to calculate proportional time-depth usage and global positioning data in a geographic information system (GIS) to map three-dimensional usage of space.
Research on ungulates has indicated that heart rate is an effective indicator of stress and that increased heart rate can continue for a period of time following disturbance (e.g. MacArthur et al. 1982ab, Moen et al. 1982, Nilssen et al. 1984), indicating that duration of disturbance (examined in only 4.7% of cetacean disturbance studies analysed in this study) is an important factor in cumulative stress. The measurement of stress in cetaceans has been limited to behavioural indicators (reviewed 41 by Frohoff 2001). However, a detailed understanding of the species’ behavioural attributes in relation to ecological and behavioural contexts is needed to do make accurate linkages (Fraser 1989). In cetaceans, percussive behaviours such as pectoral fin slaps, tail thrashes and rolling may have multiple meanings (Herzing 1993), and are difficult to attribute as a stress indicator in all occasions. Therefore, studying aspects such as alert/agitated/agonistic behaviour, common in the terrestrial studies, is problematic in cetacean disturbance research. In addition, the absence of a behavioural indicator does not necessarily mean stress is absent (Morton & Griffiths 1985), indicating the need for physiological indicators. However, baseline data are needed before any whale-watching context research is undertaken, as Foley et al. (2000) have shown that natural stress levels fluctuate seasonally and during reproduction processes in African elephants (Loxodonta africana).
The utility of mathematically modelling potential acoustic impact in cetacean disturbance research has been explored recently by Bain (2002), Bain & Dalheim (1994),
Erbe et al. (1999), Erbe & Farmer (2000) and Erbe (2001, 2002). This research represents an important step beyond behavioural indicators of disturbance. Bain (2002) and Erbe
(2001, 2002) apply their models to potential whale-watching acoustic disturbance of southern resident killer whales in British Columbia. This work, though, requires additional field-based research to corroborate model variables with the population of whales in question; Bain (2002) uses northern resident killer whale data, while Erbe
(2001, 2002) uses beluga data, to estimate variables in their models. While this research has modelled the potential for acoustic interference in killer whale foraging activities, it has yet to be proven. Presently, these models provide limited management direction. 42
The difference in ratios between research foci explicitly examined and speculated upon are important, as they reveal areas where cetacean researchers could focus effort.
For example, 18.6% of the cetacean disturbance studies suggest the role of intervening variables, versus 4.7% in which intervening variables are explicitly studied. Repeatable and comparable research designs as described and advocated by Richter (2002) will be instrumental in gaining knowledge in difficult areas of research such as this.
Experimental research is also an important element in producing results amenable to follow-up research and applicable to management needs. Williams et al. (2002a,b) have demonstrated the utility of experimentation in examining killer whale responses to close vessel approaches, producing a robust data-set unreliant on opportunistic, uncontrolled approaches by commercial whale-watching vessels. The results of these two studies provides the opportunity for follow-up research that could incorporate investigation of the role of intervening variables, such as prey presence and movements, and spatial use of habitat below the surface, using telemetry tags.
The utility of experimental research is demonstrated by the terrestrial wildlife disturbance studies examined. For example, terrestrial wildlife disturbance research incorporating experiments have indicated lowered reproductive efficiency in elk (Cervus elaphus) (Phillips & Alldredge 2000) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemonus) (Yarmoloy et al. 1988), reduced densities in passerines (van der Zande & Vos 1984), increased energy expenditure in Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus) (Tyler 1991) and habituation in black ducks (Anas rubripes) versus non-habituation in wood ducks (Aix sponsa) (Conomy et al. 1998). The last example reveals the importance of species- specific management based on science-based research and understanding, currently 43 lacking in whale-watching management. Most (86.7%) of the terrestrial wildlife disturbance studies examined that incorporate experimental elements also included management recommendation(s), versus 46.7% that did not include experiments.
A final difference examined between the terrestrial wildlife and cetacean disturbance publications is authors’ recognition of limitations in their data-sets. While
28% of terrestrial wildlife disturbance authors discuss limitations such as small sample sizes, methodological weaknesses, or limits of generalization, only 7% of cetacean disturbance research authors discuss it. As Richter (2002) noted in his review of cetacean disturbance studies, 76% focussed on general, surface visible behaviours; 67% examined the general presence/absence of vessels while only 15% examined the more detailed behaviour of vessels; and 78% of the data were collected opportunistically. These data are general in nature, the projects variable in research design, and not linked to biological theory that can inform management. While the general nature of these data may be reflected by the inclusion of management recommendations in only 30.2% of the cetacean disturbance publications examined here, very few authors discuss the general nature of their data and its inherent shortcomings. This likely leads to the high amount of speculation in cetacean disturbance research. Beyond the improvements in research design and management-oriented research recommended by Richter (2002), increased discussion of the limitations in cetacean disturbance data would improve the scientific merit of cetacean disturbance research and identify future needs for research.
44
.2.4 CONCLUSION
Management of whale-watching is variable. Whale-watching protocols, where they exist, either as legislated regulations or unlegislated guidelines, are more related to the numbers of whale-watchers and increase in the industries during the 1990’s, than to the types of whale-whales watched or the primary behaviour exhibited by focal whales
(breeding, migrating, or feeding).
Cetacean disturbance research to date has been largely uninformative for management development. Previous research has indicated that cetacean disturbance research exhibits weak and incomparable research designs that yield general conclusions.
My study also reveals that cetacean disturbance research has been narrowly focused, mainly on overt behaviours observable at the surface, and has not made reference to previous disturbance research on other wildlife. Terrestrial wildlife research provides a source of foci for research such as physiological reactions and alterations in spatial movements that are possible in cetacean disturbance research, with an acceptance that some invasive research, which is accepted practice for terrestrial species, is necessary.
Given the conclusions in this chapter, the following recommendations are made:
• Expansion of existing whale-watching industries should be curtailed. At
present, there are no conclusive data that whale-watching protocols serve any
long-term biological purpose. Until there is an understanding of the effects of
vessels in proximity to cetaceans, further expansion of whale-watching fleets
may result in increased impact upon cetacean populations, even if new vessels
abide by prescribed viewing guidelines or regulations. 45
• Researchers should develop experimental research designs that answer
specific questions regarding proximity of whale-watching vessels to
cetaceans. Data gathered should be of a minimally subjective nature, such as
movement and physiological measurements collected from telemetry tags.
Intervening variables such as the presence of prey, should be incorporated.
Researchers should cooperate with each other to develop replicable research
designs, applicable to multiple locations and species. Some specifics of
effective research design with respect to cetacean-human impacts are
discussed by Richter (2002).
• Modelling exercises exploring acoustic impacts of whale-watching vessels on
cetaceans should be continued. However, results should be dealt with
cautiously until variables pertaining to the species in question can be used.
Therefore, research also needs to target information needed to assign values to
required variables.
• Cetacean-human interaction research should address the weakness of their
studies in order to guide future research. This is essential during development
of research designs that are replicable for multiple locations and species.
While cetacean-human interaction research needs to develop fundamental research designs that are replicable in numerous locations, management programmes must necessarily be applied on a site- and species-specific basis. In the next chapter whale-watching in British Columbia is examined in detail to present a current picture of a 46 mature whale-watching industry, its historical development, past and current management, and future possibilities. 47
.2.5 REFERENCES
Allen, S.J. and R.G. Harcourt 2001. Big brother is watching from under-water, above- water and on-land: assessing the behaviour of tour vessels around bottlenose dolphins. Abstracts of the 14th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Nov. 28 - Dec. 3, Vancouver, BC. p. 5.
Bain, D.E. 2002. A model linking energetic effects of whale watching to killer whale population dynamics. Unpublished report, Friday Harbor Labratories, San Juan Island, WA.
Bain, D.E. and M.E. Dalheim 1994. Effects of masking noise on detection thresholds of killer whales. In T.R. Loughlin (ed.), Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, New York.: 243-256.
Baird, R.W., M.B. Hanson, E.E. Ashe, M.R. Heithaus and G.J. Marshall. 2003. Studies of foraging in "southern resident" killer whales during July 2002: dive depths, bursts in speed, and the use of a "Crittercam" system for examining sub-surface behavior. Report prepared under Order Number AB133F-02-SE-1744 for the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
Baird, R.W. 2000. The killer whale - foraging specializations and group hunting. In J. Mann, R.C. Connor, P.L. Tyack and H. Whitehead (eds.), Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL: 127-153.
Bass, J. 2000. Variations in gray whale feeding behaviour in the presence of whale- watching vessels in Clayoquot Sound, 1993-1995. Ph.D. Dissertation, Whale Research Lab, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
Bell, D.V. and L.W. Austin 1985. The game-fishing season and its effect on waterfowl. Biological Conservation 33:65-80.
Blane, J.M. and R. Jaakson. 1996. The impact of ecotourism boats on the St. Lawrence beluga whales. Environmental Conservation. 21(3):267-269.
Boyle, S.A. and F.B. Samson 1985. Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:110-116.
Carlson, C. 1996. Whalewatching and its effects on whales. Whalewatcher 30:1, 8-10
Carlson, C. 2001. A review of whale watch guidelines and regulations around the world: version 2001. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port MA. 48
Conomy, J.T., J.A. Dubovsky, J.A. Collazo and W.J. Fleming 1998. Do balck ducks and wood ducks habituate to aircraft disturbance? Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3):1135-1142.
Constantine, R. 1999. Effects of tourism on marine mammals in New Zealand. Science for Conservation: 106. Department of Conservation, Wellington, NZ.
Datta, T. and B.C. Pal 1993. The effect of human interference on the nesting of the openbill stork Anastomus oscitans at the Raiganj Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Biological Conservation 64:149-154.
Davis, D., S. Banks, A. Birtles, P. Valentine and M. Cuthill 1997. Whale sharks in ningaloo marine park: managing tourism in an Australian Marine Protected Area. Tourism Management 18:258-271.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1988. Interdepartmental action plan to ensure the survival of the St. Lawrence beluga whales. Appendix 1. Canada Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON
Duffus, D.A. 1995. What can we learn about disturbance from research on other large mammals? Working paper MMW/95/7, Workshop on the Scientific Management of Whale Watching, March 30 - April 4, Montecastello di Vibio, Italy.
Duffus, D.A. and R.W. Baird. 1995. Killer whales, whalewatching and management: a status report. Whalewatcher. Fall/Winter:14-16.
Duffus, D. A. and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework. Biological Conservation. 53:213-231.
Erbe, C. 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science 18(2):394-418.
Erbe, C. 2001. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Unpublished report for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Erbe, C. and D.M. Farmer 2000. A software model to estimate zones of impact on marine mammals around anthropogenic noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108:1327-1331.
Erbe, C., A.R. King, M. Yedlin, and D.M. Farmer 1999. Computer models for masked hearing experiments with beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:2967-2978.
49
Evans, P.G.H. 1987. The natural history of whales and dolphins. Christopher Helm: London
Evans, P.G.H., P.J. Canwell and E.J. Lewis. 1992. An experimental study of the effects of pleasure craft noise upon bottle-nosed dolphins in Cardigan bay, West Wales. In European Research on Cetaceans, P.G.H. Evans, ed., European Cetacean Society: Cambridge, England. Pp. 43-46.
Finley, K.J. and R.A. Davis. 1984. Reactions of beluga whales and narwhals to ship traffic and ice-breaking along ice edges in the Eastern Canadian High Arctic: 1982-1984, an overview. Report by LGL Ltd., King City, ON, Canada.
Foley, C.A.H., S. Papageorge and S.K. Wasser 2000. Noninvasive stress and reproductive measures of social and ecological pressures in free-ranging African elephants. Conservation Biology 14:1134-1142.
Forestell, P. H. 1993. If Leviathan has a face, does Gaia have a soul?: incorporating environmental education in marine eco-tourism programs. Ocean & Coastal Management. 20: 267-282.
Fraser, A.F. 1989. Animal welfare practice: preliminary factors and objectives. Applied Animal Behavior Science 22:159-176.
Frid, A. and L.M. Dill 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6(1):11. [online version]
Frohoff, T. 2001. Behavioural indicators of stress in odontocetes during interactions with humans: a preliminary review and discussion. Report to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, No. 52.
Gerlatto, F. and P. Fréon 1992. Some elements of vertical avoidance of fish schools to a vessel during acoustic surveys. Fisheries Research 14:251-259.
Giese, M. 1996. Effects of human activity on adelie penguin Pygoscelis adeliae breeding success. Biological Conservation 75:157-164.
Gordon, J., R. Leaper, F.G. Harley and O. Chappell. 1992. Effects of whale-watching vessels on the surface and underwater acoustic behaviour of sperm whales off Kaikoura, NZ. Science and Research Series No. 32, NZ Dept. of Conservation, Wellengton, NZ.
Gutzwiller, K.J. 1991. Assessing recreational impacts on wildlife: the value and design of experiments. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:248-255. 50
Herzing, D. 1993. Dolphins in the wild: an eight year field study on dolphin communication and interspecies interaction. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH.
Higham, J.E.S. 1998. Tourists and albatrosses: the dynamics of tourism at the Northern Royal Albatross Colony, Taiaroa Head, New Zealand. Tourism Management. 19(6): 521-531.
Hoyt, E. 2001. Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA.
Hoyt, E. 1998. Watch a whale: learn from a whale - enhancing the educational value of whale watching. Unpublished paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1998 International Forum on Whales and Dolphins, July 4-5, Muronan, Japan. In Finkler, W. 2001. The experiential impact of whale-watching: implications for management in the case of the San Juan Islands, USA. M.Sc. Thesis in Marine Sccience, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Hoyt, E. 1995. The world-wide value and extent of whale watching: 1995. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Bath, UK.
Hoyt, E. 1992. Whale watching around the world: a report on its value, extent and prospects. International Whale Bulletin, 7:1-8.
Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiements. Ecological Monographs 54:187-211.
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Tethys Research Institute and Europe Conservation. 1996. Report of the Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Managing Whale Watching, Montecastello di Vibio, Italy, 30th March-4th April, 1995.
International Fund for Animal Welfare. 1997. Report of the International Workshop on the Educational Values of Whale Watching, Provincetown, MA, USA, 8th-11th May.
Jacobson, S.K. and A.F. Lopez 1994. Biological impacts of ecotourism: tourists and nesting turtles in Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22(3):414-419.
Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole 1995a. Wildlife responses to recreatiionists. In Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA: 51-70
51
Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole 1995b. Factors that influence wildlife responses to recreationists. In Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA: 71-80.
Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller (eds.) 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Kruse, S. 1991. The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, British Columbia. In Dolphin Societies, K. Pryor and K. Norris, eds. University of California Press; Berkley, CA. Pp. 149-159.
Lott D.F. and M. McCoy 1990. Asian rhinos Rhinoceros unicornis on the run? Impact of tourist visits on one population. Biological Conservation 73:23-26.
MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist and R.H Johnston 1982a. Cardiac and behavioural responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.
MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist and R.H Johnston 1982b. Physiological correlates of social behaviour in bighorn sheep: a field study using electrocardiogram telemetry. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 196:401-415.
Malcolm, C. and E. Lochbaum 1999. Human / marine mammal interaction workshop proceedings, University of Victoria, April 13-15. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.
Malcolm, C.D. and D.A. Duffus 2000. Comparison of subjective and statistical methods of dive classification using data from a time-depth recorder attached to a gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(3):177-182
Moberg, G.P. 2000. Biological response to stress: implications for animal welfare. In G.P Moberg and J.A. Mench (eds.) Biology of animal stress. Oxford University Press, New York.
Moen, A.N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton 1982. Effects of disturbance by snowmobiles on heart rate of captive white-tailed deer. New York Fish and Game Journal 29(2):176-183.
Morrison, M.L., W.M. Block, M.D. Strickland and W.L. Kendall 2001. Wildlife study design. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Morton, D.M. and P.H.M. Griffiths 1985. Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental anaimals and a hypothesis for assessment. The Veterinary Record 116:431-436. 52
National Marine Fisheries Service 2003. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/ MMWatch/southeast_guidelines.htm.
Nilssen, K.J., H.K. Johnsen, A.Rognmo, and A.S. Blix 1984. Heart rate and energy expenditure in resting and running Svalbard and Norwegian reindeer. American Journal of Physiology 246:963-967.
Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(2):521-530.
Phillips, N.E. and R.W. Baird. 1993. Are killer whales harassed by boats? The Victoria Naturalist, 50:10-11.
Reynolds, P.C. and D. Braithwaite 2001. Towards a conceptual frameork for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management 22:31-42.
Richardson, W.J., M.A. Fraker, B. Wursig and R.S. Wells. 1985. Behavior of bowhead whales Balaena mysticetus summering in the Beaufort Sea; reaction to industrial activities. Biological Conservation. 32: 195-230.
Richter, C. 2002. Sperm whales at Kaikoura and the effects of whale-watching on their surface and vocal behaviour. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ.
Rivarola, M., C. Campagna and A. Tagliorette2001. Demand driven commercial whalewatching in Peninsula Valdes (Patagonia): conservation implications for right whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2: 145-152.
Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park 1997. Whale-watching activities at sea: discussion paper, February.
Simpson, K. and E. Terry 2000. Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on mountain caribou : management concerns, interim management guidelines and research needs. Wildlife working report no. WR-99, Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C.
Stewart-Oaten, A. and J.R. Bence 2001. Temporal and spatial variation in environmental impact assessment. Ecological Monographs 71:305-339.
Stone, G.S., S.L. Katona, A. Mainwaring, J.M. Allen and H.D. Corbett. 1992. Respiration and surfacing rates of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) observed from a lighthouse tower. In Report of the International Whaling Commission, 42:739- 745. 53
Tyler, N.J.C. 1991. Short-term behavioural responses of Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus to diresct provocation by a snowmobile. Biological Conservation 56:179-194. van der Zande, A.N. and P. Vos 1984. Impact of a semi-experimental increase in recreation intensity on the densities of birds in groves and hedges on a lakeshore in the The Netherlands. Biological Conservation 30:237-259. van der Zande, A.N. and T.J. Verstral 1984. Impacts of outdoor recreation upon nest-site choice and breeding success of the kestrel. Ardea 73:90-99.
Watkins. W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal Science. 2:251-262.
Wiens, J.A. 1984. The place of long-term studies in ornithology. Auk 101:202-203.
Wiley, D. and J. Jahoda 1995. Can education programmes effectively control whale harassment by recreational boaters? Working paper MWW/95/14, Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Managing Whale Watching, March 30 - April 4, Montecastello di Vibio, Italy.
Williams, R., A.W. Trites and D.E. Bain. 2002a. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 256:255- 270.
Williams, R., D.E. Bain, J.K.B. Ford and A.W. Trites 2002b. Behavioural responses of male killer whales to a "leapfrogging" vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4(3):305-310.
Wilson, S.F. and D.M. Shacklton 2001. Backcountry recreation and mountain goats : a proposed research and adaptive management plan. Wildlife Bulletin no. B-103, Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.
Wilson, C. and C. Tisdell 2001. Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism resource especially in Australia. Tourism Management 22:279-288.
Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer and V. Geist 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all- terrain vehicle. Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3):425-429.
54
CHAPTER 3: HINDSIGHT EVALUATION OF WHALE- WATCHING MANAGEMENT IN B.C.
.3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the second chapter of this dissertation the state of whale-watching on a global scale was presented. Generally, whale-watching management, and cetacean-human interaction research is variable and inconsistent. This poses questions concerning: 1) the direction of management during the development of whale-watching industries and 2) prospects for the future given the current situation of many boats, continued growth, incomplete ecological knowledge and largely unenforceable, pseudo-precautionary viewing protocols.
This chapter examines the development and future prospects for whale-watching using British Columbia as a case study. The purpose is to examine in detail the historical development of a mature whale-watching industry, currently under scrutiny that suggests the present level of whale-watching activity is detrimental to cetaceans. This chapter is an investigation of the processes that led to the current state of whale-watching management in B.C. and an analysis of management efficacy and future prospects. Generally, a hands-off approach by the regulatory agencies responsible for the management of whales and whale-watching in British Columbia has left management development predominantly in the hands of the whale-watch companies and concerned non- governmental organizations (NGOs). Development of the industry has been a grassroots process, has not always been cooperative, has lacked contribution of effective scientific research, and in recent years has had to deal with negative media attention. 55
This chapter begins with a review of different management regimes applicable to whale-watching, focussing on the issue of commons resource management. This is followed by a narrative history of whale-watching development and management in
British Columbia on local, provincial and federal levels; this section functions as data for the final section. The chapter concludes by critically analysing the management processes that have governed whale-watching development in British Columbia. The analysis is based on seven management design principles identified by Ostrom (1990) as illustrative of existing successful commons resource management regimes. Each principle is listed below, followed its specific application to whale-watching:
1. Clearly defined boundaries: Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR [common pool resource] must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.
¾ There is no restrictive definition of who may operate a commercial whale-
watching business beyond the economic means to do so. However, the
boundaries (in this case the biological thresholds) of the commons
resource in question, the focal cetacean populations being watched, need
definition. Therefore we must ask the question: Do we possess enough of
an understanding of cetacean ecology to identify an amount of whale-
watching, or boundary, beyond which the focal populations suffer
detrimental impact to their viability?
56
2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions: Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labour, material, and/or money.
¾ Are there protocols for whale-watching that are appropriate to time,
place and species?
3. Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.
¾ Are whale-watch operators able to participate in development of
whale-watching protocols?
4. Monitoring: Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriate behaviour, are accountable to appropriators or are the appropriators.
¾ Is there valid and reliable information regarding whale-watching
vessel operating behaviour?
5. Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offence) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators and officials, or by both.
57
¾ Are there reliable and enforceable sanctions for wrong-doers? Can
those who violate operating protocols be punished in a manner that
deters further violations by that user and serves as an example to
others who consider violating protocols?
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
¾ Conflict in whale-watching primarily comes in the form of vessels
violating protocols. Who bears the costs of monitoring and
enforcement? Is there sufficient stakeholder will and funding to
effectively monitor and enforce adherence to operating protocols?
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organise: The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external government authorities.
¾ While classified here as a commons resource, management of
cetaceans is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO). However, as will be discussed, DFO has not
maintained a consistently active role in cetacean management with
respect to whale-watching. Therefore, as DFO becomes more active in 58
whale-watching management, will the agency take the experiences of
operators and their existing protocols into account?
The extent to which any one of these aspects is deficient will dictate success of a management regime for whale-watching in B.C. and sustainability of the focal cetacean populations.
In addition to the principles mentioned above, I pose a final question:
¾ Are there management paths, further to those discussed in the first seven
questions, that could contribute to effective management of whale-watching in
British Columbia?
The conclusions discussed at the end of this chapter set future needs for whale-
watching in British Columbia. 59
.3.2 REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT REGIMES
Regulating whale-watching is an issue of open-access, commons management.
The controversy regarding whether whale-watching is consumptive or non-consumptive consigns the activity to an area where management should follow a precautionary approach, within consumptive management regimes.
There are three management regimes that deal with consumptive use of common resources: regulatory, privatisation and co-management. The success of each is dependent on how allocation of resources is linked to the ecological system in which they exist (the sustainability issue) and the human system that consumes them (demand and equity issues) (Hanna et al. 1995). Each situation in which a natural resource management regime is needed has unique environmental, economic, social and legal aspects. The ecological systems from which the resources are extracted creates uncertainty with respect to impact and sustainability (Mitchell 1995). In addition, traditional institutional management frameworks are ill-equipped to address the integrated nature of ecological problems. These frameworks tend to be sectoral and vertically organised, which restricts interdisciplinary research, communication and co-operation (Baker 1989). Evidence from successful management regimes indicates success is dictated by adaptable and flexible programs that require departure from traditional frameworks (Mitchell 1997).
The problems of commons resource management were defined and discussed by
Hardin (1968). Hardin described the “tragedy of the commons” as the result of unlimited access to limited resources. Unless access is controlled, users are compelled to take as much of the resource as they like. Resource extraction imposes a cost on the user as well as every other user, as the resource pool is degraded. However, the user, while gaining all the benefit of the extracted resource, bears only part of the cost. Without control, this 60 scenario leads to overexploitation, as users concern themselves with individual benefit and not the overall impact.
Hardin’s seminal work presented two of the three options to address the “tragedy of the commons”: regulation and privatisation regimes. These two options represent opposite ends of the management spectrum. Co-management, the third option and a compromise between regulation and privatisation, was hinted at but not defined by
Hardin (1968), and has become prevalent more recently. Each of the three management regimes is discussed below.
3.2.1 Regulation Management
This first option recognises the resource as the responsibility of the State. The resource is the collective property of the citizens of the State, who empower the government to create rules and enforce management (Hanna et al. 1995). The resource is managed with goals such as fair use for all users and resource sustainability. Regulation management is undertaken through enacting punitive actions upon those who do not abide by the regulations. Ocean resource management in Canada has followed the regulation management regime, which because of Canada’s constitutional structure, has been undertaken by the federal government (Mitchell 1997). Cetaceans are included within this rubric. Research, harvesting and conservation of cetaceans is regulated by the federal government under the Marine Mammal Regulations (Section 7) of the Fisheries
Act, which provides the authority to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to administer the regulations (DFO). 61
3.2.2 Privatisation Management
In privatisation management schemes ownership of the resource is divided between users, leaving those owners to manage their own resource. If a stakeholder overuses the resource, the fault lies with the individual or group. It is difficult, however, to identify definable divisions between resource portions (Hannah et al. 1995). Although one might allocate a particular stock (e.g. of fish) as private ownership, the resource system itself cannot be owned, due to the transient nature of its constituents. Even a specific stock invariably moves from one stakeholder’s jurisdiction to another (Keen
1988, Ostrom 1990).
3.2.3 Co-Management
Regulation and privatisation were the two dominant management regimes explored for commons resource management until the mid 1980s. A third approach, co- management, hinted at by Hardin (1968) but not defined, lies between the two traditional methods. It involves collective or communal ownership, where a number of stakeholders manage the resource (Ostrom 1977). Co-management is defined as “power-sharing in the exercise of resource management between a government and a community or organisation of stakeholders” (Pinkerton 1992:331). It is defined by the Canadian
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) as:
[A] system that enables a sharing of decision-making power, responsibility, and risk between governments and stakeholders, including but not limited to resource users, environmental interests, experts, and wealth generators (NRTEE 1998:14).
62
NRTEE further defines co-management of ocean resources as:
[A]n arrangement by which responsibility for resource management and ocean stewardship is shared between governments and stakeholders who are applying an integrated approach to management with the objective of maintaining the ecological integrity of the oceans (NRTEE 1998:14).
Numerous countries have applied co-management regimes, particularly with respect to subsistence resources e.g. Norway for fishery and reindeer management
(Jentoft 1998, Jentoft & McCay 1995), Greenland for whaling management (Caulfield
1997), Australia for marine protected area management (Kelleher 1996), New Zealand for water management (Prystupa 1998), Russia, St. Lucia, the Philippines and Japan for fisheries management (Hønneland & Nilssen 2000, Sanderson 1998, Pomeroy & Pido
1995, Lim et al. 1995), Zimbabwe for game management (Child 1996), South Africa for wildlife ecotourism management (Stander et al. 1997), and the United States for fishery
(Acheson & Taylor 2001, Jentoft & McKay 1995, Pomeroy & Beck 1999), game (Kruse et al. 1998) and rangeland management (Paulson 1998).
Co-management has also become an important management regime in Canada e.g. aboriginal resource management of land claims (Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples 1996), fin fisheries (Berkes 1987, Gordon 1993, Pinkerton 1989), whale fisheries
(Fisheries Joint Management Committee 1991, Richard & Pike 1993), wildlife harvesting
(Kruse et al. 1998, Marshal 1999, Osherenko 1988, Thompson 1994) and watershed management (NRTEE 1998), as well as commercial fisheries (Jentoft & McCay 1995,
NRTEE 1998), forestry (Beckley & Korber (1996) and game management (Kruse et al.
1998). 63
Although co-management strategies have been successful, the implementation of a co-management regime is difficult, especially in the presence of existing power relations or established legal rights (Pinkerton 1992). Co-management of natural resources has been enthusiastically promoted by NGOs, international aid organisations, stakeholder groups and certain academics (Berkes 1989, Lane 2001, McKay and Acheson
1987, Pinkerton 1989, Singleton 2000). However, unclear boundaries between public and private resources, vagaries in control, and competing perspectives on appropriate resource use often create difficult atmospheres in which to establish and maintain co- management (Singleton 2000). Questions of scale applied to management zone areas and stakeholder group sizes are also difficult issues. Competing user groups with different goals inevitably disagree about co-management boundaries and the composition of co- management councils (Schusler et al. 2000).
The utility of co-management for whale-watching in Canada is explored by White
(2001), who concludes that whale-watching may be a viable candidate for development of a co-management regime. The historical lack of federal management action leaves a vacancy into which co-management techniques may be placed without the difficulties of incorporating it into an established regime. Whale-watching is an important regional economic resource, one for which individual communities have taken responsibility for its development. While the mandate for protection and management of marine mammals is federal, the populations, environments and level of scientific understanding are geographically diverse, making it difficult to create universal, yet regionally applicable regulations. Stakeholders directly involved in the activity may have valuable insight 64 regarding local marine mammal populations (sensu Ostrom 1977). Management of whale-watching needs regional input to be effective.
3.2.4 Voluntary Compliance-Based Management of Whale-Watching in Canada
Voluntary compliance is the determining factor in whether a wildlife management program is successful or not (Hall 1992). This is due to enforcement difficulties, such as extensive viewing areas, lack of funding or personnel, or weak regulations. Compliance is more likely to occur when the users possess enthusiasm for, and a vested interest in, conservation of the resource (Leopold 1933, Jackson 1979). In situations lacking scientific understanding, such as whale-watching, voluntary compliance with localized guidelines is important as regulations are often general or absent. Hardin (1968) described these as circumstances lacking “technical solutions”, requiring “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (Hardin 1968: 1246). Cooperation and trust are important; one user behaves according to guidelines, signalling to another an intention of cooperation and the hope of reciprocation (Mitchell 1997). Compliance with voluntary guidelines is seen as rational by participants if they are able to acquire a reputation with which they can influence others to do the same (Rowe 1989). In such a scenario the benefits are collective (Frank 1988), behaviour self-reinforcing (Ostrom 1990) and, hopefully, sustainability of the resource and the industry is achieved.
There is, however, the possibility of “free-riders” within the user group. Benefit for all users in a group through mutual cooperation is termed collective action (Olson
1965). In theory, each individual in a group with common interests should participate in cooperative actions that benefit those interests (Truman 1958). However, when an 65 individual’s activities cannot be limited in some manner from obtaining benefits of the resource, that individual may be compelled to use the benefits of collective action, yet ignore voluntary use protocols to further individual gain. A limited number of free-riders within a larger group will not overtly affect group benefit (Olson 1965), however, as the number of users and competition grows, voluntary guidelines may not be enough to control use of the resource; legislation with the threat of punitive action for non- compliance may be required.
In whale-watching, whales are not only a commons resource, but an open-access resource. No individual can be excluded from viewing whales, or operating a commercial whale-watching company, as cetaceans are not a contained resource. Voluntary compliance with locally established codes of conduct has been the modus operandi for commercial whale-watching in Canada, due to a lack of scientific understanding of vessel impact upon cetacean populations and a general set of regulations that does not address whale-watching; free-riding upon the benefits of collective action is possible.
Limited federal management action during the intense growth of whale-watching in Canada, beginning in the 1980s, left a management void into which industry operators took management action. This created an ad-hoc, de facto co-management regime. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for research on, and conservation of, cetaceans (e.g. Barrett-Lennard & Ellis 2001, de March & Maiers 2001,
Gosselin et al. 2001, Maiers et al. 1999, Strong et al. 1995, Trippel et al. 1996). The
Department also has the authority to control access to whales through permitting.
However, a federal government presence has been felt on only three principal occasions with respect to whale-watching. DFO cooperated in the joint federal/provincial 66
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale, and Killer Whale Joint Management Committees that developed management recommendations for the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg)
Ecological Reserve for killer whales in Johnstone Strait, B.C. (JSKWC 1991). DFO also cooperated with myself, through the University of Victoria Whale Research Lab, to organise and direct the B.C. Human / Marine Mammal Interaction Workshop (DFO
1999) and facilitated the subsequent B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory Council.
Parks Canada cooperated with the Province of Quebec and in 2002 added an annex to the
Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act that initiates permitting for commercial whale- watching and dictates proximity and approach behaviours within the Park
(Communication Canada 2002).
In 2001, DFO placed itself in a position to become involved in whale-watching management on a national scale by contracting a discussion paper that outlines management issues (Lien 2001). Lien places his recommendations within the Canadian
Government’s proposed guiding principle of a precautionary approach to resource management (Government of Canada 2001), and his position that whale-watching may cause detrimental impacts upon focal populations. DFO is also currently developing amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations, which includes commercial operator and public consultations (M. Joyce, pers. com.).
However, with the exception of the Johnstone Strait initiative, federal participation is recent and, for the most part, control of resource use with respect to whale-watching (e.g. restrictions on vessel number and proximity) has been in the hands of whale-watch operators. Except for the recent regulations for the Saguenay-St.
Lawrence Marine Park, the number of vessels allowed to whale-watch at any given time 67 or place has remained unlimited. There has not been any cooperation between federal and provincial governments to limit the number of whale-watching companies. There are no federal regulations that stipulate how vessels must be operated in the vicinity of cetaceans while whale-watching.
Therefore, management of whale-watching has been dependent on voluntary compliance with industry developed codes of conduct for whale-watching. Voluntary codes of conduct exist in all whale-watching areas in Canada. Development of whale- watching protocols by whale-watch operators has been important for both public perception and precautionary behaviour. This type of ad-hoc management regime (also termed voluntary guidelines, ethical guidelines, operational guidelines, best-practices, codes of ethics) has become an important issue in tourism, ecotourism and wildlife tourism activities that have developed quickly in institutional and/or ecological knowledge vacuums (Genot 1995, McArthur 1994, Malloy & Fennell 1998, Pam Wight
& Associates 2001, Payne & Dimanche 1996).
.3.3 METHODS
This chapter of the dissertation is an analysis of the development and management of whale-watching in British Columbia. The narrative acts as data for the analysis. The method I used to create the narrative is threefold: 1) engaging in dialogue and interviews with whale-watch operators and managers, 2) archival research of management body minutes and reports, and 3) participant observation in the B.C. whale-watching industry as well as management initiatives. I discuss each type of research below.
68
3.3.1 Dialogue and Interviews
Since 1997, and particularly from January 1999 to May 2002, I engaged in an extensive dialogue with whale-watch operators and resource managers. This dialogue was conducted at Society for Marine Mammology conferences, workshops held by the
University of Victoria Whale Research Lab/Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Pacific Rim National Park, and Parks Canada/Government of Quebec, Whale Watch
Operators Association Northwest meetings and Victoria-based whale-watch operators drivers meetings. The dialogue included whale-watch operators and drivers in Victoria,
Tofino and Johnstone Strait, current and past- presidents of the Whale Watch Operators
Association Northwest, Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee members, members of Soundwatch, a non-profit NGO, and DFO managers and scientists.
The dialogue consisted of personal conversations, email correspondence and telephone discussions. All discussions were recorded.
3.3.2 Archival Research
I was given access to archival information from the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale and Joint Management Killer Whale Committees as well as the Whale Watch Operators
Association Northwest (WWOANW). Archival information included operation procedures, meeting agendas and minutes, committee correspondence, draft reports and guidelines, research summaries and correspondence with other stakeholders. I collated and analysed this material to identify historical details of the development and management of whale-watching in B.C. 69
3.3.3 Participant Observation
I began working in the Victoria whale-watching industry as a spotter–boat driver for a whale-watching company in 1996. I was then driver and naturalist on zodiac whale- watching vessels for two other whale-watching companies between 1997 and 2002. I was involved in developing educational programs for all three companies. I was, therefore, able to document the evolution of whale-watching in Southern Vancouver
Island / San Juan Islands as a participant over a seven year period when whale-watching went through its greatest growth. I was present and spoke at several WWOANW meetings in 2002.
I also participated in management of whale-watching in B.C. I proposed and co- convened the University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Canada B.C. Mammal
Viewing Workshop and sat on the subsequent B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Working
Group. I was keynote speaker and participated in the Parks Canada Mammal Viewing
Workshop in Tofino. In 2002 I sat on the Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest
Guidelines committee. This participation allowed me access to detailed information regarding the development of whale-watching management in B.C.
. 70
.3.4 HISTORY OF WHALE-WATCHING DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT IN B.C.
This section of the chapter describes the development and management of whale- watching in British Columbia, from its beginnings in the early 1980’s to 2003. There is also a review of research conducted on cetacean-vessel interaction in B.C. This section serves a data for the analysis and discussion section.
3.4.1 Site-Specific Growth and Management
There are three main whale-watching centres in British Columbia: Johnstone
Strait, Clayoquot Sound/Barkley Sound (henceforth referred to as Clayoquot Sound) and the waters surrounding Southern Vancouver Island, and the San Juan Islands in
Washinton (henceforth referred to as Southern Vancouver Island) (Figure 3.1). Whale- watching in Johnstone Strait and Clayoquot Sound began in the early 1980’s. Whale- watching in Southern Vancouver Island began in Victoria in the mid-1980’s. Whale- watching has also developed on a minor scale in other areas where whales appear less regularly, often in combination with water taxi services or general nature cruises. These areas, such as Port Hardy, Prince Rupert, Steveston and Horseshoe Bay, began to advertise marine nature trips, including whale-watching, in recent years as the activity has gained popularity. I discuss the development of commercial whale-watching in each of the three major centres in turn.
71
Figure 3.1 Vancouver Island, British Columbia 72
Johnstone Strait
Commercial whale-watching in Johnstone Strait began as a result of personal interest on the part of an individual, Jim Borrowman, originally from Victoria. From the beginning, whale-watching in this area was developed by local residents and connected to biological researchers and nature photographers. The prime interest, therefore, was not initially financial, but curiosity, which led to a different relationship with the whales, one more connected to whale research and conservation, than other commercial whale- watching areas.
Borrowman’s charter company, Stubb’s Island Charters, currently carries the largest number of whale-watchers per year in Johnstone Strait; however, his connection with education and research still remains. Borrowman began travelling to Johnstone
Strait in 1975, and with Department of Fisheries biologist Dr. Michael Bigg, who had initiated field studies of killer whales in the area in 1971 (Ford et al. 1994), researchers
Graeme Ellis and John Ford, and writer/photographer Eric Hoyt, would follow killer whales, camping and photographing. He was initially concerned with SCUBA diving and underwater photography (J. Borrowman, pers. com).
In 1978 this group discovered that MacMillan-Bloedel planned to log the Tsitika
River watershed and establish a log sorting area in Robson Bight (Figure 3.2).
Borrowman and the others had often viewed killer whales in Robson Bight, rubbing in shallow waters of pebble beaches, and determined that it was an important portion of their habitat. Borrowman et al. began a campaign to halt the proposed commercial use of
Robson Bight. The group took video footage of killer whales rubbing themselves on the beaches in Robson Bight and gave public slide shows to educate communities on
Vancouver Island. The campaign won the support of the public, the Sierra Club, the 73
Figure 3.2: Johnstone Strait
Western Canada Wilderness Committee and finally the Ministry of the Environment (J.
Borrowman, pers. com). In 1982 an Ecological Reserve was established, extending 1,000 meters outward from the shore and approximately 8,900 meters in length, including
Robson Bight and the rubbing beaches (Duffus & Dearden 1989).
The grassroots campaign to protect Robson Bight created the initial public awareness of wild killer whales in British Columbia. In 1980, a group of students from
Seneca College in Toronto, on a trip to B.C., contacted Borrowman to take them to
Robson Bight. Borrowman rented a coastal tug/freight boat, the Gikimi, and along with a partner, Bill McKay, took the students out on what was most likely the first commercial whale-watching trip in British Columbia. They saw no whales (J. Borrowman, pers. com). The publication of Hoyt’s Orca, the Whale Called Killer (Hoyt 1981) created 74 further interest in B.C. killer whales and, beginning in 1981, Borrowman and McKay started taking out groups from the Royal Ontario Museum. They established a company,
Stubb’s Island Charters, and leased the Gikimi as their vessel (J. Borrowman, pers. com).
Borrowman and McKay later bought the Gikimi and Stubbs Island Charters still uses it as one of two whale-watching vessels.
For the next seven years Borrowman and McKay continued to pursue their main interest in SCUBA diving rather than whale-watching. However, by the late 1980s, whale-watching had become more popular and Stubb’s Island Charters focused on whale- watching, based in Telegraph Cove, by the late 1980’s. As new operators began to establish themselves in Johnstone Strait, concern on the part of the public, researchers, and whale-watch operators for the whales grew. Bigg and Ellis began to develop “whale- watching guidelines” in the mid 1980’s but they were never completed (J. Borrowman, pers. com).
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) developed guidelines for whale-watching in Johnstone Strait in 1985 (JSKWJMC 1993). The guidelines may not have received wide distribution, for in 1987 one of the whale-watch operators suggested guidelines for Johnstone Strait in a letter distributed to other operators (Bluewater
Adventures 1987). The guidelines describe vessel operation while in proximity to whales in a general manner, and emphasize cautious vessel placement. These guidelines, along with the 1985 DFO guidelines, were never adopted as “Johnstone Strait Whale-Watching
Guidelines” by the operators. However, they do comprise the basis of an unwritten understanding for commercial watch operators utilizing killer whales in B.C. The
Bluewater Adventures letter also proposed that an “Association of Whale Watching 75
Companies” be formed. The suggestion was not acted upon and there remains no whale- watch operator association in Johnstone Strait (J. Borrowman, pers. com).
Gjerdalen (1988) developed a set of guidelines for Johnstone Strait whale- watching, as part of a B.C. Ministry of Tourism funded Masters thesis at Simon Fraser
University. Guidelines were also developed by the Committee on Whales and Whaling in
1991, B.C. Parks in 1993 and the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management
Committee in 1993 (JSKWJMC 1993). As no commercial whale-watch operators’ association exists in Johnstone Strait none of these guidelines have been “officially” adopted as operating guidelines for the area (J. Borrowman, pers. com) (but see below).
In 1990 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the B.C. Ministry of Parks established the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee (JSKWC). The committee was composed of federal and provincial government managers and researchers, academic researchers, forest industry managers, commercial fishery, local First Nations and community representatives, local whale-watch operators, and private consultants. The goal of the JSKWC was to ensure that human activities did not impact upon killer whales that used Johnstone Strait; particularly the Robson Bight Ecological Reserve (JSKWC
1991). In order to accomplish its goals the committee identified ecological research needs, consulted with commercial forestry and fishery stakeholders, and sought public input for management recommendations.
Public input revealed a concern for the long-term welfare of the killer whales.
Recommendations included extending the boundaries of the Reserve to include a land buffer and a larger marine component, halting logging upon evidence of potential harm to the whales, development of a management plan for commercial fishing to minimize 76 effect on killer whales, broadening the JSKWC mandate to include other marine wildlife, developing public education programs, restricting land access, and establishing a permitting system for photographers, filmmakers and private boaters (JSKWC 1992a).
With respect to commercial whale-watching, the public recommendations included: development of a commercial whale-watching operator association that all companies must belong to, establishment of a set of whale-watching practices that all operators must adhere to, a licensing program to limit the number of whale-watching vessels, and education of private boaters by commercial operators on the water (JSKWC 1992a).
In 1992 the JSKWC also published its management recommendations. The
Committee made twenty-seven recommendations addressing education, enforcement/ regulations, research, commercial fishing, whale-watching, land access (to the Reserve), forest management and other general issues (JSKWC 1992b) (Appendix 3.1). The
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee (JSKWJMC) was established to implement the management recommendations. The JSKWJMC included a
Scientific Sub-Committee to consult on the scientific aspects of management.
A detailed set of whale-watching guidelines were drafted by the JSKWJMC in
1993 to address all forms of whale-watching, including commercial and private vessel whale-watching, single and multiple vessel presence, aircraft, cruise ships and commercial fishing vessels (Appendix 3.2). The draft guidelines contained approach distances and vessel operation behaviours:
“At a distance of 100 meters, shift your motor into neutral or idle. When leaving the location, start out slowly and wait until you are more than 400 meters from the animal before accelerating progressively”, and
77
“When travelling parallel to whales, maintain a speed of 2 to 4 knots; do not alter your speed or direction abruptly. Do not parallel in a manner that forces them between your vessel and the shoreline.” (JSKWJMC 1993)
These guidelines were the most detailed whale-watching guidelines in terms of vessel operation protocol developed in British Columbia, although they only cursorily addressed marine mammals other than killer whales. JSKWC management recommendation number six (Appendix 3.1) was addressed when the draft guidelines were incorporated into the Johnstone Strait Whale Watching Guide that is still produced each year (JSKWJMC 1994) (Appendix 3.3). The guide is produced as a pamphlet and in addition to guidelines for watching killer whales, includes killer whale natural history.
Guidelines for commercial fishing vessels are not transferred from the draft guidelines, nor does the guide refer to wildlife other than killer whales. Both “resident” type, fish- eating killer whales, and “transient” type, mammal eating killer whales (see Ford et al.
2000) are described in the Guide; although the two types of killer whales exhibit different behaviours, the viewing guidelines do not discriminate between the them. The guide is widely available in order to educate the public. Although commercial whale-watchers in
Johnstone Strait do not have an operating association and therefore do not “officially” prescribe to a particular set of guidelines the protocols in this pamphlet are those which are referred to by local operators (J. Borrowman, pers. com.).
Twenty-three of the twenty-seven recommendations of the JSKWC have been undertaken at the time of writing. Recommendation #10, amendment of the Marine
Mammal Regulations began in 2002, ten years after it was recommended, but has not been completed (DFO 2002); recommendations #16, elimination of commercial fishing 78 vessels mooring in the Reserve, #17, requirement for all whale-watchers to adhere to general whale-watching regulations, and #19, development of a whale-watching operator association, have not been achieved or are not formalized (J. Borowman, pers. com., D.
Duffus, pers. com.).
From the beginning, whale-watching in Johnstone Strait has been conducted by self-regulating commercial operators. They cooperate to remain outside the boundaries of Robson Bight Reserve and restrict their approach to within 100 meters of the whales.
Most of the operators in the area have been whale-watching for many years and know each other personally. Vessel operation is guided by an “old-boy’s network…and it would take a lot before someone would [call another operator] over the VHF or phone. It takes a lot to piss each other off” (J. Borrowman, pers. com.). This most likely leads to a certain amount of “unwritten code of conduct bending”, as evidenced by researcher observation of vessel entrances into the Reserve and approaches closer than 100 meters
(Duffus & Dearden 1989, Kruger 1995).
Extensive development of whale-watching in Johnstone Strait has been restricted by location and tourist infrastructure. Johnstone Strait is a 450 kilometre drive north from
Victoria, or a 1.5 hour ferry trip and 350 kilometre drive from Vancouver.
Accommodation does not exist in Telegraph Cove, a privately owned village, and limited accommodation exists in Port McNeil. There are few other tourist attractions, limiting marketing options mainly to pre-booked reservations. Walk-up clientele is limited as no tourist “gathering places” exist; word of mouth advertising is important. This situation makes it difficult for new operators to enter the industry (J. Borrowman, pers. com.). 79
Therefore, the whale-watching industry grew slowly in Johnstone Strait.
Numerous operators attempted to join the market, particularly after 1990. The number of operators and vessels fluctuates yearly. In 2001 there were eight companies, operating approximately 15 vessels. The numbers of companies and vessels varies, even within season (J. Borrowman, pers. com.). The majority of vessels depart from Port McNeil.
Vessels also travel several times a week from Campbell River and periodically a vessel will travel from Port Hardy if the whales are far enough north. Not all of these companies are exclusively whale-watching charters. There are combination whale-watching/water taxi vessels, whale-watching/sport fishing vessels and a wilderness/fishing lodge that offers whale-watching (J. Borrowman, pers. com.). These multi-service companies reflect the difficulty in creating an economically viable dedicated whale-watching company. In addition there are a fluctuating number (usually one or two) of charter companies that offer multi-day cruising trips that pass through Johnstone Strait and include whale-watching (J. Borrowman, pers. com.).
It is currently estimated that 30,000 to 35,000 people per year go commercial whale-watching in Johnstone Strait. This number likely increases to 40,000 when commercial kayaking, which offers whale-watching opportunities, is included. Without increases in tourism infrastructure the whale-watching industry in Johnstone Strait has likely reached its market carrying capacity (J. Borrowman, pers. com.). The construction of the Inland Island Highway, improving access, and a resort currently under construction in Telegraph Cove may allow for expansion of the industry or increase dedication to whale-watching by the multi-service companies in the near future.
80
Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds
Whale-watching in this area encompasses northern Barkley Sound, waters along the shore of Pacific Rim National Park and Clayoquot Sound as far north as Hot Springs
Cove, but is concentrated along the western shores of Vargas and Flores Islands in
Clayoquot Sound (Figure 3.3). In the 1960’s researchers began to take an interest in gray whales that passed within a few kilometres of shore during the spring, as they travelled on their northward migration to summer feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi Seas
(Pike 1962). A few local entrepreneurs began taking customers out to see the migrating whales in 1982 from both Uclulet and Tofino. They would sell tickets out of locations such as the local laundromat, bookstore or on the dock (J. Bray, pers. com.).
By 1986 tours were being offered all summer out of Tofino, based on gray whales that remained in Clayoquot Sound. At that point there were only three companies and tickets were still not sold out of dedicated offices. Two of the companies offered small open boat experiences while the other maintained a large 40 passenger covered vessel (J.
Bray, pers. com., D. Travers, pers. com.).
From 1990 onward the industry expanded at a quicker pace (Table 3.1). The companies had established dedicated offices and several engaged in marketing beyond
Tofino and Uclulet (e.g. advertising cards on B.C. Ferries, B.C. provincial tourism advertising) (J. Bray, pers. com., pers. obs.). It is currently estimated that approximately
45,000 people go whale-watching in the area per year (D. Travers, pers. com.).
In a manner similar to Johnstone Strait, whale-watching is conducted in
Clayoquot Sound through a self-regulated network in which most of the operators are local residents and know each other. There is no formal operators’ association, although
81
Figure 3.3: Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds
82
Table 0.1: Number and types of vessels operating from Tofino and Uclulet, by year
Number of No. Small Vessels: No. Small Vessels: No. Large Year Companies open (<13 pax) covered (<13 pax) Vessels 1986 3 2 1 1990 4 5 1 1 1995 8 9 3 1 2000* 9 18** 6 2 2002+ 8 14 4 2 (J. Bray, pers. com., D. Travers, pers. com.) * Gray whales were present all summer in northern Barkley Sound; 1 small open, 1 small covered and 1 large vessel operated out of Uclulet in 2000 and 2001. ** Estimate: 15 boats operated all summer; several that seemed to be doing periodic trips + Predicted operating numbers, but see **
there was an attempt to create one along with sport fishing operators in the late 1980’s (J.
Bray, pers. com.). By the mid-1990’s most owners had ceased driving their vessels on a
regular basis, however hired drivers maintain an open VHF channel over which co-
operative communication is conducted. Drivers aid each other with respect to locations
of wildlife, weather conditions and advise their offices of their intended travel route
(pers. obs.).
Most operators meet informally at the beginning of the whale-watching season,
coordinated by Strawberry Island Research, a local non-profit research and education
NGO, to discuss operating protocols (J. Bray, pers. com.). Operators will also meet when
particular situations warrant. For example, in 1995 three gray whales spent most of the
summer in Grice Bay, a shallow, enclosed bay where the animals foraged at high tide.
Negative impact upon the whales was a concern as vessels were often in proximity to the
whales in water less than 3 meters deep. There was conflict over the VHF radio
network about boats approaching animals too closely (pers. obs.). The operators, along 83 with vessel drivers, met in mid-season to discuss the issue, inviting local researchers to also attend (pers. obs).
The industry is currently willing to communicate and cooperate with researchers, however this was not always the case. In 1995, when I planned to undertake time-depth- recorder (TDR) tagging of gray whales through the University of Victoria Whale
Research Lab (Malcolm 1997, Malcolm & Duffus 2000) vessel drivers threatened to sink our research vessel (pers. obs.). During the 1995 Grice Bay meeting, and through meetings with each operator, we demonstrated that the tag was non-invasive. Since 1995 relations have steadily improved, through efforts by Whale Research Lab researchers, to the point that the whale-watch drivers will routinely ask questions of the Whale Research
Lab vessel, Drifter, over the VHF and bring passengers over to look at prey samples (C.
Tombach, pers. com., pers. obs.). There is, therefore, an established relationship between
Tofino whale-watch operators and cetacean researchers.
Operators in Tofino conduct themselves according to a set of voluntary guidelines. The Tofino Whale Watching Operators’ Voluntary Guidelines (TWWOVG) were produced in 1995 by Strawberry Isle Research (R. Palm, pers. com., Strawberry Isle
Research 1995) (Appendix 3.4). The TWWOVG were also adopted by Parks Canada as
Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Voluntary Marine Wildlife Viewing Guidelines. Parks
Canada has an administrative interest in whale and other marine wildlife viewing in the area: Grice Bay, the waters along Long Beach and the Broken Islands in Barkley Sound are within the boundaries of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. However, there was no enforcement interest displayed until 1999, when an off-duty warden mistakenly reported the University of Victoria Whale Research Lab vessel Drifter in close proximity to gray 84 whales in Grice Bay. An unofficial investigation revealed the boat was a whale-watching vessel, however no further action was undertaken against the operator (D. Duffus, pers. com.). There remained little official Parks Canada interest in whale-watching within
Park boundaries until 2000 (see Parks Canada workshop discussed below).
The TWWOVG includes sections on gray whales, killer whales, pinnipeds, birds and research vessels. Unlike other operating protocols in B.C. the approach distance for whale-watching in Tofino is 50 metres, rather than 100 metres. An exception of 100 metres is given when killer whales (presumably “transient” mammal-eating killer whales) are in the process of making a kill. There is no discrepancy made between “resident” type fish-eating killer whales and “transient” type mammal-eating killer whales (see Ford et al. 2000) and therefore no discussion of their differing behaviour that would seem to necessitate distinct viewing protocols. The guidelines make no reference to humpback whales, which have been viewed in increasing numbers in the area recently (D. Duffus, pers. com.).
The guidelines also include the statement that:
It is understood that approaches vary with the conditions of the encounter (e.g. number of whales or boats, location, weather, etc.) (Strawberry Isle Research 1995:1).
While there is no concluding remark to this statement that indicate how these conditions might affect vessel operation, the TWWOVG are the only guidelines presented in this dissertation that acknowledge the variability of environmental conditions that necessitate flexible guidelines.
In March 1998 a fatal accident occurred when a whale-watching zodiac flipped over in heavy seas. Two of the four people on board died, including the driver (Victoria 85
Times-Colonist, March 23, 1998: A1). The accident resulted in increased concern for safety. This concern was manifested in increased communication between vessels and company offices regarding current locations, proposed travel routes and arrival times
(pers. obs.). Fisheries Minister David Anderson stated that the accident would aid in improving existing safety regulations (Victoria Times-Colonist, March 24, 1998: A1), presumably through the Department of Transport, however there is no evidence that this has occurred (D. Travers, pers. com).
The success of the University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine
Mammal Viewing Workshop (see below) prompted a regional workshop of a similar nature for Clayoquot Sound whale-watching. The workshop was held by Parks Canada in March 2000, and dealt with marine wildlife viewing within and without the boundaries of the Park. The workshop included participants from Parks Canada, B.C. Parks,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, local whale-watch operators, the University of Victoria
Whale Research Lab, Strawberry Isle Research, First Nations, and the local community
(Parks Canada 2002).
The workshop broke the participants into multi-stakeholder groups that discussed species-specific issues the first day and site-specific issues the second day. Detailed site- and species-specific guidelines were suggested by the participants. The workshop proceedings were published in April 2002. The guidelines were presented to whale-watch operators during the spring and summer of 2002 to mixed reviews from operators, who felt that DFO and Parks Canada should be cooperating and that DFO was not taking into account the efforts of past local management and research (W. Szaniszlo, pers. com.). 86
Parks Canada subsequently worked in conjuction with operators and researchers to develop regulations for whale-watching within Pacific Rim National Park Reserve boundaries. Beginning in the 2003 whale-watching season, operators were required to obtain a Parks Canada business licence in order to conduct commercial whale-watching activities within Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. The regulations are enforceable through the Business Regulations under the National Parks Act; an operator’s license can be revoked for contraventions to the regulations (W. Szaniszlo, pers. com.).
The Parks Canada regulations for marine mammal viewing in Pacific Rim
National Park Reserve are extremely detailed, reflecting local operator and researcher input. The guidelines are divided into whale, pinniped, seabird and site specific guidelines, addressing issues such as seasonality (e.g. breeding, calves), approach and speed restrictions, delineate “no wake” and “close viewing” zones, vessel types, specific species and individual sites (Parks Canada 2003) (Appendix 3.5).
Outside the Park boundaries, where most of the whale-watching in the area takes place, there is currently still some dissatisfaction with DFO on the part of the operators, who are demanding that the agency take into account local management history and research undertaken by the University of Victoria Whale Research Lab (e.g. Bass 2000)
(W. Szaniszlo, pers.com.).
Southern Vancouver Island
Whale-watching in the Southern Vancouver Island area occurs in Canadian and
United States waters. Management of the activity must consider both countries as vessels
from Canada enter United States waters to access the whales and vice versa. Canadian vessels watch killer whales and other marine mammals approximately 70% of the time in 87
United States waters (D. Kukat, pers. com.). Whale-watching occurs mainly in Haro
Strait and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as well as Boundary Pass, Swanson Channel and the waters surrounding the Southern Gulf Islands in Canada and San Juan Islands in the
United States. When whales are west of Victoria, in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the distance is too great for many of the American vessels to participate (Figure 3.4).
The presence of private, non-commercial whale-watching vessels is much greater here than either of the other two locations (pers. obs., J. Borrowman pers. com.), due to the large populations of Victoria, Vancouver and Puget Sound/Seattle and the popularity of the area for recreational boating. Private boats are likely often attracted to whales by aggregations of commercial whale-watching vessels. Although the average number of private vessels watching whales is less overall than commercial vessels, weekends and holidays have resulted in occasions of greater than 100 vessels present with whales at a single time, with private boats comprising up to 70% of the vessels (Figure 3.5).
Commercial whale-watching first began in this area on a small scale in the late
1970’s out of the San Juan Islands. Canadian-based vessels did not begin to take passengers out of Victoria until 1984. The proximity of large population centres such as
Victoria, Vancouver and Seattle and the popularity of these centres as tourism destinations allowed the industry to grow rapidly when whale-watching became popular in the 1990’s (Otis and Osborne 2001) (Figures 3.6 & 3.7). 88
Figure 3.4: Southern Vancouver Island and San Juan Islands, WA 89
130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
Number of Whale Watching Boats 10 0 1998 1999 2000 2001
Max. of all Boats Max. of Private Max.of Commercial Avg.of all Boats Avg. of Commercial Avg. of Private
Figure 3.5: Maximum and average numbers of whale-watching vessels in Haro Strait (1998-2001) (Otis & Osborne 2001)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Number of Vessels / Companies 10
0 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
U.S. Vessels Canadian Vessels Total Vessels No. Companies
Figure 3.6: Number of whale-watching companies and vessels, by year (Otis & Osborne 2001)
90
500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000
Number of Passengers Number 100,000 50,000 0
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.7: Number of whale-watching passengers per year (Otis & Osborne 2001)
Canadian operators began to meet informally in the early 1990’s when whale- watching began to become popular and new operators started to establish themselves.
During this period, animosity developed between U.S. and Canadian operators, as well as among some Canadian operators themselves, due to the larger numbers of vessels viewing the whales and economic competition in a fledgling industry (A. Rhodes, pers. com.). The Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest (WWOANW) was established in 1995 in an attempt to foster professionalism (D. Kukat, pers. com.).
However, throughout the mid 1990’s conflict over conduct on the water, such as vessel speed, proximity to whales and what was seen as unsafe vessel practices was common.
Vessel drivers from different companies would not communicate with each other over
VHF radio (A. Rhodes, pers. com., pers. obs.).
The WWOANW was established to try and get “new players – new to boating, new to whales” (A. Rhodes, pers. com.) together with experienced operators. The 91 establishment of the Association was “an incredible tussle…to get a lot of people who didn’t like each other around the table” (A. Rhodes, pers. com.). At this point, management was less about whale conservation and more about marketing and on-the- water competition. However, it had to be made clear that the “issue wasn’t marketing – it was [creating] a common interest in trying to deal with a common resource intelligibly”
(A. Rhodes, pers. com.). With limited Canadian legislation applicable to whale-watching activities, no permitting legislation to limit the number of vessels, and no American enforcement presence for the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the area (pers.obs.), the goal was the creation of a formalized self-regulating industry to organise activity on the water and foster professionalism.
Originally WWOANW imposed a two-year waiting period for new operators to
“prove their worth” (A. Rhodes, pers. com.) in order to join the association. This waiting period was eliminated in 1996 (WWOANW 1997a) in order to get all operators acting as a single entity on the water (A. Rhodes, pers. com). In 1996 a committee was established to develop whale-watching guidelines. These were drafted the same year and finalised in
1997. The Recommended Guidelines for Marine Wildlife Viewing (RGMWV) contains two pages of general codes of conduct emphasising caution, including sections for whales, pinnipeds, seabirds and porpoises (WWOANW 1997b) (Appendix 3.6).
Approach distances are stated for pinniped haulouts, seabird nesting areas, and harbour porpoises, but not for whales. A WWOANW Guidebook was also produced in 1997. The
Guidebook contains more details regarding protocols when viewing whales and porpoises, although there is still no approach distance for killer whales (WWOANW
1997c) (Appendix 3.7). Other sections include “Boat Operation Etiquette” and “Radio 92
Etiquette”, stressing professional conduct between boat operators, and "Research and
Education", suggesting that sighting records be provided to research groups, and stating that the WWOANW will collaborate with U.S. and Canadian enforcement authorities in development of self-regulation protocols (WWOANW 1997). In 1996 a motion was also been passed that written certification was required to be kept by each company stating that vessel drivers had read and understood the RGMWV (WWOANW 1996). The completion of these written statements was not always done (pers. obs.).
The RGMWV were also distributed with a Courtesy Reminder to be faxed to other companies when transgressions of the RGMWV were observed (Appendix 3.8). Although neither the RGMWV nor Guidebook stipulate a minimum approach distance to whales of
100 meters, the Courtesy Reminder includes failure to maintain a 100 metre minimum approach distance as a transgression of the guidelines. However, the 100 meter distance was the generally accepted standard. The Courtesy Reminder was not used extensively due to its inflammatory nature, which was seen as restricting cooperation (D. Kukat, pers. com.).
The University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine Mammal
Viewing Workshop in 1999 (see below) began a period in which the Southern Vancouver
Island/San Juan Islands whale-watching industry solidified itself through WWOANW as a professionally operated industry, with increased co-operation between companies, a recognition of the need to adopt a unified character to deal with negative media exposure
(see below) and interest in cooperative ventures with researchers and NGOs (WWOANW
2002a, pers. obs.). The spirit of cooperation was evident in increased communication between vessel drivers, regardless of company affiliation. Drivers began to markedly 93 increase use of other wildlife attractions such as sea lion and seal haulouts, bird nesting sites and porpoises. Drivers began to coordinate with others when possible to spread vessels out over greater areas to reduce congestion (pers. obs.). Currently, drivers engage in communication regarding weather and ocean conditions, which whales are present, advisements when killer whales change direction or began resting, and even discuss where whales and porpoises are located. This sense of cooperation does not preclude occasional disputes, however. While some company operators remain uncooperative toward each other, drivers, for the most part, cooperate on the water (pers. obs.).
In 1999 the Recommended Guidelines for Marine Wildlife Viewing and
WWOANW Guidebook were combined into a more comprehensive set of WWOANW
Guidelines (WWOANW 1999) (Appendix 3.9). Vessel operators were still required, through each company, to verify that they had read them, although again this was inconsistent (pers. obs). Although the WWOANW Guidelines are more specific than the
RGMWV they still do not state the “accepted” 100-metre approach distance to whales, except in specific reference to resting whales.
By 2000, only 9 of the 40 whale-watching companies operating did not belong to the WWOANW (WWOANW 2000). The WWOANW encourages membership through marketing its members to potential whale-watchers as responsible tourism operators, citing research and education support, vessel safety and on-board education (WWOANW
2002b). The association takes adherence to its Guidelines seriously. In 2000 WWOANW threatened one of its members with expulsion from the WWOANW (pers. obs.). In 2001 the WWOANW began drafting guidelines for punishment and reinstatement of members 94 that repeatedly violate the WWOANW Best Practices Guidelines (WWOANW 2001a), although no official document has yet been produced.
The WWOANW Best Practices Guidelines (BPG) were developed and finalized in
2001 (WWOANW 2001b) (Appendix 3.10). These guidelines are amongst the most comprehensive and detailed whale-watching guidelines in the world. The BPG contains ten pages of species-specific viewing protocols, including minimum approach distances, designated approach vectors, travel transition zones, “parallel” and “stop & wait” viewing, time restrictions for whale viewing periods, and viewing when whales are resting, foraging or travelling. The BPG also describe viewing protocols in specific areas such as the “San Juan Island Special Operating Area,” (SJISOA) (see map, Appendix
3.13) in Washington and the proposed Race Rocks Marine Protected Area in British
Columbia (WWOANW 2001b).
The SJISOA was initially instituted to satisfy shore-based whale-watchers and residents of the Island, who protested whale-watching vessels obstructing their view by getting in between the shore and whales (R. Osborne, pers. com.). However, the whales also forage and socialize near the shore in the SJISOA (R. Osborne, pers. com., pers. obs.). The BPG may therefore serve an ecological purpose in the SJISOA, although there is no evidence to support this; whales also often swim through vessels placed according to the SJISOA protocols (R. Osborne, pers. com, pers. obs.).
WWOANW has promoted their BPG in media articles, on their web site and by presenting them at an international workshop in Mexico (NACEC 2002). In April 2002 whale-watch operators in Chile, impressed with the self-regulated management undertaken by WWOANW, asked to join the Association (D. Kukat, pers. com.) 95
3.4.2 Institutional Management Initiatives
B.C. Ministry of Tourism Report: A Perspective on Whale-Watching and Tourism in British Columbia
In 1989 the B.C. Ministry of Tourism commissioned a report on the state and
future of whale-watching in British Columbia. Duffus & Dearden (1989) present a whale-
watching industry in its infancy with “potential for substantial growth” (p. 87). The
authors predicted that there was a high latent demand for whale-watching in the public,
due to the popularity of whales and the growing interest in nature tourism. With
infrastructure and public awareness whale-watching would become extremely popular (p.
73).
Duffus and Dearden advised that the appropriate management agencies
familiarize themselves with the situation and begin to develop foundations for future
management action. They first recommended that market research be undertaken to
ascertain which segments of the public would most likely participate in whale-watching,
predicting that whale-watching would likely evolve from specialized, knowledgeable
participants to general, less specialized participants over time. They suggest that this
information was important in developing the nature of whale-watching (e.g. type of
vessels, on-board education) and site infrastructure (p.49).
The authors then recommended that the ecological constraints of whale-watching
be investigated due to the lack of scientific knowledge. Guidelines for whale-watching
should be developed based on an estimate of which cetacean behaviours are most
important to maintenance of ecological fitness. They suggested that the potential for
harassment would be reduced by encouraging development of the whale-watching 96 industry by a few experienced operators with a vested interest in the industry’s long-term viability. They also emphasized the importance of education for operators, private boaters and the public on these issues (p71-72).
Duffus and Dearden concluded that:
[Whale watching has the] potential to be the leading edge of the wildlife viewing industry in B.C….and indicates the need for careful attention to be paid to the development of the industry to ensure that it evolves along an optimal route (p.87).
The authors recommendations were directed at the B.C. Ministry of Tourism, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the whale-watching industry. Unfortunately, with the exception of using whales in provincial tourism marketing, twelve of the thirteen management recommendations in the report have never been addressed (Appendix 3.11).
There was no institutional management framework developed for a "cautious" development of the industry, nor a foundation for monitoring of activities and enforcement of existing regulations (however general). While an industry association was formed in Southern Vancouver Island, six years after this report was written, there remain no industry associations in Johnstone Strait or Clayoquot Sound, nor a provincial association as advocated by the authors. The report was filed and never circulated to provincial or federal levels of government, nor to whale-watch operators or the public (D.
Duffus, pers. com.). An opportunity for collaborative development of commercial whale- watching in British Columbia was missed.
Beyond Johnstone Strait, formal federal or provincial government interest in
British Columbia whale-watching on a provincial scale was not felt until 1999.
97
University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop
In 1998 I attended a regional multi-stakeholder whale-watching workshop in
Tadouusac, Quebec. I determined that a similar workshop was necessary for British
Columbia, given the tremendous growth, intra-industry conflict, particularly in Southern
Vancouver Island / San Juan Islands, and increasing negative media attention (see
below). DFO had recently established a B.C. Marine Mammal Coordinator and I
contacted him to attempt to bring them into the process. DFO was willing to cooperate
and we developed the workshop over the subsequent six months. The steering committee
identified six issues to be discussed at the workshop (DFO 1998):
1. Controlling the magnitude and scope of wildlife viewing activities 2. Whale-watching operator behaviour 3. Public perception of the eco-tourism industry 4. Maintaining quality of the visitor experience 5. Communication and education of the boating public 6. Economic value of marine wildlife viewing activities
The workshop was held at the University of Victoria in April 1999 (Malcolm &
Lochbaum 1999) and brought together, for the first time, all the stakeholders in whale-
watching in British Columbia. Participants included industry operators from all areas of
the province, DFO, Canadian Coast Guard, Parks Canada, B.C. Parks, B.C. Ministry of
Small Business Tourism and Culture, B.C. Land Use Coordination Office, researchers
from the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, University of British Columbia
and the Vancouver Aquarium, and numerous environmental NGOs. We employed a 98 professional facilitator and invited observers from eastern Canada, both governmental and non-governmental, and a whale-watch operator and an NGO representative from the
San Juan Islands (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999). First Nations representatives were invited but none attended.
Multi-stakeholder working groups identified and developed solutions for particular aspects of the six main issues identified by the steering committee.
Frameworks and solutions were presented by the working groups in a plenary session.
The plenary group then developed five recommendations to guide future management of the B.C. whale-watching industry (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999):
1. Facilitate the development of a B.C. forum/association/council to act as a formal advisory body to government, the scientific community and the general public.
2. In concert with the above, develop guidelines, regulations and laws pertinent to marine mammal-viewing in B.C.
3. Develop research protocols and processes to maintain healthy environments and protect marine mammals in the province.
4. Establish a formal communications and public education process to profile and protect marine mammals in the province.
5. Develop and intensive campaign for training commercial and public boat operators in matters of safety and behaviour around marine mammals.
The workshop was given international exposure at the 13th Biennial Conference
on the Biology of Marine Mammals, in Maui, Hawaii, in late 1999 (Malcolm 1999) and
the proceedings have been cited in management-oriented research literature (e.g. Lien
2001, NACEC 2002, White 2001). Unfortunately, only the first recommendation was undertaken, and the process was never completed following the internal transfer of the 99
DFO Marine Mammal Coordinator who had been facilitating the council. The British
Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory Council is discussed next, below.
British Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory Council
Following the University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Marine Mammal
Viewing Workshop, volunteers were recruited to a multi-stakeholder B.C. Marine
Mammal Viewing Working Group (BCMMVWG) to implement a B.C. Marine Mammal
Viewing Advisory Council (Workshop Final Recommendation #1) (as advocated by
Duffus & Deaden (1989) ten years earlier). The working group, of which I was a
member, fluctuated from 12 to 20 members representing the majority of stakeholder
groups from the workshop. The working group met on four occasions between November
1999 and November 2000.
The B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop had highlighted the need for DFO to include marine mammal viewing issues in amendments to the Marine Mammal
Regulations under consideration at that time (E. Lochbaum, pers. com.). At the first meeting of the working group an early draft of amendments regarding whale-watching to the Marine Mammal Regulations of the Fisheries Act was presented (DFO 1999). The draft contained approach distances that restrict vessel movement within 300 metres and prohibited approach within 200 metres of a juvenile and 100 metres of an adult animal. It stressed the prevention of disruption to “normal life processes of marine mammals,” although no definition of the term was given. The draft also indicated that a licensing program would be enacted for marine mammal viewing operators. There was
“considerable opposition to implementing a licensing regime” (BCMMVWG 1999) on 100 the part of the operators present. A schedule was also given for amendment of the
Marine Mammal Regulations:
Fall 1999 to March 2000: Consultation with working group June 2000: Revisions and consultation completed Fall 2000: Revised regulations submitted to parliament Spring 2001: New regulations adopted (BCMMVWG 1999)
These goals were not attained. All four of the working group meetings were spent determining the purpose, objectives and composition of an advisory council. The wording of the Council’s mandate was not finalised until the third meeting:
To make recommendations for actions that ensure the conservation and protection of marine mammals and their environment, and to ensure the sustainability of the marine mammal viewing industry (BCMMVWG 2000a).
The objectives were revised again at the final meeting:
1. To develop an ecosystem-based approach for managing human activity towards protection and conservation of marine mammals and habitats.
2. To ensure geographical representation and ensure balanced representation of all relevant interests (i.e ENGO’s, government, First Nations, whale watchers, etc.)
3. To represent the council’s purpose to related groups and organisations, to identify and address coast-wide marine mammal issues.
4. To provide positive communication between the council, the public, the media and interest groups for the purpose of education (perception, awareness and understanding).
5. To provide recommendations and advice into marine resource management decision-making. 101
6. To identify and facilitate ethical conservation initiatives and scientific research.
7. To advise on policy, legislation, ethics, best practices and compliance.
8. To seek funding, support, partnership and other resourcing opportunities (BCMMVWG 2000b).
The final working group meeting, during which above the objectives were formalized, was held in November 2000. The DFO Marine Mammal Coordinator who was facilitating the process was transferred within DFO and a B.C. Marine Mammal
Viewing Advisory Council was never formed. The present Marine Mammal Coordinator indicated in 2001 that the process might be revisited (M. Joyce pers. com.), although this has not yet occurred.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Pacific Region) Community Meetings
In December 2002 DFO (Pacific Region) released a bulletin that introduced the
process of amending the Marine Mammal Regulations (DFO 2002). The bulletin
acknowledged the general and uninformative nature of the current Marine Mammal
Regulations and included the following set of “Proposed Regulatory Concepts”:
General Prohibitions
• Prohibiting the disturbance of marine mammals life processes • Prohibiting feeding, touching, swimming with, and moving marine mammals
Marine Mammal Viewing
• Approach distances • Vessel operation and numbers around marine mammals • Licensing of commercial eco-tour operators
102
Rescue, Reporting & Rehabilitation
• Mandatory reporting of collisions, injured and entangled marine mammals • Clearer permitting requirements for rescue and rehabilitation efforts
Research and Education
• Clearer permitting requirements for invasive and non-invasive research activities • Permitting of film makers and media activities that contravene other regulations
While still general in nature, these concepts were discussed at a series of
community meetings held during 2003. These meetings, thirteen years after Duffus &
Dearden’s (1989) report and five years after the University of Victoria / DFO Workshop,
represented the first step by DFO to include stakeholders as well as the public in
discussing the future of whale-watching legislation. The results of the meetings are planned to be published in late 2003 or early 2004 (M. Joyce, pers. com.). However, a
draft of the report was made available to me in October 2003 (DFO 2003). While stakeholders that had been involved in whale-watching management for many years were concerned with issues such as minimum approach distance regulations, the likelihood of
licensing commercial operators, and priorities for research (DFO 2003), engaging the
general public required DFO to introduce management and regulatory amendment issues
in a general manner. This limited detailed discussion at the meetings (M. Joyce, pers.
com). As of October, 2003, DFO plans to write draft amendments, in the form of
regulatory schedules that allow for inclusion of regional issues, to present at a series of
future community meetings (M. Joyce, pers. com).
103
The B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop and the B.C. Marine Mammal
Viewing Working Group occurred during a period when questions regarding whale- watching vessel behaviour, negative media attention and a need for public education regarding whale-watching became more prevalent. Management recommendations and
Council objectives regarding guideline compliance, the media and public education were established in part as a reaction to this attention. These issues are discussed in the following two sections.
3.4.3 Vessel Monitoring / Education
Monitoring of commercial and private vessels engaged in whale-watching has been undertaken in concert with public education by three programs in British Columbia and Washington. In 1987 a warden program was established by B.C. Parks to educate private boaters about the restricted entry into the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg)
Ecological Reserve and whale-watching guidelines in Johnstone Strait. The program operates during the summer months with a seasonal warden and volunteers who distribute the Johnstone Strait Whale Watching Guide to private boaters in the area of the Reserve
(D. Duffus, pers. com.). Records of warden activities were published by Bion Research,
Inc. during the mid-1990's, however the organisation does not now exist and B.C. Parks personnel were not able to locate the reports upon inquiry.
The Soundwatch Boater Education Program was established in 1993 by the
Friday Harbor Whale Museum on San Juan Island, WA, using the Robson Bight Warden
Program as a design. The program is funded primarily through private grants, with some additional funding given inconsistently by WWOANW. The Soundwatch vessel is not 104 able to operate at all times due to personnel and funding limitations. Soundwatch’s primary function is to educate private boaters about their voluntary whale-watching guidelines (Appendix 3.12) (Soundwatch 2002a). However, in recent years they have also worked closely with WWOANW to establish the San Juan Special Operating Zone and in development of the Best Practices Guidelines (BPG).
In 1999 Soundwatch began to distribute compliance report cards to commercial operators in the Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Island area as a cooperative venture with the WWOANW in order to foster compliance with the BPG. This cooperation and monitoring process with WWOANW has been successful with respect to limiting activities such as leapfrogging (repeatedly moving one’s vessel from the back to the front of a group of whales to place the vessel in the whale’s path) and compliance with the San
Juan Special Operating Zone. The number of violations has decreased from 791 to 593 per year since 1999 (Table 3.2) (Soundwatch 2002b), although this still indicates that numerous violations to the BPG are occurring. Soundwatch had not yet produced similar data summaries for non-commercial vessels engaged in whale-watching.
In 2001 the DFO Community Advisor in Victoria acted upon the recommendations of the University of Victoria / Fisheries and Oceans Marine Mammal
Viewing Workshop (and Duffus & Dearden (1989) twelve years before) with the establishment of the Marine Mammal Monitoring Project (M3) in the Southern
Vancouver Island/San Juan Island area. M3 was developed in cooperation with
Soundwatch. The project was initially funded by the Habitat Stewardship Program, a
Canadian federal program; however the project experienced difficulties in implementing the funding which limited their efforts in 2001 (M. Packenham pers. com.). M3 also 105
Table 0.2: Soundwatch monitoring of commercial whale-watching vessels
Percentage of Total Compliance Category Incidents 1998 1999 2000 2001 Parked in path of whales* nr nr nr 26% Inshore of whales 5% 29% 24% 25% Within 1/4 mile of San Juan Island shore portion of Special 39% 26% 17% 17% Operating Zone Repositioning vessel within 100 yards of whales* nr nr 7% 7% Under power within 100 yards of whales 6% 4% 5% 4% Within 1/8 mile of any shore with whales present* nr nr 4% 4% Other nr 1% 3% 3% Crossing path of whales 4% 3% 5% 2% Chasing/pursuing whales 3% 1% 3% 2% Leapfrogging 37% 31% 23% 1% Within 1/8 mile of National Wildlife Refuge <1% 1% 3% 1% Within 1/2 mile of Limekiln Park portion of Special 2% 2% 2% 1% Operating Zone Total number of incidents recorded 398 791 653 533 Percentage of days on water (education and monitoring combined) based on May through September whale- 69% 88% 83% 69% watching season “nr” = category not recorded
Table 0.3: DFO Marine Mammal Monitoring Project (M3) monitoring of commercial and private whale-watching vessels, 2001 Percentage of Total Compliance Category Incidents Within 1/4 mile of San Juan Island shore portion of Special 17% Operating Zone Leapfrogging 15% Under power within 100 metres of whales 14% Inshore of whales 14% Within 100 metres of shore within a Marine Protected Area 13% Parked in path of whales 9% Within 100 metres of an Ecological Reserve 2% Repositioning vessel within 100 yards of whales 2% Other 2% Chasing/pursuing whales 1% Crossing path of whales 1% Total number of incidents recorded 88 106
produced voluntary whale-watching guidelines for distribution to private whale-watching
vessels (Appendix 3.13) (M3 2001) and undertook monitoring of commercial and
noncommercial whale-watching vessels during 2001 (M3 2002). The data in Table 3.3 combine commercial and non-commercial vessels, making it difficult to ascertain how
well commercial vessels were complying or how well private boater education worked.
The existence of Soundwatch, M3, and WWOANW voluntary guidelines, all being used in the same area, caused confusion in 2001 with respect to which guidelines
whale-watch vessel drivers were being monitored under (pers. obs.). In thespring of 2002
WWOANW met with Soundwatch and M3 to develop a set of harmonized whale-
watching guidelines for public education that summarizes the BPG. As of 2003, these guidelines remain in draft form (D. Kukat pers. com.) (Appendix 3.14).
In 2002 M3 and Soundwatch began cooperating to establish another DFO M3
program in Johnstone Strait. The Johnstone Strait M3 program would have replaced the
B.C. Parks Warden Program (M. Packenham, pers. com.). However, this has not
occurred. The DFO Community Advisor who established and operated M3 retired in
2002 and now directs the Veins of Life Watershed Society, an environmental NGO. The
Society now operates the M3 project and has focussed its activities in 2002 and 2003 on stewardship of L98, a lone “southern resident” (cf. Ford et al. 2000) killer whale inhabiting Nootka Sound (Veins of Life Watershed Society 2003).
3.4.4 Media Interpretation of Whale-Watching in British Columbia
The media has been an important player in the development of whale-watching in
B.C. Negative media coverage has forced the whale-watching industry to become more 107 cohesive, beyond the initiatives described above. For two days the media gave front page attention to the fatal accident in Tofino and followed the story during the local Whale
Festival, held each year when gray whales begin passing on their northward migration
(Victoria Times-Colonist 1998a,b,c,d, Saanich News 1998). The increased attention on safety affected not only Tofino whale-watching practices, but in Victoria as well. There is now regular communication between vessels and company offices regarding vessel location and intended travel routes (pers. obs.).
Beginning in 1998 the media focussed on the lack of whale-watching regulations and the possible negative impact of unregulated whale-watching upon whales (e.g.
Victoria Times-Colonist 2002, 1998e, Vancouver Sun 2002, Georgia Strait 2000, Globe and Mail 1998, 1999, 2000, National Post 1999, Toronto Star 1998). The need to address the media attention is prevalent in the University of Victoria/DFO B.C. Marine Mammal
Viewing Workshop steering committee issues and final management recommendations, as well as the proposed objectives for the BC Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory
Council (see above) (DFO 1998, 1999, BCMMVWG 2000b).
At a WWOANW meeting in February 2002, the presentation of a privately funded research report that indicated possible acoustic impact on the whales from proximate vessel traffic (Bain 2002) was met, not with scientific scepticism, but with concern over the possible media interpretation of the results (pers. obs.). The report presented a modelling exercise using tenuous variables (see Section 3.4.5) that concluded that long-term exposure of whales to vessel noise might, with certain model permutations, have a negative long-term affect on southern resident killer whale population dynamics. However, the operators were more concerned that the media would 108
present the results as conclusive rather than preliminary. The whale-watching industry in
British Columbia., particularly in Southern Vancouver Island, is aware that their self-
regulated management is closely scrutinized. This in part may have led to the recent efforts of the WWOANW to associate itself with environmental NGOs seen as public friendly (WWOANW 2002a).
The main difficulty with regard to negative media exposure is that the articles do not address the lack of scientific understanding regarding cetacean ecology and the difficulties this presents for management, as possible negative impacts are not well understood. It is therefore difficult to refute the growing public perception that whale- watching harms whales. The research that has been undertaken regarding vessel-cetacean interaction in B.C. is reviewed below.
3.4.5 Research of Whale-Watching Vessel - Cetacean Interaction in British Columbia
Research on cetacean – vessel interaction on a global scale is reviewed in Chapter
2. However, it is useful for this chapter to review again what has taken place in British
Columbia. The majority of research in B.C. has been on the effect of vessels on killer whales. Focus has been placed on these animals, especially the southern resident population due to the growth of whale-watching and the recent Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designations. Northern and southern resident killer whales were listed as “threatened” in 1999 and the southern residents were upgraded to “endangered” in 2001 (COSEWIC 1999, 2001).
Although there have been numerous field research studies undertaken since the early 1980’s, the meaning of behaviour alteration observations during whale-vessel 109
interactions remains unclear. To begin with, although some of these studies have
revealed short-term behavioural changes, the quality and rigour of the research is variable
(Duffus & Baird 1995, Trites & Bain 2000). For example, Kruse (1991) reports that
killer whales increased swimming speeds in the presence of boats, however, Williams et
al. (2002) suggest Kruse’s research may have been gender biased and Duffus & Dearden
(1992) state that Kruse’s conclusions are not well supported by the presented data. Of the
studies discussed in this section pertaining directly to examination of vessel-cetacean
interaction, only Duffus & Dearden (1992, 1993) and Williams et al. (2002, 2003) have been published in peer-reviewed journals. This small number of peer-reviewed studies attests to the difficulty of creating rigorous research designs, collecting and analysing data in an appropriate manner and making supportable conclusions (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of cetacean-human interaction research).
Much of the research reveals variability. Williams et al. (2002) found that individual killer whales displayed increased alteration in swimming direction in the
presence of a lone experimental vessel but not in the presence of multiple whale-
watching vessels. They suggest that vertical, rather than horizontal avoidance may occur when numerous vessels are present, although their data indicate that dive times did not change significantly in the presence of boats. Adimey (1995) reports that the amount of percussive behaviour (e.g. pectoral and tail slapping, breaching), observed for killer whales without boats in proximity, increased in the presence of a single vessel but decreased when many vessels were present. Bass (2000) is the only study that examines the reactions of gray whales to whale-watching vessels in B.C. Bass reports statistically
significant increases in ventilation rate, dive cycle duration, and feeding dive duration in 110 the presence of vessels, but no change in mean number of ventilations per dive cycle.
However, diving behaviour was extremely variable and only a small amount of the variation was statistically accounted for by vessel number. Further, Bass questions whether the statistical significance of her data is biologically significant.
Several studies have reported no conclusive evidence for behaviour alteration.
Duffus (1988) and Duffus & Dearden (1993) reported that whale behaviour in the presence of boats was so variable that no clear indication of behavioural changes was evident. Layman (1991) examined the acoustic behaviour of killer whales in the presence of boats and reported no significant effect. Trites & Bain (2000) report that other studies have also failed to find any significant effects of vessel-whale interactions, but the studies remain unpublished.
There have also been captive whale and modelling studies to examine potential impacts of whale-watching vessels on killer whales. Bain & Dalheim (1994) report evidence from captive studies that vessel noise may mask low frequency components
(<20 kHz) of acoustic communication. Bain (2002) developed a model to examine whether or not noise from whale-watching vessels could detrimentally impact the population viability of southern resident killer whales by reducing their ability to hunt effectively. Bain reports that there is a possibility this could occur; however the model is built using estimates regarding the intrinsic rate of increase and carrying capacity and employs variable values based on northern resident killer whale research. Erbe (2001) also examined the potential for acoustic impact upon southern resident killer whales.
Erbe’s modelling exercise does not indicate hearing damage occurs to killer whales for the levels of noise produced by the whale-watching vessels she sampled. She does, 111 however, suggest that the hearing capabilities of the animals could potentially be impaired over the long term if acoustic impact is additive. In such a scenario the acoustic abilities of older whales would be reduced (Erbe 2001).
Alvarez-Flores & VanBlaricom (2001) investigated the potential impact of sea surface temperature, chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) abundance and whale- watching vessel numbers in a time-series modelling exercise to look for correlations with southern resident killer whale population trends. While their modelling exercise revealed some statistical correlations, the authors also point out that their modelling: used estimates for survivorship and fecundity; was not applicable to a density dependent population; assumed Chinook salmon data were transferable to availability for killer whales; and did not account for other variables such as toxins or prey switching. The authors also state that no cause-effect relationships are indicated by their models.
Other studies have little significance for whale-watching. Briggs (1991) and
Trites et al. (1995) examined killer whale behaviour in the presence of boats at the
Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve rubbing beaches and report that whales altered from observed control behaviours, including rubbing for shorter time periods, leaving the beaches or swimming by without stopping. However, the majority of whale- vessel encounters in these studies were with commercial fishing vessels, exempt from restricted entrance into the Reserve. Further, Briggs (1991) reports that commercial fishing vessels as a group displayed “poor whale watching techniques” (p.20), including extremely close approaches (Briggs 1991).
Research on the impact of whale-watching vessels on cetacean populations in
British Columbia has therefore focussed only on short-term impacts and does not provide 112
a clear conclusion. However, despite large increases in whale-watching in B.C. over the
past twenty years, northern and southern resident killer whales continue to use the core
habitat areas (Baird 1999, Osborne 1999) and gray whales return to Clayoquot Sound to
feed each year (Duffus 1997). This suggests that to gain a complete understanding of
cetacean conservation in B.C. research must incorporate toxicity, prey and demographic
issues (Baird 1999). DFO has recently begun to conduct and support research on
population assessments and viability (Barrett-Lennard 2001, Gosselin et al. 2001) and
impact of toxins (Addison & Ross 2000, Ross et al. 2000) on cetacean populations that are subject to whale-watching in B.C. However, at present the level of knowledge
remains insufficient to be incorporated into whale-watching management. 113
.3.5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In this section I present a critical analysis of whale-watching development and management in British Columbia, based on the foregoing account. I first present an
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of current whale-watching management in B.C.
Four strengths and two weaknesses emerge. The strengths emanate from the willingness
of commercial operators to cooperate in the development of voluntary compliance
protocols and an indication that DFO is currently engaging in actions that will result in
their greater participation in whale-watching management. The weaknesses originate
from the lack of scientific knowledge that obstructs identification of a “technical
solution” (Hardin 1968) to the open-access issues of whale-watching.
Secondly, using the questions posed in the introduction I evaluate future prospects
for whale-watching management in B.C. The four questions, adapted from Ostrom
(1990), address the crucial issues of resource understanding, use of protocols and
monitoring that dictate whether management will be successful. I conclude by addressing
the fifth question posed in the introduction regarding management methods, beyond those
discussed in the first four questions, that could aid in future management of whale-
watching in B.C.
3.5.1 Strengths of Current Whale-Watching Management in B.C.
Industry Cooperation
The grassroots nature of whale-watching development in British Columbia has
fostered, in the absence of institutional interference, a scenario where operators cooperate for sustainability of the industry. In Johnstone Strait and Clayoquot Sound, small 114
numbers of local, community-based operators created atmospheres that cultivated
cooperation and did not require the formalization of industry associations. Personal
relationships and communication over the VHF radio network have sufficed for maintaining cooperation. In Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Islands, WA, a bi-
national whale-watching industry, rapid growth and stiff economic competition
necessitated the establishment of a formal industry association; however, whale-watching
protocols were developed entirely on a local, grassroots level, with the interest of a
sustainable and cooperative industry in mind. To this end the industries in all three locations have demonstrated a willingness to communicate and cooperate with researchers and environmental NGOs. This has been most prominent in Johnstone Strait, where whale-watching developed alongside scientific research in the area. Participation with research has been inconsistent in Clayoquot Sound and recent in Southern
Vancouver Island/San Juan Islands, WA. It is becoming more prevalent in Vancouver
Island /San Juan Islands as evidenced by the larger presence of researchers and NGOs at
WWOANW meetings during 2001 and 2002.
In addition, participation in broader management initiatives such as the B.C.
Human / Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop and the B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing
Working Group by representatives from all three industries illustrates a willingness to work together on a provincial level to develop sustainable management and conservation of cetacean resources.
115
Self-Regulation
The development of self-regulation protocols by whale-watch operators in B.C. demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility towards wildlife populations used for viewing. Current B.C. guidelines are some of the most site- and species-specific in the world. They have been designed and improved over the past twenty years primarily through dedicated participation of operators, researchers and NGOs on a local level.
Development of regional guidelines through local knowledge is important, in that they reflect experience with wildlife in particular locations by those engaged with the animals on a regular basis; the resulting protocols are more detailed and regionally applicable than those that might be developed by a centralized institution such as DFO.
The development of self-regulating guidelines met the perceived need for a practical and localized response to concerns regarding expansion of the industry, safety at sea and the welfare of whale populations. This existence of the guidelines and the various participants in their creation provides a well-established basis for establishment of a co-management regime between regional stakeholders and DFO. There is an avenue for participation by federal and provincial governments in Johnstone Strait, through the
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee, and in Clayoquot Sound, through Pacific Rim
National Park Reserve and the Parks Canada Wildlife Viewing Workshop. The recent establishment of Parks Canada Pacific Rim National Park Reserve marine mammal regulations developed in cooperation with local operators and researchers for whale- watching in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve illustrates that good results can arise from cooperation: co-management should be possible.
Recognition of self-regulation efforts in British Columbia is evidenced through references to initiatives such as the B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop in whale 116 management literature (Lien 2000, White 2000), use as an example for application in other areas (NACEC 2002), and in Chilean whale-watch operators seeking membership status in the Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest.
Participation, although primarily recent, by DFO, Parks Canada and B.C. Parks, in guideline development, paves the way for more formal co-management regimes.
A Unified Voice/Forum in Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Islands, WA
Recent suggestions, by media and certain NGOs, that whale-watching causes detrimental impacts upon cetaceans, has necessitated a unified and coherent position be developed on the part of whale-watching operators. This is particularly true in Southern
Vancouver Island/San Juan Isalnds, WA, where media, NGO and public attention is focussed. The Whale-Watch Operators Association Northwest, which was originally established to engender professional conduct among operators in the area, has developed, particularly since the 1999 B.C. Human / Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop, into a cohesive group that regularly gives position statements to the media regarding its self- regulatory framework, participation with environmental NGOs and researchers, and the current status of scientific understanding.
A Foundation for More Effective Management in the Future
This strength is recent. In the past DFO has not initiated applicable research on a scale appropriate for the second largest whale-watching industry in the world (following the U.S.A), and one that has been developing since the early 1980s. Predictions of industry growth and calls for research into cetacean ecology relevant to whale-watching management were made for B.C. in 1989 (Duffus & Dearden 1989), yet the B.C. 117 provincial government ignored the report it solicited and did not pass the suggestions to
DFO. The need for ecosystem-based research was also incorporated into the B.C. Human
/ Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop recommendations (Malcolm & Lochbaum 1999) and in the purpose and objectives for a B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory Council
(BCMMVWG 2000b); however, nothing has yet been formalized from either of these initiatives.
However, with the re-establishment of the Pacific Region Marine Mammal
Coordinator position in 1998, DFO has recently become more active in whale and whale- watching management in British Columbia, as per their mandate. The current Marine
Mammal Coordinator held a series of community meetings with industry operators and the public in 2003 regarding amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations and has indicated that the formation of a B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Council may be revisited
(DFO 2002, M. Joyce, pers. com.). Recent interest in enforcement of the Marine
Mammal Regulations with respect to whale-watching is illustrated by the current federal charge against an American commercial whale-watching vessel for contravening the
Regulations (M. Joyce, pers. com.).
Increased participation by DFO in British Columbia provides the opportunity for a structured co-management regime for whale-watching in the province. Although DFO can not create whale-watching regulations with the local specificity of current self- regulation guidelines, including stakeholders in the development of amendments to the
Marine Mammal Regulations and participation in province-wide and regional management initiatives may lead to harmonization of whale-watching protocols such as basic minimum approach distances (e.g. currently 100 metres in Southern Vancouver 118
Island/San Juan Is, WA and Johnstone Strait, 50 metres in Clayoquot Sound). Recent research such as Ross et al. (2000) and Williams et al. (2002) should create a recognition
that lack of knowledge regarding impact of whale-watching and other ecological issues
such as toxins, prey populations and predator-prey associations hamper effective
regulatory management; hopefully this will lead to greater support for, and participation
in, research in these areas.
The four strengths discussed above place British Columbia in a position to be a
global leader in whale-watching management. Recognition of self-regulation
development for B.C. whale-watching by elements beyond its borders illustrates this
potential. However, there remains a crucial weakness in regulating whale-watching in
B.C. The lack of a “technical solution”, as stated by Hardin (1968) as the key to
successful commons management, remains problematic. Open-access to the whales
creates a commons resource that is unrestricted in the number of people that can use it
(beyond access to a boat), further complicating the issue. Lack of scientific knowledge
regarding cetaceans is the lynchpin in the weaknesses of current whale-watching
management in B.C. These current two weaknesses, lack of biological evidence for
guidelines and control of vessel behaviour are discussed in the next section.
3.5.2 Weaknesses of Current Whale-Watching Management in B.C.
Biological Purpose of Guidelines
An immense amount of work has been undertaken over the past twenty years to
develop a cooperative, self-regulating whale-watching industry in B.C. The dedication to
continually improve guidelines, making them regionally- and species-specific, illustrates 119
that the operators recognize their responsibility to the marine wildlife they view. Their
participation in multi-stakeholder management initiatives reveals a willingness to
participate with other groups to develop management (e.g. co-operation with Soundwatch
and other NGOs in Southern Vancouver Island, participation in the University of Victoria
and Parks Canada workshops).
However, marine wildlife biology plays a limited role in the guideline protocols.
The minimum approach distances of 100 and 50 metres in the voluntary guidelines used in B.C. are not based on biological thresholds that mitigate negative impact upon the animals. The San Juan Island Special Operating Zone, in Southern Vancouver Island, was originally established for aesthetic purposes, to appease shore-based whale-watchers and shoreline residents. Any ecological purpose is conjecture from anecdotal evidence of whales socializing and foraging near shore; whales travel along the shore as well as through vessels placed according to the Operating Zone protocol (R. Osborne, pers. com., pers. obs.).
Lien (2001:3) states that whale-watching must not interfere with “life processes” of cetaceans in order to maintain the long-term viability of focal populations. This is a correct approach; however, sound understanding of what constitutes essential “life processes” for whales and therefore what the concomitant vital thresholds of these processes are with respect to whale-watching impact is not known. Recently, DFO published a list of behaviours that can be classified as “life processes”, including breeding, feeding, travelling, resting, nursing, socializing, and hunting (DFO 2002). It can be argued that this list comprises everything a whale might do, every minute of the 120
day or night. If so, the term “life processes” becomes too general a term to direct
management.
Research in B.C. has not provided conclusive cause-effect evidence that vessels in
proximity to whales result in negative long-term biological impact. Guidelines are
therefore portrayed as following a precautionary approach, to prevent biological impact
(D. Kukat, pers. com). However, there is no evidence that the guidelines are
precautionary. For example, a minimum approach distance of 100 metres may serve no
biological purpose: there remains the possibility that a vessel under power 100 metres from a whale may still restrict hunting ability, causing it to use more energy over the long term through repeated vessel approaches – there is also the possibility it may not.
Minimum approach distances are therefore pseudo-precautionary.
The main purpose of self-regulating operation protocols should be sustainability of focal cetacean populations; secondarily they should serve as guidelines for organized whale-watching activities and safety; and thirdly for promotion of a recognition of environmental responsibility. If the guidelines serve no biological purpose, they are reduced to the secondary and tertiary purposes and the detail included in the current guidelines is not useful. Dedication to development of detailed self-regulatory guidelines is a positive aspect of whale-watching in British Columbia – it has provided a framework for development of whale-watching activities - a lack of evidence that the guidelines serve a biological purpose is not. An adaptive approach to co-management of whale- watching, led by DFO, would create collaborative efforts aimed to create science-based management.
121
Control of Vessel Behaviour
The lack of applicable regulations for commercial whale-watching in British
Columbia precipitated development of self-regulating guidelines as substitution. The
efforts in, and success of, development of self-regulating guidelines in B.C. are
acknowledged as strengths of commercial whale-watching in B.C. with respect to
recognition of responsibility to the resource. However, self-regulation can be limited in scope: it cannot restrict open-access to the animals (i.e. anyone can start a whale- watching company); stakeholders cannot isolate the resource to establish control boundaries (i.e. establish control zones and promote research to identify “normal” baseline behaviours), nor can they enforce their guidelines on any user group, including themselves (beyond minor economic impact – see Section 3.5.3, Question 5).
With respect to whale-watching operators, “mutual coercion mutually agreed upon” (Hardin 1968: 1246) is the limit to which control can be established. There is no legal requirement for an operator to abide by voluntary guidelines. Operators in Southern
Vancouver Island have no obligation to belong to WWOANW. The opportunity for free- riding upon the success of collective action is present. An operator solely concerned with economic profitability may be just as successful without abiding by voluntary guidelines or maintaining association membership. It is apparent that collective action does exist in the form of cooperation to develop guidelines and in driver communication. However, the number of violations that occur (Tables 3.2, 3.3) indicate that free-riders exist. Whether the violations are occurring at the driver or company level is unclear.
Organizations such as Soundwatch have taken it upon themselves to use education as a means to control private whale-watching vessels. This use of education as a behavioural control tool has been discussed for over ten years, beginning as a 122
recommendation by Duffus & Dearden (1989). It was subsequently identified as one of the six issues to be discussed at the 1999 B.C. Human / Marine Mammal Viewing
Workshop, was included in two of the Workshop’s management recommendations, was an issue of discussion at the 2000 Pacific Rim National Park Marine Wildlife Viewing
Workshop, and was stated as an objective for a B.C. Marine Mammal Advisory Council in 2001. However, the education programs that exist currently (Robson Bight Warden
Program, the DFO Marine Mammal Monitoring Project (M3), although not focussed on private whale-watch vessels since 2001, and Soundwatch) have no enforcement power.
The historical development of whale-watching in British Columbia presented in this chapter, along with the above analysis provides the information necessary to evaluate the future prospects of whale-watching management in British Columbia.
123
3.5.3 Future Prospects for Whale-Watching Management in B.C.
I suggested in the introduction to this chapter that successful management of
whale-watching in B.C. can be judged based on seven management design principles
presented by Ostrom (1990). These factors address issues of ecological knowledge,
sustainability of cetacean populations, monitoring, and enforcement of operating
protocols. I will address each in turn:
1. Do we possess enough of an understanding of cetacean ecology to identify an amount of whale-watching beyond which the focal populations suffer detrimental impact to their viability?
No. As discussed above, there is currently not enough knowledge regarding
cetacean ecology to address this issue. Self-regulating guidelines may or may not be
precautionary. This fundamental lack of understanding inhibits identification of a
“technical solution”, as advocated by Hardin (1968). Without a science-based set of
operating protocols whale-watching will remain an ineffectively regulated activity.
Therefore, to achieve effective management in the future DFO should enter into a
co-management regime with commercial operators and researchers to undertake scientific research to: 1) gain a better understanding of fundamental cetacean ecology and behaviour, and 2) attempt to identify thresholds beyond which whale-watching is detrimental. DFO and whale-watch operators, as users of the resource, bear a responsibility for funding the research; DFO and the scientific community carry the responsibility for undertaking scientific investigation and developing management programs. The research needs to build on and strengthen the limited evidence that 124 currently exists. There should be cooperation between Canadian and U.S. governments in scientific research of the cetacean populations subject to whale-watching that move between jurisdictions.
Specifically, DFO should establish spatial zones and time periods, similar to fishery closures, where and when no whale-watching is allowed. These restrictions would establish controls for baseline behaviour research. Research during whale- watching activities would be the experiment. The zones and times need to be representative of the environments and times in which whale-watching normally occurs.
The research needs to incorporate physiological study that can compare stress levels with and without whale-watching. Due to the economic importance of whale-watching to the commercial operators, it is unlikely that these restrictions could be agreed upon through current self-regulation.
Without specific, science-based knowledge, DFO cannot establish regulations that have any biological significance. It is currently easy to justify non-adherence to guidelines because there is no evidence that approaching a whale closer than 100 metres has any detrimental effect.
2. Are there protocols for whale-watching that are appropriate to place and species?
Yes, although more so in Southern Vancouver Island and Clayoquot Sound than in Johnstone Strait. The Best Practices Guidelines in Southern Vancouver Island explicitly detail viewing protocols for different species and locations. In Clayoquot
Sound, Parks Canada has regulations for the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve that 125
address specific species and locations. Beyond park boundaries, where most of the
whale-watching occurs, whale-watching is still based on the Tofino Whale Watching
Operators Voluntary Guidelines, which are not as detailed as the Park protocols, but still
address individual species. In Johnstone Strait, the Johnstone Strait Whale Watching
Guide is the local reference for voluntary viewing guidelines; however, it only refers to killer whales. The guide does, however, refer in particular to the entry restrictions for the
Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve. DFO has stated that it is considering the incorporation of specific locations and different species concerns into future Marine
Mammal Regulations amendments through attachment of regional schedules (DFO 2002,
M. Joyce, pers. com.). These inclusions may address the need for a regional, yet adaptive, management, however, there is no indication if established regional guidelines or experienced local operators and researchers will have a role in development of the schedules.
3. Are whale-watch operators able to participate in development of whale- watching protocols?
Yes, so far. Due to the lack of participation by DFO in whale-watching management during development of the industry, whale-watch operators created their own operating protocols, specific to species and location. During the period when the
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee operated, whale-watch operators were included.
Recently, Parks Canada actively involved whale-watch operators in the development of whale-watching regulations for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. It remains to be seen to what extent DFO involves whale-watch operators as it develops amendments to the 126
Marine Mammal Regulations to include whale-watching, although the recent community meetings are a positive step (also see question #7 below).
4. Is there valid and reliable information regarding whale-watching vessel operating behaviour?
In Johnstone Strait and Southern Vancouver Island, yes. In Clayoquot Sound, no.
Monitoring of whale-watching vessel behaviour in B.C. is different in each location. In
Clayoquot Sound, outside the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, monitoring of vessel behaviour is undertaken solely through the self-regulatory process. There is no official monitoring entity and therefore no compliance record is maintained. Any monitoring that does exist is an interactive process undertaken during the whale-watching activity by vessel drivers through VHF radio communication. The drivers know each other and the process is usually cooperative. However, the lack of an unbiased monitoring agency means that indiscretions are not recorded, which does not allow for scientifically-based analysis. Within the Park there a warden patrols whale-watching areas (W. Saniszlo, pers. com.) but it is too early to assess the effectiveness of this program.
Monitoring of vessel behaviour in Johnstone Strait is similar to Clayoquot Sound with respect to self-regulation. For the most part vessel drivers cooperate while-whale- watching. The small size of the whale-watching fleet and personal relationships of the operators encourages cooperation. However, there is additional monitoring. The B.C.
Parks Warden Program vessel, when present, passively encourages compliance by commercial operators and actively encourages private vessel compliance through education. There is also the possibility that the Marine Mammal Monitoring Project (M3) 127
may eventually supplant the warden program and continue the type of monitoring it
undertook in Southern Vancouver Island in 2001.
In Southern Vancouver Island monitoring at the industry level is undertaken less
often than the other two locations. The whale-watching fleet is of a size that precludes
the percentage of personal relationships needed for the type of unstructured cooperation
that occurs in Clayoquot Sound and Johnstone Strait. Official monitoring of commercial
and private vessels is undertaken by the Soundwatch program, a U.S. NGO from the
Friday Harbor Whale Museum, and was joined by the DFO Marine Mammal Monitoring
Project (M3) for one year in 2001 (it is unclear whether M3 plans to operate again in this
capacity in the future). Both programs, however, are sanctioned by WWOANW;
monitoring data are distributed on a company-by-company basis to encourage driver
compliance. Education is used by both programs to encourage private vessel compliance
to voluntary guidelines. Although both programs are limited by funding to the amount of
time they can be present, the programs work very well to provide records of compliance.
5. Are there reliable and enforceable sanctions for wrong-doers?
Not presently. Only the waters within Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, in
Clayoquot Sound, are subject to enforcement of legislated whale-watching regulations, where operators must obtain a business licence to whale-watch within the park; Park managers can revoke a whale-watch operator’s business licence for violation of Park whale-watching regulations.
In the rest of B.C., as compliance with whale-watching guidelines is voluntary, there is little in the way of direct sanctions that can be applied to those who do not abide 128
by them. In Southern Vancouver Island errant companies can be expelled from
WWOANW. However, lack of association membership does not restrict the operator
from whale-watching, nor does it necessarily affect the violator economically. Individual
drivers can be fired, however this is at the discretion of the operators. In Clayoquot
Sound (outside of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve) and Johnstone Strait the only
sanction available is intensified coercion upon a wrong-doer by a cohesive group of
operators. One method of coercion is economic: when operators are over-booked or need to share a large charter group with other another operator those who do not cooperate by repeatedly violating the guidelines can be passed over for the extra passengers. This method of coercion is often used among Victoria-based companies (pers. obs.). However, it is unclear whether this particular action has any effect on increasing compliance.
The current court case (stemming from an incident in Active Pass in July 2003) in which DFO has charged a commercial whale-watch operator with violation of the Marine
Mammal Regulations is the first one to occur. The current DFO Marine Mammal
Resource Coordinator for the Pacific Region has stated that this indicates that DFO is intent on exercising its authority in protection of marine mammals (M. Joyce, pers. com.)
DFO have twice charged private boaters with harassment of killer whales in
Johnstone Strait; however, in both cases the charges were dismissed by the court due to lack of evidence of harassment, even though one of the instances was recorded on video
(E. Lochbaum, pers. com.). Such cases are dismissed due to a combination of lack of knowledge regarding cetaceans and the weakness of the current Marine Mammal
Regulations to identify what constitutes harassment of cetaceans. Currently, the
Regulations are too general, and therefore too difficult to enforce, to warrant the financial 129 cost of even minimal patrolling of whale-watching. However, science-based regulations that are premised on negative biological consequence when violated, would both carry an incentive for compliance and a practical basis for some enforcement.
6. Can the costs of successful information gathering, monitoring and enforcement be borne? Is there sufficient stakeholder will and funding to effectively monitor and enforce adherence to operating protocols?
Not adequately at present. In a co-management regime these costs should be spread throughout the stakeholders. DFO, as stewards of cetaceans in Canadian waters are required to bear a large portion of the cost for scientific information gathering. It is unclear whether DFO is determined to do so; there is also a question of whether they are able to do so, given financial cutbacks. The scientific community also has a responsibility to further understanding for effective management; however, here funding is also competitive and limited. BC Parks maintains the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg)
Ecological Reserve and the education/warden program. NGOs such as Soundwatch and
M3 (if it is interested in continuing monitoring/education) are willing to participate in monitoring and education, however their funding is limited to inconsistent private donors.
The WWOANW have in the past donated funds to Soundwatch and some small-scale research, however, their funding program has been inadequate considering the economic stake the industry holds in the sustainable presence of whales. Although much dedicated work has been done by the WWOANW in developing voluntary guidelines, identified as a strength of whale-watching in B.C., the WWOANW’s dedication has fallen short in past economic support of conservation and management efforts. This may be changing, 130 however, as WWOANW donated US$10,000 to Soundwatch in June 2003 (San Juan
Islander 2003). While this shows increased dedication by WWOANW to economic support of management, it falls short of the US$160,000 needed to operate Soundwatch on a yearly basis (San Juan Islander 2003). Currently there does not seem to be sufficient funding to bear the costs of management.
7. As DFO becomes more active in whale-watching management, will the agency take the experiences of operators and their existing protocols into account?
As mentioned above in question #3, it remains to be seen to what extent DFO will involve whale-watch operators in development of amendments to the Marine Mammal
Regulations. Currently, whale-watch operators in Clayoquot Sound are concerned that
DFO will not sufficiently involve them, even though a community meeting was held in
Tofino (W. Szaniszlo, pers. com). Whale-watch operators have cause to be concerned about the extent to which they will be involved by DFO in future whale-watching regulation development, given DFO’s past manner of developing policy that gives “little credence to the ability of local customary regulations” to regulate fisheries (Mathews
1988: 6). However, DFO has stated that it intends to include local operators and their guidelines in developing amendments to the Marine Mammal regulations (DFO 2002).
.
131
.3.6 CONCLUSIONS
Without an enforceable, scientific-based “technical solution” (cf. Hardin 1968) for
whale-watching management, cetaceans in B.C. will remain an unregulated, open-access,
commons resource. This scenario allows opportunities for commercial operators to violate voluntary, compliance-based guidelines and free-ride upon the goodwill of current collective action. There is less compunction for private boaters to adhere to voluntary guidelines as they possess no economic stake in the continued presence of cetacean populations. Given the difficulties in obtaining biological evidence that reveals negative impact upon cetaceans from whale-watching, it is unlikely that a technical solution solely based on examination of whale-vessel interaction will occur in the near future.
Regulation limiting the number of commercial whale-watching vessels allowed to operate in a given area would diminish the threat of “tragedy of the commons” because the number of users is then restricted.
The most effective management scheme for whale-watching in B.C. currently involves formal cooperation between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, whale- watch operators, the scientific community and experienced NGOs such as Soundwatch.
So far, management of whale-watching in British Columbia has been a de facto co- management regime, albeit inconsistent on the part of DFO, the agency with the legal mandate to manage marine mammals, and ad-hoc with the exception of the Johnstone
Strait Killer Whale Committee initiative, and the 2003 implementation of whale- watching regulations by Parks Canada in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. However, recent participation by DFO (B.C. Human / Marine Mammal Viewing Workshop, community meetings), and Parks Canada (Pacific Rim National Park Wildlife Viewing
Workshop and new whale-watching regulations within the Park) in multi-stakeholder 132
processes, renewed interest in drafting amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations, and potential re-establishment of a B.C. Marine Mammal Viewing Advisory Council, set the stage for a structured co-management regime.
Although DFO is currently showing interest in their mandate, the Department cannot realistically promulgate regulations that manage with the regional detail that can be accomplished through voluntary, compliance-based guidelines already in place in B.C.
(M. Joyce, pers. com.). Whale-watch operators in British Columbia have spent a great deal of effort in development of a self-regulating management regime. They have done this for economic, perceptual and environmental reasons. Unfortunately, recent negative media attention has focussed on the operators, with little discussion of the role for DFO.
Negative attention placed on the B.C. whale-watching industry could have been avoided through proactive institutional management, such as the establishment of an adaptive management plan leading to regulation of the whale-watching industry; such a plan would have have included scientific and management goals as advocated by Duffus &
Dearden (1989). Thus, DFO now bears a responsibility to enter into a co-management agreement with whale-watching operators that recognises the work accomplished by the industry and the importance of regional management, while furthering ecologically-based scientific research, and education of private boaters. Federal regulations can provide a basis upon which to achieve this goal, by further encouraging cooperation through
“mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (cf. Hardin 1968).
A formal co-management regime would identify stakeholder responsibilities, legitimise the work accomplished by B.C. whale-watch operators, identify research 133
needs, and establish a process that works toward a technical solution. Such a co-
management regime would include:
• adaptable, regional schedules within the Marine Mammal Regulations
• continued collective action on the part of commercial operators, cooperating and communicating through a provincial advisory council linked to DFO
• delegation of responsibilities regarding funding for, and undertaking of, scientific research focussed on management needs
• recognition on the part of appropriate federal and provincial agencies of the economic importance of whale-watching in B.C.
• inclusion of U.S. stakeholders for Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Is. management
• a process to eventually create a national co-management regime for whale-watching in Canada
Fostering cooperation and identifying research needs should also include the exploration of various management techniques, which leads to the final question I posed in the introduction:
Are there methods further to those discussed in the first four questions that could
contribute to effective management of whale-watching in British Columbia?
As concluded above, future management of whale-watching in British Columbia
will have to incorporate novel approaches if it is to evolve beyond the status quo. 134
Establishment of management based on sound ecological understanding is unlikely in the
near future. Recently, theoretical literature has advocated the use of social research to aid in whale-watching management. However, there has been little research in this area that has linked theory to management action. In the next chapter I present a human dimensions case study to explore the possibility of utilising social research in B.C. whale- watching management.
135
.3.7 REFERENCES
Acheson, J.M. and L. Taylor 2001. The anatomy of the Maine lobster comanagement law. Society and Natural Resources 14: 425-441.
Adimey, N.M. 1995. A descriptive study on the percussive behavior of orcas, Orcinus orca, in Johnstone Strait, British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, Nova Southwestern University, Florida
Alvarez-Flores, C.M. and G.R. VanBlaricom. 2001. Evaluation of factors influencing the population dynamics of the southern resident population of killer whales (Orcinus orca [L.]). University of Washington, funded by the Orca Relief Citizens’ Alliance (ORCA).
Bain, D.E. 2002. A model linking energetic effects of whale watching to killer whale (Orcinus orca) population dynamics. Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington, funded by the Orca Relief Citizens Alliance (ORCA).
Baird, R.W. 1999. Status of Killer Whales in Canada. Report to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, ON.
Baker, R. 1989. Institutional innovation, development and environmental management: an “administrative trap” revisited. Part 1. Public Administration and Development 9:29-47.
Barrett-Lennard, L.G. and G.M Ellis. 2001. Population structure and genetic variability in northeastern Pacific killer whales: towards an assessment of population viability. Canadian Science Advisory Council Research Document 2001/65, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Bass, J. 2000. Variations in gray whale feeding behaviour in the presence of whale- watching vessels in Clayoquot Sound, 1993-1995. Ph.D. Dissertation, Whale Research Lab, Department of Geography, University of Victoria.
Beckley, T.M. and D. Korber 1996. Clear Cuts, Conflict and Co-Management: Experiments in Consensus Forest Management in Northwest Saskatchewan. Canadian Forestry Service Information Report NOR-X-349.
Berkes, F. 1987. Common property resource management and Cree Indian fisheries in subarctic Canada. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Economy of Communal Resources, B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ.
Berkes, F. 1989. Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development. Bellhaven Press, London.
Briggs, D. 1991. Impact of human activities on killer whales at the rubbing beaches in the Robson Bight Ecological Reserve and adjacent waters during the summers of 136
1987 and 1989. Report to the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.
British Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Working Group 1999. Meeting minutes, November 18.
British Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Working Group 2000a. Meeting minutes, January 20.
British Columbia Marine Mammal Viewing Working Group 2000b. Working paper with notes by author.
Caulfield, R.A. 1997. Greenlanders, Whales and Whaling: Sustainability and Self- Determination in the Arctic. University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.
Child, B. 1996. The practice and principles of community-based wildlife management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE programme. Biodiversity and Conservation 5(3):369- 398.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1999. Status assessment report, April 1999. COSEWIC, Ottawa, ON.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2001. Status assessment report, November 2001. COSEWIC, Ottawa, ON.
Communication Canada 2002. Canada Gazette, Part 2, Queens Printer, Ottawa, ON 136(6):1-11. de March, B.G.E. and C.D. Maiers 2001. Stock discrimination of belugas (Delphinpterus leucas) hunted in eastern Hudson Bay, northern Quebec, Hudson Strait and Saniluaq (Belcher Islands) using mitochondrial DNA and 15 microsatellite loci. Canadian Science Advisory Council Research Document 2001/50, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Duffus, D.A. 1988. Non Consumptive Use and Management of Cetaceans in British Columbia Coastal Waters. PhD Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Victoria.
Duffus, D.A. and P. Dearden 1993. Recreational use, valuation and management of killer whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Environmental Conservation 20(2):149-156.
Duffus, D. A. and P. Dearden 1992. Whales, science and protected area management in British Columbia, Canada. The George Wright Forum 9:79-87.
Duffus, D.A. and P. Dearden, 1989. A Perspective on Whale-Watching and Tourism in British Columbia. Unpublished contract report to B.C. Ministry of Tourism, Victoria, B.C. 137
Duffus, D.A. and R.W. Baird. 1995. Killer whales, whalewatching and management: a status report. Whalewatche. Fall/Winter:14-16
Erbe, C.E. 2001. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Report to Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, unpublished.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2003. Making Changes – Ammending the Marine Mammal Regulations: Pacific Region Consulting Summary, for Consultations Conducted between January and March, 2003. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, BC.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2002. Protecting Canada's marine mammals: proposed regulatory amendments. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine Mammal Bulletin, December.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1999. Draft marine mammal watching regulations, October 25.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1998. Human / mammal interaction in the marine environment of British Columbia, a discussion paper for a whale-watching workshop, April 13-15, 1999, University of Victoria. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.
Fisheries Joint Management Committee 1991. Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, ON
Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis and K.C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer Whales. 2nd Ed. UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Frank, R.H. 1988. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions. Norton, New York.
Henderson, D. 1998. Can we love orcas to death? The Toronto Star, 11 July, p. B6.
Genot, H. 1995. Voluntary environmental codes of sonduct in the tourism sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(1):166-172.
Georgia Strait 2000. Watching killer whales die. January: 6-13.
Gjerdalen, G. 1988. Johnstone Strait Code of Conduct. Simon Fraser University Centre for Tourism, Policy and Research and British Columbia Ministry of Small business, Tourism and Culture.
Globe and Mail 2000. Ottawa aims to save whales from those who love them: “The whales need space”, June 24:A1. 138
Globe and Mail 1999. Whale-watching rules sought as numbers of tourists increase. 15 April: A6.
Globe and Mail 1998. Does a whale mind being watched? 12 June: A2.
Gordon, D. 1993. Rebuilding the heart of the nations: fisheries co-management and Aboriginal development in the Fraser River Basin. Making Waves 4(3):7-10.
Gosselin, J-F., V. Lesage and A. Robillard 2001. Population index estimation for beluga of the St. Lawrence River estuary in 2000. Canadian Science Advisory Council Research Document 2001/49, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Hall, D.L. 1992. Compliance: the mission of wildlife law enforcement. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 46: 532-542.
Hanna, S., C. Folke and K. Maler 1995. Property rights and environmental resources. In Property Rights and the Environment: Social and Ecological Issues, S. Hanna and M. Munasinghe, eds. The Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248.
Hønneland, G. and F. Nilssen 2000. Comanagement in northwest Russian fisheries. Society and Natural Resources 13: 635-648.
Hoyt, E. 1981. Orca, the whale called killer, Camden House Publishing Ltd., Camden east, ON.
Jackson, R., R. Norton and R. Anderson 1979. Improving ethical behaviour in hunters. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 44:306-318.
Jentoft, S. and B.J. McCay 1995. User participation in fisheries management. Lessons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy 19:227-246.
Jentoft, S., ed. 1998. Commons in a Cold Climate - Coastal Fisheries and Reindeer Pastoralism in North Norway: The Co-Management Approach. UNESCO, Paris and The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York.
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee 1991. Background Report. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and BC Parks.
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee 1992a. Public response summary: June 1991 information sessions, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee 1992b. Management Recommendations. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and B.C. Parks. 139
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee 1993. Draft whale-watching guidelines, May 19.
Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee 1994. Johnstone Strait whale watching guide, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, BC Parks, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
Keen, E.A. 1988. Ownership and Productivity of Marine Fishery Resources: An Essay on the Resolution of Conflict in the Use of Ocean Pastures. McDonald and Woodward, Blacksburg, VA.
Kelleher, G. 1996. Public participation on the Reef. World Conservation 2:19.
Krueger, C.C. 1995. Nonconsumptive vessel interactions with killer whales in Johnstone Strait, British Columbia. M.A. thesis, Department of geography, University of New York at Buffalo.
Kruse, J., D. Klein, S. Braund, L. Moorehead and B. Simeone 1998. Co-management of natural resources: a comparison of two caribou management systems. Human Organization 57(4):447-458.
Kruse, S. 1991. The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, British Columbia. In Dolphin Societies, K. Pryor and K. Norris, eds. University of California Press, Berkley, CA.
Lane, M.B. 2001. Affirming new directions in planning theory: comanagement of protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 14:657-671.
Layman, L.A. 1991. The effects of boat noise on vocal behavior of Orcinus orca as an indication of their ability to adapt to human activities in Canadian waters. B.A. Honours Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. Charles Scribner’s & Sons, New York.
Lien, J. 2001. The conservation basis for the regulation of whale-watching in Canada by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: a precautionary approach. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2363. Fisheries and Coeans Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Lim, C.P., Y. Matsuda and Y. Shigemi 1995. Co-management in marine fisheries: the Japanese experience. Coastal Management 23:195-221.
Maiers, L.D., B.G.E. de March, J.W. Clayton, L.P. Dueck and S.E. Cosens 1999. Genetic variation among populations of bowhead whales summering in northern Foxe Basin. Canadian Science Advisory Council Research Document 1999/134, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON. 140
Malcolm, C. and E. Lochbaum 1999. Human / marine mammal interaction workshop proceedings, University of Victoria, April 13-15. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C.
Malcolm, C.D. 1997. Micro-scale behaviour of a foraging grey whale. M.Sc. Thesis, Whale Research Lab, Department of Geography, University of Victoria.
Malcolm, C.D. 1999. Structure and results of a multi-stakeholder workshop for whale- watching in British Columbia, Canada. Presented at the 13th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Maui, Hawaii, November 29 - December 4.
Malcolm, C.D. and D.A. Duffus 2000. Subjective and statistical analysis of dive data from a TDR attached to a gray whale (Eschrichitius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2(3):177-182.
Malloy, D.C. and D.A. Fennell. 1998. Codes of ethics and tourism: an exploratory content analysis. Tourism Management 19(5):453-461.
Mathews, R. 1988. Federal licensing policies for the Atlantic inshore fishery and their implementation in Newfoundland, 1973-1981. Acadiensis: Journal of the History of the Atlantic Region 17:83-108.
Marine Mammal Monitoring Project 2002. Annual report. Veins of Life Watershed Society, Marine Division and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Marine Mammal Monitoring Project 2001. Guidelines for watching marine wildlife.
Marshal, J.P. 1999. Co-management of moose in the Gwich’in Settlement Area, Northwest Territories. Alces 35:151-158.
McArthur, S. 1994. Guided nature-based tourism – separating ‘fact from fiction’. Australian Parks and Recreation 30(4):31-38.
McCay, B.J. and J.M. Acheson (eds.) 1987. The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Economy of Communal Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ.
Mitchell, B., ed. 1995. Resource and Environmental Management in Canada, 2nd Ed., Oxford University Press, Don Mills, ON.
Mitchell, D.A. 1997. Sustainable by Design: How to Build Better Institutions for Fisheries Management in British Columbia, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria.
National Post 1999. B.C. whales brace for invasion of the ecotourists. 14 April, p. A1
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 1998. Sustainable Strategies for Oceans: A Co-Management Guide. Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd., Ottawa, ON. 141
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. In press. CECs Sustainable Tourism in Natural Areas Project: 2000-2001, Incl. Baja to Bering Whale- watching Case Study Workshop Proceedings, 22-23 March, 2001, La Paz, Mexico.
Olson, M. 1965. The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Osborne, R. W. 1999. A historical ecology of Salish Sea “Resident” killer whales (Orcinus orca): with implications for management. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Victoria.
Osherenko, G. 1988. Sharing Power with Native Users: Co-Management Regimes for Native Wildlife. Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Bonanza Press Ltd., Ottawa, ON.
Ostrom, E. 1977. Collective action and the tragedy of the commons. In Managing the Commons, G. Hardin and J Baden, eds. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Otis, B. and R. Osborne 2001. Unpublished data, Friday Harbor Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, San Juan Island, Washington.
Pam Wight and Associates 2001. Best practices in natural heritage collaborations: parks and outdoor tourism operators. Prepared for the Canadian Tourism Commission, Ottawa, ON.
Parks Canada 2003. Marine mammal viewing regulations for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Parks Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Parks Canada 2002. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada Marine Wildlife Viewing Workshop, Feb. 26-27, 2000, Tofino, B.C.
Paulson, D.D. 1998. Collaborative management of public rangeland in Wyoming: lessons in co-management. Professional Geographer 50(3):301-315.
Payne, D. and F. Dimanche 1996. Towards a code of conduct for the tourism industry: an ethics model. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 997-1007.
Pike, G.C. 1962. Migration and feeding of the gray whale (Eschrichtius gibbossus). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 19(5):815-838.
Pinkerton, E., ed. 1989. Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 142
Pinkerton, E.W. 1992. Translating legal rights into management practice: overcoming barriers to the exercise of co-management. Human Organization 51(4):330-341.
Pomeroy, C. and J. Beck 1999. An experiment in fishery comanagement: evidence from Big Creek. Society and Natural Resources 12:719-739.
Pomeroy, R.S. and M. Pido 1995. Initiatives towards fisheries co-management in the Philippines: the case of San Miguel Bay. Marine Policy 19:213-226.
Prystupa, M.V. 1998. Barriers and strategies to the development of co-management regimes in New Zealand: the case of Te Waihora. Human Organization 57(2):134-144.
Richard, P.R. and D.G. Pike 1993. Small whale co-management in the Eastern Canadian Arctic: a case history and analysis. Arctic 46(2):138-143.
Ross, P.S., G.M. Ellis, M.G. Ikonomou, L.G. Barrett-Lennard and R.F. Addison. 2000. High PCB concentrations in free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: effects of age, sex and dietary preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40(6):504- 515.
Rowe, N. 1989. Rules and Institutions. Philip Alan, London.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vol. 2, No. 2. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Saanich News 1998. Drownings don’t merit more rules and regulations, April 1:8.
San Juan Islander 2003. Whale watch association donates $10K to Soundwatch, June 12.
Sanderson, H.T. 1998. Organisational barriers to fisheries co-management – lessons from St. Lucia and Norway. In Commons in a Cold Climate - Coastal Fisheries and Reindeer Pastoralism in North Norway: The Co-Management Approach, S. Jentoft (Ed). UNESCO, Paris and The Parthenon Publishing Group, New York.
Schusler, T.M., L.C. Chase and D.J. Decker 2000. Community-based comanagement: sharing responsibility when tolerance for wildlife is exceeded. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5:34-49.
Singleton, S. 2000. Co-operation or capture? The paradox of co-management and community participation in natural resource management and environmental policy-making. Environmental Politics 9(2):1-21.
Soundwatch 2002a. Boater guidelines.
Soundwatch 2002b. Unpublished data. Friday Harbor Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, San Juan Island, WA. 143
Stander, P.E., Kaqese Tau, Nisa jui, T. Dabe and D. Dabe 1997. Non-consumptive utilisation of leopards: community conservation and ecotourism in practice. Proceedings of a symposium on lions and leopards as game ranch animals 24:50- 57.
Strawberry Isle Research 1995. Tofino whale-watching operator’s voluntary guidelines, Tofino, B.C.
Strong, B., E.A. Trippel, D.S.C. Clark, J.D. Nelson and B.D. Chang 1995. Potential impacts of use of acoustic deterent devices (ADDs) on marine mammals in the Quoddy region based on a study conducted in B.C. waters. Canadian Science Advisory Council Research Document 1995/127, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Thompson, R.C. 1994. Ground-breaking co-management in the Split Lake Resource Management Area of Manitoba, Canada. Rangifer Special Issue No. 9:259-262.
Trippel, E.A., M.B. Strong, C. Hood, C. Richter, J. Lien 1996. By-catch of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the lower Bay of Fundy gillnet fishery in 1995. Canadian Science Advisory Council Research Document 1996/110, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Trites, A. W. and D. E. Bain 2000. Short- and long-term effects of whale watching on killer whales (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. Paper presented to the IWC Workshop on the Long-Term Effects of Whale Watching. Adelaide, Australia.
Trites, A.W., W. Hochachka and S.K. Carter 1995. Killer whales and vessel activity in Robson Bight from 1991 to 1994. Report to the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria.
Truman, D.B. 1958. The governmental process. Knopf, New York, NY.
Vancouver Sun 2002. Whale watching; time for controls? February 9:A9.
Veins of Life Watershed Society 2003. http://www.salishsea.ca/m3/M3home.html
Victoria Times-Colonist 2002. Whales attract boating crowd, April 29:B1
Victoria Times-Colonist 1998a. Two die on whale-watching tour, March 23:A1.
Victoria Times-Colonist 1998b. Terrified woman waited so rescuers could save others, March 24:A1.
Victoria Times-Colonist 1998c. Autopsies on whale-watchers due today, March 25:A2.
Victoria Times-Colonist 1998d. Whale-watch pair drowned, March 26:A2. 144
Victoria Times-Colonist 1998e. Whale-watching companies free to regulate themselves, July 22:A1.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 1996. Meeting minutes, May 1.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 1997a. Letter to WWOANW members, Jan 25
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 1997b. Recommended guidelines for marine wildlife viewing.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 1997c. WWOANW Guidebook.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 1999. WWOANW Guidelines.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2000. WWOANW membership list with notes by D. Kukat, Vice-president, WWOANW.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2001a. Proposed guidelines for WWOANW pertaining to the policy for punishment of association members who repeatedly violate the Best Practices of the Association.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2001b. Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Best Practices Guidelines.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2002a. Meeting agenda / minutes, February 20th.
Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest 2002b. WWOANW website
White, L. J. 2001. Sharing the vision: an adaptive comanagement strategy for whale watching in Canada, Master of Marine Science thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
White, L.J. 2001. Sharing the Vision: An Adaptive Comanagement Strategy for Whale Watching in Canada. Master of Marine Management Thesis, Dalhousie University.
Williams, R., A.W. Trites and D.E. Bain 2002. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experiemental approaches. Journal of the Zoological Society of London 256: 255- 270.
145
.3.8 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alex Rhodes, Past-president, Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest, ex-owner, operator, Seacoast Expeditions, Victoria, currently co-owner, Vancouver Island Canoe and Kayak, Victoria, B.C.
Christina Tombach, M.Sc. candidate, Whale Research Lab, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.
Dan Kukat, President, Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest, owner/operator, Springtide Charters, Victoria, B.C.
Dave Duffus, Ph.D., Director, Whale Research Lab, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.; Member of the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee (dissolved 1999).
Don Travers, Owner/operator, Remote Passages, Tofino, B.C.
Ed Lochbaum, Past Marine Mammal Resource Coordinator, Fisheries Management, Pacific Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, B.C., 1998 to 2001.
Jamie Bray, Owner/operator, Jamie’s Whaling Station, Tofino, B.C.
Jim Borrowman, Owner/operator, Stubbs Island Charters, Telegraph Cove, B.C.
Marilyn Joyce, Marine Mammal Resource Coordinator, Fisheries Management, Pacific Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, B.C., 2001-present.
Mark Packenham. Past Community Advisor, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Victoria; President, Veins of Life Watershed Society, Victoria.
Rich Osborne, Ph.D., Director, The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, San Juan Island, WA.
Rod Palm, Director, Strawberry Isle Research, Tofino. B.C
146
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY OF WHALE-WATCHERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 2 variability in whale-watching management and inconsistency in cetacean disturbance research was presented. In part, these difficulties were attributed to a lack of ecological knowledge upon which to base management. In Chapter 3 a detailed examination of the development and management of whale-watching concluded that although there has been dedicated effort to develop management on the part of whale- watch operators, inadequate scientific research and management effort by governmental and academic agencies has limited management to “pseudo-precautionary” protocols.
The results of both chapters beg the question of other possible research and management options. One option worthy of exploration is the role of social science research.
A decade ago, authors such as Duffus & Dearden (1990, 1992) and Forestell
(1993), based on principles compiled by Decker & Goff (1987), advocated the importance of combining social with ecological research in wildlife viewing, including whale watching. Recently, human dimensions research in wildlife viewing has been even more strongly promoted. Management frameworks incorporating human dimensions and ecological research have been forwarded by authors such as Duffus & Dearden (1992),
Davis et al. (1997), Hvenegaard (1994), Orams (1996) and Reynolds & Braithwaite
(2001).
Whale-watching has become a popular focus of human dimensions research in the past five years. This research has: (1) included general data collection on motivation, satisfaction and demographics, (2) delved into the psychological domain of what whales 147 and whale-watching mean to humans, and (3) suggested the use of education as a management tool.
Empirical research design has lacked specific, management-oriented design (but see Orams and Hill 1998). Thus, recommendations are general in nature, and it remains unclear whether human dimensions research in whale-watching has an effective role to play above and beyond marketing, to the management and conservation of the focal populations and their habitats.
The focus of this chapter is to examine how human dimensions knowledge can further whale-watching management. This will be accomplished by undertaking a human dimensions study of whale-watchers in British Columbia that is derived from the following three specific questions:
1) Are whale-watchers differentiated by site? That is, do human dimensions of
whale-watchers such as expectation, satisfaction and demographics differ among
whale-watching sites in British Columbia? If differences exist this may be an
indication of site-specific management needs.
2) Does the whale-watching experience change attitudes to whale management and
general conservation issues? This question addresses the concept of education as
a management tool. If there exists a difference in conservation attitudes between
pre- and post-trip groups, then this change ought to be a useful foundation for
management planning and benefits to conservation education in general. By
definition, education is a required product of ecotourism. If education is not a
benefit of whale-watching can it be classified as ecotourism? 148
3) Can whale-watchers in British Columbia be classified by level of specialization?
Although there is an established literature pertaining to recreation specialization,
the concept has not yet been applied to whale-watchers. Characteristics such as
previous experiences and education will be used to classify British Columbia
whale-watchers on a specialization continuum. Questions 1 and 2 will be applied
to the specialization classes to further examine the roles of site-specific
management and education to optimise management possibilities.
The dependent variables used to collect data for the three questions above are encapsulated in the following sections of a questionnaire administered to British
Columbia whale-watchers:
• previous experience with whales and whale-watching
• trip expectation and satisfaction
• guide expectations and satisfaction
• learning expectations and satisfaction
• attitude to whale management
• attitude to general resource management issues 149
4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
4.2.1 Human Dimensions in Wildlife Management
Natural resource management is the term used to describe active human ingress
into the natural world, affecting ecosystems and species for our own benefit; two keys are
gaining knowledge about the resource in question and controlling human activities that
impact the resource. Wildlife management is a sub-discipline of natural resource
management concerned specifically with wild organisms, their populations, and habitats.
Traditionally, this has been the realm of the biologist, managing consumptive activities
such as a recreational hunting and fishing. The user group is dominated by high school
level educated, male participants and their activities usually remove organisms from the
environment (Bryan 1979, HLA Consultants et al. 1990, Hendee & Potter 1971, Kellert
& Berry 1987). This does not infer that these participants know or care less about the
organisms they hunt, rather it is often the opposite (see Kellert & Berry 1987). The scope
of traditional wildlife management, given the dominance of consumptive use by few user
groups, was relatively narrow.
The need to understand the human participants in human-wildlife interactions was
initially stressed by Aldo Leopold, who stated that wildlife management was actually a
“problem of human management” (Leopold 1966:197). Researchers began to realize the need for understanding the human dimensions of human-wildlife relationships in the early 1970’s:
“[W]ildlife research programs reflect little concern with human behaviour aspects of wildlife management and are almost exclusively oriented toward biological problems.” (Hendee & Potter 1971:383)
150
However, there was also the realization that biologists were neither trained nor
particularly interested in investigating the human question (Clarke 1974, Hendee &
Schoenfeld 1973).
The advent of “non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation” (Duffus & Dearden
1990), encompassing activities such as viewing and photography, and its tremendous
growth in popularity, has complicated wildlife management. Human impacts on wildlife
and their habitats from non-consumptive wildlife use are often more difficult to quantify
than consumptive impacts. Non-consumptive use does not necessarily infer complete
lack of impact (Duffus & Dearden 1990); negative impacts may be subtle and more
important in the long-term health of populations and their habitats than immediate and
identifiable removal of individuals (Higham 1997). Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented
recreation has highlighted the need for greater understanding of species at the ecosystem
level.
On the human end of the management spectrum, non-consumptive use of wild
organisms has attracted more diverse user groups, wildlife tourists or wildlife ecotourists,
including large proportions of conservation and preservation-oriented participants, with varying socio-economic backgrounds and demographics (Bulbeck 1999, HLA
Consultants et al. 1990, Reynolds & Braithwaite 2001). An understanding of the need for human dimensions in wildlife management has become prevalent in the literature:
“Increased knowledge of the user in terms of expectation, motivation and satisfaction will allow more precise manipulation of the human component…to maintain the ultimate proviso of protection of wildlife.” (Duffus & Dearden 1990:226), and
151
“Wildlife professionals have the difficult responsibility of making management decisions that are acceptable to publics with a diversity of needs and preferences. This role requires an understanding of perceptions held by various publics…” (Peyton & Langenau 1985:117)
Bright et al. (1997), Decker & Enck (1997), Duffus & Dearden (1992, 1993), Orams
(1996), and Reynolds & Braithwaite (2001) also stress the need for multi-dimensional management strategies.
Three significant frameworks have been presented that aim to maximize conservation and social benefits. Duffus & Dearden (1992) presented one of the first comprehensive models for wildlife viewing management (Figure 4.1). In this model the human element (“wildlife user”) and ecological component (“species/habitat”) are both recognised as equally important areas of understanding needed to develop effective management for impact mitigation. Without sound understanding of the ecology of the focal species, impact can not be identified. Without knowledge regarding human past use, current and future expectations of the wildlife experience, the social aspect can not be manipulated.
Figure 4.1: Framework for non-consumptive management of whales (Duffus & Dearden 1992) 152
Habitat Activity type and fragility method
Effect on wildlife Sustainable Conservation Tourism
Modifiers Satisfaction
Quality Service and contextual factors
Figure 4.2: Conceptual framework of non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation and tourism. Main categories of influences in wildlife- based tourism framework. (Reynolds & Braithwaite 2001)
Reynolds & Braithwite (2001) present a framework for wildlife tourism that expands on Duffus & Dearden (1992) (Figure 4.2). The model identifies important elements for which knowledge is needed to understand effect on wildlife, such as level of habitat fragility and amount of impact by activity type. It also focuses on satisfaction of the wildlife experience in the social aspect, which is the primary goal for the user.
Therefore, the effect on wildlife is mediated by appropriate activity types. The activities incorporate experiential modifiers, such as education, and service infrastructure that produce satisfaction to achieve sustainable tourism and the ultimate goal of conservation.
Orams (1996:48) presents a framework in which a main objective of wildlife ecotourism management is to “encourage a transition from a passive to an active role on the part of the ecotourist” (Figure 4.3). This model focuses further on the social benefit 153
1. Effect on the ecotourist
Behaviour Enjoyment Increasing success of strategy lifestyle satisfaction change
2. Effect on Natural Environment
Passive Active Minimise Actions that disturbance to the Increasing success of strategy contribute to environment the health of the environment
Figure 4.3: Objectives of ecotourism management strategies (Orams 1996)
stream, which he suggests is a path to develop conservation benefits. He advocates the combination of physical, regulatory, economic and educational management strategies. In many wildlife viewing activities physical strategies (barriers such as fences) and regulatory strategies (enforced by the presence of officials) are often unrealistic or impossible. Orams therefore proposes education strategies to control interaction with the wildlife through increasing understanding that fosters behavioural change and achieves voluntary compliance with guidelines or regulations.
Development of management programs based on frameworks such as the three presented above is not simple task. Many wildlife biologists are not trained to manage for, or monitor impact on, wildlife populations that are the focus of ecotourism (Inskeep
1987). Neither do wildlife managers necessarily hold the same attitudes and management goals as of the public (McConnel & Strand 1997, Peyton & Langenau 1985, Duffus &
Wipond 1992). 154
The basic elements of human dimensions in wildlife management are attitude,
motivation and satisfaction, each of which contribute to a behavioural approach to
recreation (Manning 1986). This behavioural approach to recreation is modelled by
Rollins & Robinson (2002) to indicate the relationship between motivation, level of
satisfaction derived from recreation experiences, and subsequent effects upon motives
and needs that determine future recreation participation (Figure 4.4).
These concepts are used on their own as descriptive data pertaining to participants
(e.g. Aylward et al. 1996, Bright et al. 1997, Eagles and Cascagnette 1995, Hammit et al.
1993, Kellert 1991, 1999, McFarlane 1994, Wight 1996), combined to create attitude
scales for broader application (e.g. Armstrong and Hutchins 1996, Bulbeck 1997, Dunlap
& van Liere 1978, Kellert 1980, Weigel & Weigel 1978), or used in concert with aspects
such as experience, education, economics or demographics to develop concepts such as
(contingent) valuation (e.g. Duffus & Dearden 1993, Hanneman 1994 Siachoono1995,
Figure 4.4 Behavioural model of recreation participation (Rollins & Robinson 2002, after Manning (1999)).
155
Spash 1997) and specialization (e.g. Hvenegaard 1996, McFarlane 1996, McFarlane &
Boxall 1996, Martin 1997). Concepts that are pertinent to this dissertation are discussed below.
4.2.2 Human Dimensions in Whale-Watching
Although there are varying attitudes and opinions about whale-watching, little is known of the whale-watchers themselves, particularly in terms of management utility
(Constantine 1999, Orams 2000). Tilt (1987) and Duffus (1988) conducted two of the
earliest studies. The increasing growth in popularity of whale watching has catalysed
human dimensions research on whale-watchers (e.g. Amante-Helweg 1996, Finkler 2001,
Giroul et al. 2001, Muloin 1998, 2000, Orams 2000, Tourism Queensland 1998, Wilson
2001).
Whale-watching is seen by some as an activity that is hypocritical, in conflict with itself (Tilt 1987). Blewett (1993 in Finkler 2001) refers to this as the “Whale-Watcher’s
Paradox”: the desire to get close to whales tempered by simultaneous guilt for causing
possible harassment and harm to the animals. While the benefit of education in marine
conservation issues is lauded as the ultimate benefit of whale-watching (Carlson 1996,
Forestell 1993, Hoyt 1998 in Finkler 2001, IFAW 1997) the question of whether whale-
watching has any real benefit for cetacean conservation is unclear (Duffus & Dearden
1993). Attempts to use human dimensions research to answer this question are reviewed
below through an examination of the principal concepts in this research domain.
156
4.2.3 Attitude
Attitudes are founded in personal beliefs. Fishbein & Ajzen (1975:6) define
attitude as a “learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable or
unfavourable manner with respect to a given object.” Schiff (1971:8) defines attitude with respect to natural resource management more simply as an “organized set of feelings and beliefs that will influence an individual’s behaviour.” Environmental attitudes have become important due to the growing interest in public environmental concern and environmental conflicts that exist on a global scale. Burton (1971:1) states that:
“[t]he social role of attitude and perception [in natural resource management] is to provide input into the planning process and to serve as a vehicle for public participation in decision making.”
Dunlap & van Liere (1978) developed an environmental attitude scale, the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP), to measure what they considered to be a growing concern for environmentalism. The scale addresses limits to growth, natural resource preservation and divine right of humans. It has been used to examine environmental attitudes between the public, environmentalists and fishing industry in British Columbia
(Edgell & Nowell 1989), urban and farming populations in Iowa (Albrecht et al. 1982,
Geller & Lasley 1985), to test environmental impact concern in two U.S. national parks
(Floyd et al. 1997) and as an element to create a more detailed scale (Kuhn & Jackson
1989). The NEP scale is used in this study to examine environmental attitudes of whale- watchers in B.C.
Attitudes of whale-watchers have not been studied extensively. Duffus (1988) examined underlying attitudes of whale-watchers in British Columbia and found that 157
there was not a dominant attitude dimension that described the sample. The general
attitude, however, was conservation oriented. Finkler (2001) found very strong
environmental attitudes in San Juan Island, Washington whale-watchers. Muloin (2000)
found that people watching whales in the wild had a more ecocentric attitude than those
watching whales in aquariums.
Kellert (1999) conducted a study of American public attitudes toward marine
mammals and their management. The study did not question whale-watchers but
addressed whale-watching issues. Approximately 80% of the respondents disagreed that
superior whale-watching depended on getting as close as possible to the animals. A
similar percentage also disagreed with interfering with the whales’ behaviour to get a
good look at them. Almost 90% agreed that the number of vessels around whales should be limited and approximately 75% agreed that whale-watchers should paying a small fee
to help with conservation and management.
4.2.4 Motivation
Motivation is the bridge between perception, attitude and satisfaction.
Understanding motivation is extremely important as it dictates the nature of the activity
(IFAW 1997), including demand and expectations. In recreation, motivation is derived from needs, wants and goals that are based in perceptions of and attitudes toward the world. Motivation, therefore, directs the recreation behaviour (Iso-Ahola 1989). In the behavioural approach model (Figure 4.4), Manning (1999) describes motivation as
“push” and “pull” factors that cause recreationists to select particular activities, based on
personal desires. Psychological needs to escape daily life or engage in a learning 158 experience are “push” factors; anticipated experience results, such as seeing whales, are
“pull” factors.
General tourist motivation, represented as push/pull factors, has been extensively studied, identifying elements such as escape, learning, spending time with friends/family, curiosity, seeking personal rewards and other elements that alter human environments and experiences from the everyday (Crompton 1979, Fodness 1994, Iso-Ahola 1982,
Pearce et al. 1998). Motivations of ecotourists, including wildlife viewers, are more specific and related to expectations of natural environment experiences (Ziffer 1989).
Contact with nature is vital in this case (Scherl 1987). Specific examples of ecotourist motivations include experiencing undisturbed nature, or wilderness, visiting nature reserves, detailed learning about nature, physical activity such as hiking, watching and photographing wildlife, and experiencing these activities with small groups of others who have the same interests (Aylward et al. 1996, Eagles 1992, Eagles & Cascagnette 1995).
Motivations of whale-watchers appear to be close derivatives of general ecotourist motivations. Duffus (1988) found that the two most important motivations for whale- watchers in British Columbia were encountering whales, followed by close observation of whales. Seeing other wildlife, learning from a naturalist, socializing and scenery were less important. In a study of Australian whale-watchers, Orams (2000), however, concluded that getting close to whales was not extremely important; other factors, such as simply seeing whales and their behaviour were more important. Finkler (2001) also reports similar results, although she does not analyse its importance. In another
Australian study, seeing marine mammals, experiencing excitement of seeing whales and 159
experiencing the “tranquillity and peacefulness of nature” were important motivations, while socializing was not (Muloin 1998).
Motivations similar to those found by Muloin (1998) were reported in sub-groups of whale-watchers by Finkler (2000). She found that experiencing “personal excitement from seeing killer whales” was the most important motivation for land and motor vessel- based whale-watchers in the San Juan Islands, Washington. In Finkler’s study, social elements such as spending time with friends/family and relaxing were important.
Learning about the marine environment was relatively important for motor vessel-based whale-watchers, but not for land-based and kayak based whale-watchers, for whom experiencing the “tranquillity and peacefulness of nature” and relaxing were the most important motivations.
4.3.5 Satisfaction
Collection of satisfaction data is a route to determine how participants respond to their experience (Manning 1986). These data can point directly to management needs.
Satisfaction is derived from motivation, expectation and attitudes possessed before the experience, in conjunction with the experience itself (Propst & Lime 1982, Wortman et al. 1981). In the behavioural approach (Figure 4.4) satisfaction is achieved if the needs spurring motivation and expectations are met through the experience, affecting future decisions regarding recreation participation (Manning 1999).
Satisfaction, however, is not simplistic, the combination of a variety of elements making measurement difficult (Ryan 1998). For example, motivation to participate is done with expectation of satisfaction (Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola 1991). In addition, 160
participants in ecotourism activities such as wildlife viewing spend considerable amounts
of time and money compounding the expectation for satisfaction (Bulbeck 1999).
Satisfaction ratings may, therefore, be a result of expectation as much as experience;
participants may be reluctant to admit dissatisfaction after spending the time and money
to participate.
Most whale-watchers are highly satisfied. Duffus (1988) found that the
experience met (33%), exceeded (27%) or greatly exceeded (26%) expectations. Tilt
(1987) reported that 75% of whale-watchers in California responded that whale-watching
was “one of the most fantastic wildlife experiences” in which they had ever participated.
Muloin (1998) found that for Australian whale-watchers 63% were very satisfied and
30% were somewhat satisfied. Finkler (2001) reported 98.8% of land-based, 99.7% of
vessel-based and 100% of kayak based Washington whale-watchers were very or
somewhat satisfied.
Items that were highly important in producing satisfaction were seeing whales,
seeing them up close, and their behaviour. An important item that detracted from
satisfaction was positioning of other whale-watching boats that obstructed views, were
perceived to be too close to the whales or large numbers of boats that lowered the
aesthetic experience (Duffus 1988, Finkler 2001, Kind-Keppel et al. 1999 in Finkler
2001, Muloin 1998). Orams (2000) reported that proximity to whales was not a highly important satisfaction factor, rather that the “whales and what they do” (p.565) was most important, along with variables such as the construction of the vessel for viewing, the positioning of the vessel for viewing and the duration of the trip. 161
The link between expectation and satisfaction in recreation has been investigated using the importance-performance model (Martilla & James 1977). This model compares the importance of expectation for particular elements of the experience to satisfaction following participation. For example, Hudson & Shephard (1998) used the importance- performance model to study aspects of downhill skiing experiences in Switzerland, examining elements such as variety of slopes, number of lifts, grooming of hills and number of other skiers. This model has not previously been applied to whale-watching.
4.2.6 Specialization
Specialization is a concept derived from the understanding that ecotourists are not a homogeneous group and that sub-groups may require distinct management techniques
(Bryan 1977, 1979, Butler & Fenton 1987, Duffus & Dearden 1990). Specialization indexes place participants on a scale based on variables such as prior experience, levels of education and interest, type of equipment used, membership in organizations, time and economic commitments, travel patterns, and centrality to the participants’ lifestyles. The level of specialization of a participant is linked to expectation and satisfaction of aspects such as crowding and environmental impacts (Rollins & Robinson 2002).
Specialization can have important management repercussions. Duffus & Dearden
(1990) suggest that specialization in wildlife viewing will dictate site choice (Figure 4.5).
“Novice-generalists” will be attracted to sites exhibiting easy accessibility and developed infrastructure, while “expert-specialists,” seeking more authentic experiences, will seek out less accessible and less developed sites. As sites become more popular, attract more visitors and gain more infrastructure more experienced users will seek out less developed
162
E LAC 3 C
E < N EXPERT NOVICE D SPEC IA LIST GENERALIST
LAC 2 B ORS IT E = N
EXPERT NOVICE SPEC IA LIST GENERALIST EXPERT NOVICE SPEC IA LIST GENERALIST NUMBER OF VIS OF NUMBER
Point of intersection indicates A the position on Butler’s Curve LAC 1 and the domination by expert (E) E > N or novice (N) users LAC: Lim it o f Ac c e p ta b le C h a n g e EXPERT NOVICE SPEC IA LIST GENERALIST
TIME
Figure 4.5: User specialization and site evolution (Duffus & Dearden 1990)
sites when the threshold of their acceptance for development is passed (Duffus &
Dearden 1990).
Methods of creating specialization indexes vary, using techniques such as z- scores, cluster analysis, factor analysis or original designs, such as summed scoring for different levels of experience, education, etc. (Ditton et al. 1992, Donnelly et al. 1986,
McFarlane 1994, Scheyer et al. 1984, Watson et al. 1991, Wellman et al. 1982,Williams et al. 1990). Most indexes are composed of a maximum of four groups. Specialization indexes of whale-watchers have not been constructed, although Duffus (1988) suggested that whale-watchers in British Columbia were not highly specialized.
163
4.2.7 Education as a Management Tool in Whale-Watching
Authors such as Carlson (1996), Constantine (1999), Forestell (1993), IFAW
(1997), Orams (1996, 1997), Orams & Hill (1998) and Wiley (1995) suggest that
education may have an important role to play in whale-watching management. However, empirical research addressing this idea is lacking.
The concept is based on the argument that education in ecotourism engenders more environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviour (Braithwaite & Reynolds
2001, Orams 1996, Russell 1994). The role of the naturalist is to couple the experience with relevant and meaningful conservation information that creates cognitive dissonance within the whale-watcher (Forestell 1993, Orams 1994). Cognitive dissonance is a disequilibrium that is created when novel information is presented, which in turn, catalyses an alteration in one’s understanding of, and approach to, the world (Piaget
1970). Behaviour alteration follows.
The goal of a quality whale-watching experience then, is to make whale-watchers aware of conservation issues and, ultimately, alter their behaviour accordingly. With respect to whale-watching an educated whale-watcher should understand the ecological and social context in which whale-watching is undertaken, adopt a cautious attitude on
future whale-watching trips and transfer their knowledge to future whale-watchers. Ergo,
whale-watchers will remain a respectful distance away from the animals in their own
boats, persuade other recreational boaters to follow their example and encourage vessel
operators to do the same on commercial whale-watching trips.
The vehicle for transferring education to the whale-watcher, termed interpretation,
is the guide onboard the whale-watching vessel or at a land-based watching site. The goal 164
of interpretation in ecotourism activities is to maximise positive impacts, minimize
negative impacts, highlight appropriate activities, describe species and areas of concern,
explain what is being seen (i.e. interpret), and make participants aware of conservation.
Participants may also have expectation s of the role the guide will play in their experience
(Butler & Hvenegaard 2002). Cohen (1985) describes four roles of the tourist guide: instrumental, social, interactionary and communicative. Instrumental and social are
leadership-oriented, referring to the responsibilities of presenting an effective and cohesive tour. Interactionary and communicative are meditative-oriented, referring to the responsibilities of interpretation and education (Cohen 1985).
Orams (1997) presents a framework for an effective education program that can be applied to ecotourism activities such as whale-watching. The model identifies five techniques that can lead to behaviour change (Figure 4.6). The design of the program incorporates a monitoring component to adapt the program as data are collected. The model states that an individual’s previous educational experiences and curiosity will motivate the individual to engage in an activity such as wildlife viewing (following the behavioural approach (Manning 1986). The individual acts on an opportunity to
Figure 4.6: Features of an effective education program for tourists (Orams 1997) 165 undertake the activity. An assessment of the success of education gained by the individual during the activity provides feedback to adapt the program.
Orams & Hill (1998) used this model to conduct an experiment to determine whether education would alter the behaviour of visitors to a wild dolphin-feeding site in
Australia. The study aimed to determine whether participation in a pre-experience education program would improve compliance with the management program at the site.
Their results indicated that the education program significantly reduced the amount of deliberate touching of dolphins and other inappropriate behaviours, as well as staff cautions. Whether this is transferable to whale-watching in open-water conditions without enforcement staff is unclear. Wiley (1995) examined whether an education program would encourage recreational whale-watchers to voluntarily increase distance of their boats from whales on in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Most boaters responded positively to the education program and only a small percentage of the boats required contact more than once. However, there was also evidence that without the influence of the research vessel, which may have posed a perceived enforcement threat, boaters approached closer to the whales.
Neil et al. (1995) examined whether whale-watchers who had been whale- watching previously were more knowledgeable about humpback whales and whale issues than those who had not between whale-watching previously. Those who had been previously whale-watching answered general questions about whale ecology better than those who did not. The difference was statistically significant for four of eight questions.
There was also high variability in the percentages of correct answers for both groups.
Specific behaviour questions, as well as questions about whaling history and its 166
consequences and knowledge about whale management were not well answered by either
group.
Russell & Hodson (2002) surveyed and interviewed whale-watchers with regards
to interpretation on whale-watching vessels in Tadoussac, Quebec. A short true or false
test given before and after the trip revealed only a 0.2% increase in mean score for the
post-trip test. Test scores improved for 9 participants, decreased for 8 and remained the
same for 14. Interviews with the participants revealed various results. Thirty-three
percent reported that they learned nothing, however the reasons ranged from too little
interpretation to too much. In terms of learning desires, 87% indicated that increased
interpretation regarding conservation issues was needed. However, only 7 respondents
could name specific conservation issues they wished to learn about. While participants
were supportive of conservation issues, they knew little in the way of facts about
conservation. Some respondents indicated that learning was very much a secondary motivation to experiencing seeing whales in the wild. Thirty-three percent, however, also reported that their attitude towards whales had changed, increasing their appreciation of whales. Russell & Hodson conclude that attention needs to be focussed on training of interpreters, as it appeared that dissatisfaction with guides was prevalent. She also indicates that increased education in the nature of science within society as a whole would increase the educational potential of whale-watching.
Burgess (1992) and Plimmer (1992) (both in Orams 1996) do not believe education during ecotourist activities such as whale-watching can reach the standards set forth in frameworks that aim for voluntary compliance with regulations. This is due to the perception that ecological knowledge, such as the interdependence of the earth’s 167 ecosystems (Chittleborough 1992), cannot be bridged during the limited time period of a whale-watching trip.
4.2.8 Summary
Human dimensions research in wildlife resource management is a neglected area of inquiry. Theoretical frameworks incorporating social and ecological research are prevalent in the literature, however, little focused human dimensions research has been conducted that plugs directly into whale-watching management frameworks. Research shows that whale-watchers are motivated by experiential goals such as viewing whales, experiencing nature and spending time with friends and family, and are generally satisfied with their experiences. However, this provides only limited management information. The applicability of using education as a management tool in whale- watching by engendering conservation ideals, although theoretically popular, is unclear.
In this study, the effect of the whale-watching experience on attitudes towards whale and resource management, links between expectation and satisfaction, and specialization in British Columbia whale-watchers, are examined with respect to management utility. 168
4.3 METHODS
4.3.1 Site Selection
There are three main whale-watching areas in British Columbia: Johnstone Strait,
Clayoquot Sound and the waters off Southern Vancouver Island (including San Juan
Islands, Washington State) (Figure 4.7). Whale-watching also occurs on a limited scale
from other sites such as Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, Horseshoe Bay and Steveston. Whale-
watching in these locations is relatively new, restricted to one to three dedicated vessels
and attract too few customers for this study.
Differences in geographical location (accessibility, travel time), tourism
infrastructure, and the whale species watched in Johnstone Strait, Clayoquot Sound and
Southern Vancouver Island result in three distinct whale-watching centres in British
Columbia. Each location is described below.
4.3.1.1 Johnstone Strait
Whale-watching in Johnstone Strait (Figure 4.8) is focused on the "northern
resident" population of killer whales (Orcinus orca) that inhabit the waters surrounding
the northern half of Vancouver Island to the southern Gulf of Alaska (Ford et al. 2000).
This population of approximately 200 animals frequents Johnstone Strait in matrilineal
family groups generally numbering between 10 whales and the entire population. Their
recurrent presence and beach rubbing behaviour in the area resulted in the creation of the
Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Reserve in 1982 (Ford et al. 2000). It is this population of
killer whales that created the association between British Columbia and killer whales on a global scale. 169
Figure 4.7: Vancouver Island, British Columbia
170
Figure 4.8: Johnstone Strait
Other incidentally-encountered species at this site include the Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagorhynchus obliquidens), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and various marine bird species.
Whale-watching in Johnstone Strait emanates from the villages of Telegraph
Cove and Alert Bay, and the towns of Port McNeill and Campbell River. British
Columbia's original, most well-known and respected whale-watching company, Stubbs
Island Charters, operates alone in Telegraph Cove. A single company operates sporadically from Alert Bay, five in Port McNeill (although this number fluctuates yearly) and one travels twice a week from Campbell River. Stubbs Island Charters was 171
selected as the sampling platform for its history of cooperating with researchers, its
stability as a company and as the largest carrier of whale-watchers in Johnstone Strait.
Telegraph Cove is situated on the east coast of Vancouver Island at the north end
of Johnstone Strait (Figure 4.8), a 450 kilometre drive north from Victoria, or a 1.5 hour
ferry trip and 350 kilometre drive from Vancouver. Telegraph Cove is the most remote
whale-watching location from population centres and access points of Vancouver and
Victoria. There are few other tourist attractions (except limited sport fishing) to this area
of Vancouver Island and consequently little tourist infrastructure (e.g. accommodation,
shopping, camping areas). Human activity in the area is focused on commercial fishing
and forestry. These activities are declining, however, and tourism may grow in the
future. A resort is presently being built in Telegraph Cove.
4.3.1.2 Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds
Whale-watching in Clayoquot Sound is focused on gray whales (Eschrichtius
robustus). During the summer months fluctuating numbers of gray whales
(approximately one to fifteen) forage in the area (Figure 4.9). Gray whales viewed in
Clayoquot Sound area during the summer months remain to feed instead of completing the entire migration from winter calving waters off Baja California Sur to summer
foraging waters in the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Duffus 1997). A complete
understanding of why individual whales select Clayoquot Sound and other areas along
the B.C. coast rather than continuing north is lacking.
Other species viewed incidentally include the killer whale, humpback whale,
minke whale, harbour porpoise, sea otter (Enhydra lutris) and black bear (Ursus 172
Figure 4.9: Clayoquot and Barkley Sounds 173
americanus). Steller and California (Zalophus californianus) sea lions, bald eagles and marine birds are regularly part of the viewing trip.
Whale-watching in Clayoquot Sound is from the towns of Tofino and Uclulet, both a 300 kilometre drive from Victoria or a 1.5 hour ferry trip and 200 kilometre drive from Vancouver . The majority of whale-watching trips originate in Tofino, where seven companies operated ten 12 passenger and two 40 passenger vessels in 2000. Jamie's
Whaling Station co-operated with this research. It is the original and largest company in
Tofino, regularly operating two 12-passenger zodiacs and both of the town's 40 passenger vessels.
In addition to whale-watching, Pacific Rim National Park attracts visitors for camping, hiking, beach-combing and surfing. Clayoquot Sound is an international attraction for sport fishing and sea kayaking. Tourism infrastructure, based on the nature- oriented attractions of the area includes limited shopping, primarily focused on local
British Columbia artwork, and various types of accommodations (resort hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts and camping).
4.3.1.3 Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Islands, Washington
Whale-watching in this cross-border area is focused on the "southern resident"
population of killer whales that inhabit the waters surrounding southern Vancouver
Island, including Puget Sound, Washington, and unknown limits offshore Southern
British Columbia and Washington (Ford et al. 2000). The approximately 75 animals in
this population travel in matrilineal family groups generally numbering between 10
174 whales and the entire population. These whales are the focus of increasing scrutiny as their population declines and whale-watching, both private and commercial, increases, along with concerns of the effects of over-fishing and toxin loading (Baird 1999, Ross
2000). The population of killer whales was designated "threatened" in 1999 and upgraded to "endangered" in 2001 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 1999, 2001). They hold no conservation status in the
United States at the time of writing. The industry has increased in size every year (either one of or both number of companies and number of vessels) since 1990. The number of private vessels watching whales has increased in number each year since 1990 as well.
Although the main focus of whale-watching in this area is killer whales, there are other species encountered as well. Dall's porpoises (Phocenoides dalli), harbour seals,
Steller and California sea lions are seen often, minke whales, humpback whales, gray whales, harbour porpoise and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) are encountered occasionally, and Pacific white-sided dolphins viewed on rare occasions.
Marine birds and bald eagles are also elements of trips at this site.
Whale-watching takes place in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait, Boundary
Pass, the Strait of Georgia and other waterways surrounding the B.C. Southern Gulf
Islands and the San Juan Islands in northern Washington State (Figure 4.10). Whale- watching vessels depart from Victoria, Sidney and Sooke, in B.C. and numerous locations in Washington, including Friday Harbor, Deer Harbor and Anacortes. These waters are popular for recreational boating, lying within easy reach of Vancouver,
Victoria, the San Juan Islands and Puget Sound, including Seattle. Private vessels are often attracted to killer whale pods by the commercial whale-watching vessels. 175
Figure 4.10: Vancouver Island / San Juan Islands, WA
176
The majority of whale-watching companies and vessels operate from Victoria, a
1.5 hour ferry trip from Vancouver. Victoria is a major tourist destination in British
Columbia, both for urban tourism such as shopping, dining, garden tours and the "British
Victorian" atmosphere. Victoria is also popular for single day nature-oriented activities
such as whale-watching, sport fishing, sea kayaking, sailing, pleasure boating, hiking and
bicycling; the city is also an access point for multi-day nature-oriented tourism such as
hiking the West Coast Trail. Victoria is a destination and stop-over for private cruising
vessels and commercial cruise ships as well as the location for international sailing
regattas. Victoria is a popular conference centre as well as a navy port, attracting both
Canadian and American naval vessels. Tourism infrastructure is highly developed.
In 2000, 17 companies operated approximately 48 vessels in Victoria and one
company operated one vessel in each of Sidney and Sooke. Springtide Charters was the sampling platform for this area due to its operation of both a large 30 passenger and two
12 passenger zodiacs, providing a large sampling base.
4.3.2 Data Collection Instrument
Design of the questionnaire is based on the techniques of Dillman (1976) and
research questionnaires designed by Duffus (1988), Giroul et al. (2000) and Rollins
(1998). Two questionnaires were administered, a pre-trip (Appendix 4.1) and a post-trip
(Appendix 4.2) survey. The questionnaires included sections about previous whale-
watching experiences, expectations for the trip (pre-trip only), opinions regarding the
whale-watching trip (post-trip only) views on whale management, general views on the
environment, and demographics. 177
Development of the questionnaire followed principles advocated by Babbie
(1995), Dillman (1978), Sherblom et al. (1993) and Ryan (1995). These principles
included engaging in informal discussions with whale-watchers and conducting pilot
surveys to aid in design and content, construction of short, single concept questions, and
providing a letter that informed participants of the research purpose, identified the
researchers and assured confidentiality (Appendix 4.3).
Yammarino et al. (1991) suggest an optimal survey length of four pages in order
to promote participation and obtain a sufficient sample size during the study period. In
this study four pages were not sufficient. While the 10-page booklet questionnaires may
have deterred some potential participants (C. Garside, pers. com.) the study was
undertaken for four consecutive months (June through September 2000) to obtain a large
sample size.
4.3.3 Data Collection
Data were collected from June 1 to September 30, 2000. Companies were chosen in each location that: 1) possessed a large, constant flow of whale-watching passengers during the study period, and 2) where possible offered both large and small vessel options. The head naturalist with each company was responsible for administration and collection of the questionnaires. Naturalists were trained in survey administration procedures. Administration of the questionnaires was determined primarily by the operational logistics of the whale-watching companies; the procedure was undertaken to
minimize disruption of company operation. Job requirements of the naturalists often
dictated whether or not surveys could be administered. For example, delays due to sea 178
conditions or mechanical problems, which resulted in quick turn-arounds between trips,
late arrival of buses for tour group trips, time needed to fuel the vessel or other
unforeseen requirements resulted in the inability of the naturalist to administer the
surveys.
Whale-watching trips were designated as either a pre- or a post-trip
administration, on an alternating basis. Company owners requested that pre- and post-trip
questionnaires not be administered on the same trip, in order to avoid monopolisation of
customer time and disruption of naturalist duties. Therefore, Mann-Whitney U-tests were
used to test for demographic differences between pre- and post-trip groups. A lack of
statistical difference between groups indicated that respondents belonged to a similar
population, allowing for comparison.
For pre-trip surveys, whale-watchers were only approached to participate after
they were checked in, while they were waiting on the dock to board the vessel. Every
whale-watching passenger was a potential participant with the following exceptions: 1)
those who arrived on the dock less than fifteen minutes prior to boarding the vessel and
2) those who did not have a sufficient ability to read and understand English. Naturalists
were able to evaluate the potential participant’s English skills during the check-in and
liability waiver completion process. Each potential respondent was given a brief verbal
and written explanation of the questionnaire study and asked if he or she would like to
participate. In Telegraph Cove and Tofino, where customers entered a company gift shop to check in, they often did not appear on the dock in time to fill out a questionnaire.
Naturalists were asked not to approach whale-watchers with the questionnaire while they 179
were in the gift shops. The questionnaires were returned to the naturalist before the customers boarded the vessel.
Post-trip questionnaires were handed out in the last fifteen minutes of the trip for the large, enclosed vessels, or once passengers had disembarked on the dock for the small, open vessels. Again, each passenger was a potential respondent, except for those who were restricted by insufficient knowledge of written English. All questionnaires were handed back to the naturalist before the participant left the dock. Often passengers on small, open vessels left the dock quickly to visit washroom facilities, change wet clothes or buy a warm beverage and did not return to participate in the survey.
4.3.4 Data Processing and Analysis
Data were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version
10 for Mac. Pre- and post trip data were combined for previous experience, View
Towards Whale Management, New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) and demographic sections of the questionnaires. The data were analysed descriptively and tested for differences between locations. Mann-Whitney U-tests were employed to test for differences between groups of ordinal data; t-test and ANOVA techniques were used where parametric tests were appropriate.
Scores were calculated for multi-item questions: view towards cetacean management, NEP, expectation and satisfaction sections. Scores are the mean of the total score of all items in the question for each case. Cases with missing items were eliminated from the score calculations. The scores were tested for differences between 180 locations using ANOVA with a Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (for data groups with equal variances) or a Tamhanes T2 post-hoc test (for data groups with unequal variances).
4.3.5 Question 1: Difference Between Whale-Watching Sites
To test for differences between the three whale-watching sites pre- and post-trip data were pooled for the previous experience, attitudes towards whale management, NEP and demographic questions of the survey. The expectation and satisfaction sections were analysed from the pre- and post-trip surveys respectively. Site results were also compared with total sample results. Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed to test for differences between sites.
4.3.6 Question 2: Difference in Attitude Between Pre- and Post-Trip Groups
Demographics were first tested for differences between pre- and post-trip groups.
A lack of significant difference between pre- and post-trip group demographics indicates that the groups come from the same population, and permits comparison between them.
Views towards whale management and NEP items were then tested for difference between pre- and post-trip groups to examine whether there was a change in attitude following the whale-watching experience.
4.3.7 Question 3: Whale-Watcher Specialization at Different Sites
To address the third question of this study a specialization index was developed based on the methods of Donnelly et al. (1986). Questions 1 to 3 and Pre-Q10/Post-Q12 were used to create the index using the scoring criteria in Table 4.1. For Pre-Q10/Post-
Q12 the number of different items used to learn about whales was used for scoring. Cases 181
with missing values were eliminated. The four scores were then summed to give a
Specialization Score.
Four specialization groups along the specialization index were created (Table 4.1)
based on the principle described by Duffus & Dearden (1990). Specialization Scores
were compared between locations. Summary scores calculated for View Towards Whale
Management, NEP, expectation and satisfaction were tested for correlations between
specialization groups using Kendell’s tau and Spearman’s rho. The Specialization groups
and summary scores were also tested for significant differences using ANOVA and
Tukey’s HSD or Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc tests.
182
Table 4.1: Construction of Specialization Index
Level of Experience / Question Value in Index Specialization How many times seen whales in wild? Never none 1 One time low 2 2 to 5 times moderate 3 6 to 10 times high 4 More then 10 times very high 5 How many times on commercial whale-watching trip? Never none 1 Once low 2 Twice moderate 3 Three times high 4 More than 3 times very high 5 Priority of whale-watching: Unplanned activity low 1 One of several activities medium 3 Main purpose of trip high 5 Previous learning: 0 to 1 items very low 1 2 to 3 items low 2 4 to 5 items medium 3 6 to 7 items high 4 8 to 9 items very high 5
Minimum Specialization Score 4 Maximum Specialization Score 20
Specialization Index: Specialization Group Group Number 4 to 7 Novice 1 8 to 11 Intermediate 2 12 to 15 Advanced 3 16 to 20 Expert 4
183
4.4 RESULTS
Results are presented in four sections: 1) Response Rate, 2) Summary of Results by Location, 3) Objective 1: Pre- Versus Post-Trip Attitudes and 4) Objective 2: Whale-
Watcher Characteristics at Different Sites. Survey questions that are used in this study are listed in Appendix 4.4. With the exception of pre-trip questionnaire section “Your
Expectations For This Trip” (Pre-Q4 to Q6) and post-trip questionnaire section “Your
Opinions Of Your Whale-Watching Trip Today” (Post- Q6 to Q8), data are presented from pre- and post-trip questionnaires combined. Significant difference tests on ordinal
data are calculated using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Parametric t- or ANOVA tests are applied to summed scores.
4.4.1 Response Rate
Table 4.2 summarizes the numbers of questionnaires obtained for pre-and post- trip groups from each location. By considering every whale-watcher per trip surveyed to be a potential participant, the method of survey administration aimed to maximise participation. Post-trip surveys were more likely to be accepted than pre-trip surveys
(naturalists did not have time to monitor exact numbers of refusals). Building a rapport with the whale-watchers during the trip may also have contributed to greater acceptance post-trip. Post-trip surveys were also easier to administer as the naturalists had less work to do following a trip than preceding it. (C. Garside, J. Jackson & J. Hildering, pers. com.). Ten percent of the surveys were returned partially completed; data from these surveys were used, except where noted.
184
Table 4.2: Survey completion totals
Survey Telegraph Tofino Victoria Total type Cove Pre-trip 119 244 189 552 Post-trip 367 284 414 1065 Total 486 528 603 1617
4.4.2 Question 1: Results by Whale-Watching Site
4.4.2.1 Previous Whale-Watching Experience
This section summarizes questions Q1 through Q3 in both the pre- and post-trip questionnaires.
Viewing Whales in the Wild (Q1)
Whale-watchers varied in their previous viewing experience (Figure 4.11). The majority of whale-watchers in Tofino (TOF) (57.9%) and Victoria (VIC) (63.0%) had not seen whales in the wild before, but in Telegraph Cove (TC) only 38.3% of the participants had not seen whales in the wild previously. The total percentage of whale- watchers that had never seen whales in the wild before was 53.8%. The greater experience of Telegraph Cove whale-watchers existed throughout the range of responses and is statistically significant between Tofino (U=93984.5, p<0.000) and Victoria
(U=100770, p<0.000). Victoria whale-watchers had the least experience seeing whales
in the wild, although there is no significant difference between Victoria and Tofino.
185
Never
1 time
2-5 times
6-10 times Number of Times Seen Whales in Wild
> 10 times
0 10203040506070 Percentage of Respondents
Total Johnstone Strait Tofino Victoria Figure 4.11: Experience viewing whales in the wild by location
186
Commercial Whale-Watching Trips (Q2)
The pattern of previous experience on commercial whale-watching trips was similar to seeing whales in the wild (Figure 4.12). Most participants had never been on a whale-watching trip before (65.6%). The percentage of participants who had been commercial whale-watching was greater in Telegraph Cove (10.7%) than either Tofino
(3.7%) or Victoria (2.9%). The difference in experience is significant between Telegraph
Cove and Tofino (U=99494, p<0.000) and Telegraph Cove and Victoria (U=107694, p<0.000), but not between Victoria and Tofino.
Never
1 time
2 times
3 times
# of Times Commercial Whale-Watching > 3 times
0 1020304050607080 Percentage of Respondents
Total Johnstone Strait Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.12: Previous experience on commercial whale-watching trips by location
187
Priority of Going Whale-Watching (Q3)
For the majority of respondents (63.2%) whale-watching was one of several
planned vacation activities (Figure 4.13). For Telegraph Cove participants whale-
watching was the main purpose of their trip to the area (48.5%). This difference is
statistically significant between all three locations (TC vs. TOF: U=83222.5, p<0.000;
TC vs. VIC: U=81327, p<0.000; TOF vs. VIC: U=134113.5, p=0.001). The popularity
of whale- watching in coastal British Columbia is revealed by the comparatively low
percentage of participants for whom the activity had been unplanned (B.C.: 12.2%; TC:
6.5%, TOF: 12.8%, VIC: 16.4%).
One of several
Main purpose Priority of Whale-Watching Unplanned
0 1020304050607080 Percentage of Respondents
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.13: Priority of whale-watching by location
188
Previous Experience Learning About Whales (Pre-Q10/Post-Q12)
This question relates to the participants’ previous experience learning about
whales and is presented in this section as it is used with Q1 to Q3 to address Question 3
regarding specialization. Overall, 69.3% of participants had learned about whales on
television and 56.4% had read about whales in books (Figure 4.14). Telegraph Cove
whale-watchers had used the largest number of learning media (mean=3.74), followed by
Tofino (mean=3.1) and Victoria (mean 2.84) participants. These differences are significantly different (F=26.55, df=2, p<0.000).
A Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances revealed that the variances between
groups are equal (Levene’s=1.720, p=0.179), allowing for use of a Tukey’s HSD
pairwise post-hoc test. The Tukey’s HSD test revealed that significant differences exist
between Telegraph Cove and the other two locations but not between Tofino and Victoria
(TC vs. TOF: Tukey’s HSD=0.64, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC: Tukey’s HSD=0.90, p<0.000).
Telegraph Cove whale-watchers were above the combined locations’ percentage of use
for every category except for “Never”, for which they were the lowest (6.2%).
189
Television
Books
Aquariums
Magazines
Whale-Watching
Education Media Museums
Never
School/Univ.
Other
0 1020304050607080 Percentage of Respondents
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.14: Types of learning media used by location
4.4.2.2 View Towards Whale Management
This section summarizes data from Pre-Q7/Post-Q9, giving participants’ level of
agreement with thirteen statements regarding management of cetaceans. Statements are
listed from highest to lowest agreement at a provincial level (Figure 4.15, Table 4.3).
Telegraph Cove whale-watchers reported a significantly lower score for the statement:
“Paying for whale-watching should guarantee I see whales” than either of the other two locations (TC vs. TOF: U=102460.5, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC: U=107255, p<0.000; TOF vs.
VIC: U=148706, p=0.049), indicating a greater understanding of the dynamics of wild animals. In general, Telegraph Cove respondents possessed significantly higher scores for conservation-based management of whales than the other two locations. Table 4.3 190
lists Mann-Whitney U-tests for statistical significance for each question. Statistically
significant results are given in bold text.
To test these trends further a View Towards Whale Management score was
created by summing the response to each question for each respondent and calculating
the mean (maximum score=52). Cases with missing scores were eliminated. A high score
indicates a conservationist View Towards Whale Management. The mean score for all
locations is 41.75. Telegraph Cove whale-watchers have the highest mean score (44.34), followed by Tofino (41.09) and Victoria (40.22). This difference in scores is statistically significant (F=44.721, df=2, p<0.000). A Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances revealed the variances between groups are different (Levene’s=19.238, p<0.000), therefore a Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc test was used. The Tamhane’s T2 test revealed that significant differences exist between Telegraph Cove and the other two locations but not between Tofino and Victoria (TC vs. TOF: Tamhane’s=3.2, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC:
Tamhane’s T2=4.08, p<0.000).
191
Protect whales
Boats minimum distance
$$ to research
Limit no. of boats
Gov't obligation protect
Areas no w-watching
Times no w-watching
Endangered no w-watching
Pay guarantee whales
First Nations ceremonial
Competing whales culled
First Nations commercial
Commercial whaling
strongly slightly no slightly strongly disagree01234 disagree opinion agree agree
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.15: Views toward whale management by location
192
Table 4.3: Mann-Whitney U-tests of views toward whale management between locations
Mann-Whitney U-Test Whale Management Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=124448 U=135559 U=152012.5 Protecting whales is important P=0.119 P<0.000 P=0.031 U=112886.5 U=120055 U=149382.5 Boats should have to stay minimum distance from whales P<0.000 P<0.000 P=0.039 Portion of cost to go whale-watching should go to directly to U=117805 U=128694.5 U=153046.5 research and management P=0.007 P<0.000 P=0.201 Number of whale-watching boats around whales should be U=106593.5 U=110936.5 U=147120 limited P<0.000 P<0.000 P=0.015 U=123765 U=129950.5 U=146746 The government has an obligation to protect whales P=0.175 P<0.000 P=0.004 Should be some areas set aside where whale-watching is not U=100214.5 U=111456 U=156000 allowed P<0.000 P<0.000 P=0.522 Should be some time set aside when whales get a break from U=114180.5 U=128466.5 U=157061 whale-watching P=0.001 P<0.000 P=0.678 Whale populations that are endangered should be off limits to U=119401 U=130023.5 U=152535.5 whale-watching P=0.037 P=0.001 P=0.194 U=102460.5 U=107255 U=148706 Paying for a whale-watching trip should guarantee I see whales P<0.000 P<0.000 p=0.049 First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for U=122727.5 U=143080.5 U=148841 ceremonial purposes P=0.201 P=0.473 P=0.045 Whale populations should be reduced when they compete with U=122728.5 U=143118.5 U=156128 human food resources P=0.176 P=0.464 P=0.549 First nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for U=120921 U=143619 U=147377 commercial purposes P=0.039 P=0.476 P=0.007 U=125099.5 U=143802 U=158162 Commercial hunting of whales should be allowed P=0.318 P=0.454 P=0.799 TC=Telegraph Cove, TOF=Tofino, VIC=Victoria
193
4.4.2.3 General Views on the Environment (New Environmental Paradigm)
Data in this section of the survey are from Pre-Q12/Post-Q14. The question uses the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) (Dunlap & van Liere 1978) to test for general environmental awareness and attitudes towards natural resource management. Statements are listed from highest to lowest agreement at a provincial level (Figure 4.16, Table 4.4).
Generally, whale-watchers agreed with statements regarding the existence of finite natural resources and pro-active conservation and disagreed with statements regarding the existence of unlimited natural resources and consequence-free resource use.
Whale-watchers in Telegraph Cove tended to demonstrate the strongest views towards environmental protection. Victoria participants generally showed the weakest views compared to the other two locations, including slight disagreement with the statement “We are approaching the limit to the number of people that the Earth can support.” Table 4.4 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests of statistical significance for each question. Statistically significant results are given in bold text.
To test these trends further, an NEP score was created by summing the response to each question for each respondent and calculating the mean (maximum score=48).
Cases with missing scores were eliminated. A high score indicates a conservationist view towards resource management. The NEP score for combined locations is 36.49.
Telegraph Cove participants have the highest mean score (38.62), followed by Tofino
(36.38) and Victoria (34.76). This difference in means is statistically significant
(F=23.430, df=2, p<0.000). Variances are unequal (Levene’s=6.735, p=0.001); a
Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc test revealed significant differences exist between all three
194
Must live in harmony
Nature's balance easily upset
Severely abusing env.
Interfere disasterous results
Limited resources: spaceship
Need steady state economy
Limit to growth exists
Near population limit
Right to modify env.
Created to rule nature
Need not adapt: technology
Animals for human use
strongly slightly no slightly strongly disagree01234 disagree opinion agree agree
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.16: General views on the environment (NEP) by location
locations (TC vs. TOF:Tamhane’s T2=2.27, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC: Tamhane’s T2=3.8, p<0.000; TOF vs. VIC: Tamhane’s T2=1.53, p=0.019).
195
Table 4.4: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general views on the environment (NEP) between locations
Mann-Whitney U-test New Environmental Paradigm Statements TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=123190 U=132342.5 U=150333 Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive p=0.168 p=0.001 p=0.053 U=118105 U=122996.5 U=146371.5 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset p=0.012 p<0.000 p=0.01 U=120078.5 U=126308.5 U=148137.5 Humans are severely abusing the environment p=0.048 p<0.000 p=0.028 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous U=120328 U=128008.5 U=148997 results p=0.058 p<0.000 p=0.044 U=113464 U=122299 U=150196.5 The Earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources p=0.001 p<0.000 p=0.081 To maintain a health economy we will have to develop a "steady U=115303 U=120090 U=146466 state" economy... p=0.003 p<0.000 p=0.014 There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society U=113466.5 U=122967 U=152308 cannot expand p=0.001 p<0.000 p=0.182 We are approaching the limit to the number of people that the U=119538 U=128893 U=150762 Earth can support p=0.045 p<0.000 p=0.01 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit U=114708 U=132408 U=157586.5 their needs p=0.002 p=0.003 p=0.759 U=125503.5 U=142695.5 U=158273.5 Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature p=0.493 p=0.41 p=0.857 Humans need not adapt to the environment because the can remake U=127311 U=145332.5 U=156911.5 it to suit their needs p=0.805 p=0.793 p=0.648 U=127130.5 U=139696 U=150692.5 Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans p=0.767 p=0.138 p=0.09
196
4.4.2.4 Whale- Watcher Expectations
This section summarizes the data from questions Q4 to Q6 in the pre-trip
questionnaire. In general, expectations are similar across the three locations, with only
six statistically significant differences over thirty-six expectation statements (16.7%).
General Trip Expectations (Pre-Q4)
Overall, the most important expectation during the whale-watching trip was to see whales in a respectful manner (Figure 4.17). Seeing a whale, even if only one, was the second most important expectation. Victoria whale-watchers had the highest expectation to see a whale, versus Telegraph Cove whale-watchers with the lowest; seeing “lots” of whales was not as important. Whale-watchers in Victoria possessed the highest expectation to see “lots” of whales, versus Tofino with the lowest. The expectation of seeing whales was most pronounced in Victoria whale-watchers. The least important expectation overall was to spend most of the trip with whales. Other less important expectations were to see whales up close to the boat and see spectacular behaviours.
Table 4.5 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests of statistical significance for each statement. Statistically significant results are given in bold text. To test the trends further a trip expectation score was created by summing the response to each question for each respondent and calculating the mean (maximum score=48). Cases with missing scores were eliminated. The trip expectation score for all locations is 29.4. Victoria respondents possess the highest trip expectation score (29.81), followed by Telegraph
Cove (29.54) and Tofino (28.98), however, there is no statistically significant difference between locations.
197
See in respectful manner
See a whale even if only 1
Uncrowded setting
Learn about marine wildlife
Learn about marine env.
Take pictures of whales
Variety of wildlife
See no matter how far away
Lots of whales
Whales up close to boat
Spectacular behaviours
Most of trip with whales
not at all slightly very extremely important0123 important important important
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.17: General trip expectations by location
198
Table 4.5: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general trip expectations between locations
Mann-Whitney U-Test Expectation Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=13320.5 U=9818.5 U=20041 See whales in respectful manner p=0.766 p=0.297 p=0.367 U=13486.5 U=8941 U=18355 See a whale even if it is only one p=0.639 p=0.017 p=0.02 U=13521.5 U=10217 U=20197 See marine wildlife in an uncrowded setting p=0.95 p=0.696 p=0.604 U=12368.5 U=10282 U=19624 Learn about marine wildlife p=0.128 p=0.707 p=0.25 U=12823 U=10568 U=19482 Learn about the marine environment p=0.29 p=0.939 p=0.206 U=12889.5 U=9145.5 U=19237 Take pictures of whales p=0.847 p=0.27 p=0.253 U=13416.5 U=9714.5 U=19381.5 See a variety of wildlife besides whales p=0.902 p=0.345 p=0.206 U=12084.5 U=9336.5 U=16976.5 See whales no matter how far away they are p=0.294 p=0.497 p=0.043 U=11276 U=9328.5 U=19528.5 See lots of whales p=0.01 p=0.117 p=0.192 U=13386 U=10156 U=19452 See whales up close to the boat p=0.716 p=0.542 p=0.229 U=12997 U=9808.5 U=18331.5 See spectacular behaviours p=0.584 p=0.269 p=0.062 U=11399 U=9838.5 U=18125.5 Spend most of the trip with whales p=0.06 p=0.708 p=0.076
199
Expectations of the Guide (Pre-Q5)
Expectations for the guide are similar in all three locations. Following Cohen’s
(1985) model of guide roles, statements A and B are instrumental, C, D and F,
communicative, E, J & K, social, and G, H and I, interactional (Appendix 4.1). The two
most important expectations for British Columbia whale-watchers concerning their
guides were that guides demonstrate a concern for nature and marine wildlife (statement
G) and leave moments of silence to appreciate the experience (statement F) (Figure 4.18).
Deepening the whale-watchers’ awareness of the situation of whales and the marine environment (statement H) was also important. Whale-watchers in B.C. are therefore most interested in the guide performing the interactional and communicative roles, although leaving some moments of silence to appreciate the experience, indicates a desire
of whale-watchers to appreciate the experience based on their own interpretations as well.
Expectations for the guide to perform the instrumental role were less important; the least
important expectations were for the guide to act as in a social role.
Table 4.6 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests for statistical significance for each
statement. Statistically significant results are given in bold text. To test the trends
further, a guide expectation score was created by summing the scores for each statement
for each respondent and calculating the mean (maximum score=44). Scores with missing
cases were eliminated. The guide expectation score for all locations is 31.61. Victoria
whale-watchers possess the highest guide expectation score (31.89), followed by
Telegraph Cove (31.57) and Tofino (31.41), however, there is no statistically significant
difference between locations.
200
Show concern env./whales
Moments of silence
Deepen awareness whales
Answer my questions
Tell where are/going
Teach marine environment
Safety features of boat
How help wildlife protection
History of local area
Get to know passengers
Help passengers socialize
not0123 at all somewhat very extremely important important important important Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.18: Expectations of the guide by location
201
Table 4.6: Mann-Whitney U-tests for expectations of the guide between locations
Mann-Whitney U-Test Expectation Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=13076 U=10072 U=20740 Show concern for the environment and marine wildlife p=0.606 p=0.54 p=0.89 U=13552.5 U=9998.5 U=20130 Leave some moments of silence to appreciate p=0.924 p=0.499 p=0.353 Deepen my awareness of the situation of whales and the marine U=12447.5 U=9899 U=20351.5 environment p=0.445 p=0.488 p=0.942 U=13074.5 U=10450 U=19945 Answer my questions and concerns p=0.049 p=0.9 p=0.342 U=13255.5 U=10067.5 U=21079.5 Tell me where we are, where we are going p=0.459 p=0.353 p=0.862 U=13549 U=10100 U=20452 Teach me about the marine environment p=0.743 p=0.428 p=0.572 U=13714.5 U=9541.5 U=19150.5 Tell me about the safety features of the boat p=0.915 p=0.099 p=0.077 U=13308 U=9553.5 U=19191.5 Tell me how I can help with marine wildlife protection p=0.913 p=0.304 p=0.166 U=12428 U=10486 U=18983 Teach me about the history of the area p=0.096 p=0.912 p=0.073 U=12331 U=9773.5 U=17319.5 Get to know me and the other passengers p=0.097 p=0.208 p=0.001 U=12077.5 U=9688.5 U=17160.5 Help passengers socialize and get to know each other p=0.062 p=0.201 p=0.001
202
Learning Expectations (Pre-Q6)
The most important learning expectation was explanation of whale behaviours
seen during the trip (Figure 4.19). Learning about measures to protect marine wildlife was also important. The least important learning expectations concerned traditional aboriginal uses and values of marine wildlife and hearing myths and legends about whales and other marine life.
Telegraph Cove whale-watchers possessed the highest expectation for learning about food and feeding habits of whales, while Tofino respondents rated this expectation much lower, an interesting result as discussion of food and feeding habits is the most
important ecological topic regarding gray whales in Tofino area waters during the
summer (U=11758, p=0.004). Telegraph Cove participants also hold statistically higher expectations for learning about habitat use (TC vs. TOF: U=11150.5, p=0.002; TC vs.
VIC: U=9053.5, p=0.022) and research being done on whales (TC vs. TOF: U=11150.5, p=0.002; TC vs. VIC: U=9053.5, p=0.022).
Table 4.7 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests for statistical significance for each statement. Statistically significant results are given in bold text. A learning expectation
score was created by summing the scores for each statement for each respondent and
calculating the mean (maximum score=52). Scores with missing cases were eliminated.
The learning expectation score for all locations is 38.36. Telegraph Cove whale-watchers
possess the highest learning expectation score (39.50), followed by Victoria (38.07) and
Tofino (38.00), however, there is no statistically significant difference between locations.
203
Meaning of behaviours
Protection of marine wildlife
Social behaviour
Communication
Habitat use
Species identification
Food and feeding
Viewing regulations
Reproduction
Research on whales
Ecology
Traditional use
Myths and legends
not at all somewhat very extremely important0123 important important important
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.19: Learning expectations by location
204
Table 4.7: Mann-Whitney U-tests of learning expectations between locations
Mann-Whitney U-Test Expectation Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=12686.5 U=10690.5 U=19497 Meaning of behaviours you see the whales do p=0.146 p=0.867 p=0.068 U=13391.5 U=10334.5 U=21473 Protection of marine wildlife p=0.517 p=0.491 p=0.915 U=13257.5 U=10567.5 U=21025 Social behaviour of whales p=0.388 p=0.71 p=0.59 U=13250.5 U=10492.5 U=21189.5 Communication between whales p=0.422 p=0.734 p=0.642 U=11155 U=8845 U=20714 Habitat use of whales p=0.001 p=0.011 p=0.805 U=13650.5 U=10521 U=21129 How to identify different species of whales p=0.845 p=0.665 p=0.793 U=11758 U=9878.5 U=19484.5 Food and feeding habits of whales p=0.004 p=0.209 p=0.077 U=11980.5 U=9553.5 U=21115 Regulations for watching marine wildlife p=0.041 p=0.093 p=0.796 U=12547 U=9635.5 U=21018 How whales reproduce and raise young p=0.106 p=0.072 p=0.715 Research being done on whales and other marine U=11150.5 U=9053.5 U=20512.5 wildlife p=0.002 p=0.022 p=0.555 U=13592 U=10123.5 U=20562.5 Ecology p=0.74 p=0.356 p=0.453 Traditional aboriginal use and value of marine U=12245 U=9503.5 U=21330 wildlife p=0.071 p=0.09 p=0.961 Myths and legends about whales and other U=13209.5 U=10643 U=20519 marine wildlife p=0.479 p=0.928 p=0.35
205
4.4.2.5 Whale-Watcher Satisfaction
This section summarizes the satisfaction data from post-trip survey questions Q6
to Q8. The statements are linked to pre-trip survey questions Q4 to Q6 in order to
examine whether important expectations result in high satisfaction. Contrary to the
expectations section where only thirteen statistically significant differences over 108
expectation comparisons between locations occurred (12.04%), 85 of 102 satisfaction
statement comparisons (83.3%) resulted in statistically significant differences.
Satisfaction for all three questions followed a similar pattern: Telegraph Cove whale-
watchers possessed the highest satisfaction, followed by Victoria, then Tofino, markedly
lower.
General Trip Satisfaction (Post-Q6)
Satisfaction measures in post-trip Q6 link to expectation measures in pre-trip Q4.
The most important expectations, viewing whales and seeing them in a respectful
manner, received high satisfaction overall (Figure 4.20). Respectful approach by the
participant’s whale-watching vessel was the highest rated satisfaction, although respectful
approach by other boats was lower. Participants were very satisfied with what they
learned in general, followed by high satisfaction in the number of whales seen on the trip.
Satisfaction ratings for number of boats around the whales are reciprocal to the number of boats normally in proximity to the animals. Telegraph Cove whale-watchers see the least number of other boats on average and possessed the highest satisfaction.
Tofino whale-watchers see moderately more boats on average during their trip and had a lower satisfaction rating. Victoria whale-watchers see many more vessels during their 206
trips than either of the other two locations, and rated their satisfaction with regard to the
number of other boats lowest. These differences are statistically significant (TC vs. TOF:
U=42968.5, p<0.000; TOF vs. VIC: U=53587.5, p=0.034).
Table 4.8 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests of statistical significance for each
statement. Statistically significant results are given in bold text. Statistically significant
differences between two or three of the locations exist for nine of the ten statements, with
Tofino participants revealing markedly lower satisfactions on eight of the nine, including what was learned. This lower learning satisfaction in Tofino has implications for using education as a management tool.
A trip satisfaction score was created by summing the scores for each statement
for each respondent and calculating the mean (maximum score=40). Scores with missing
cases were eliminated. The trip satisfaction score for all locations is 29.34. Telegraph
Cove whale-watchers have the highest satisfaction score (31.84), followed by Victoria
(29.01) and Tofino (26.6). These differences are significantly different (F=50.555, df=2,
p<0.000). Variances are not significantly different (Levene’s=2.768, p=0.063); Tukey’s
HSD post-hoc test revealed statistically significant differences exist between all three
locations (TC vs. TOF: Tukey’s=3.8, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC: Tukey’s=2.55, p<0.000; TOF
vs. VIC: Tukey’s=-1.26, p=0.003).
207
Respect by my boat
What I learned
Number of whales seen
Time with whales
Distance to whales
Whale behaviours
Opportunity take pictures
Respect by other boats
Number boats around whales
Variety of wildlife
not at all somewhat very extremely satisfied0123 satisfied satisfied satisfied Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.20: General trip satisfaction by location
208
Table 4.8: Mann-Whitney U-tests of general trip satisfaction between locations
Mann-Whitney U-Test Satisfaction Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=37471 U=64887 U=50714.5 Respectful approach to wildlife by boat you were on p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=22943.5 U=47908 U=47100 What you learned p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=21046.5 U=54090 U=38028.5 Number of whales seen p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=3318.5 U=55929 U=52579 Length of time spent with whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.009 U=29429 U=61127.5 U=43701 Distance from which whales were observed p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=31046.5 U=68502 U=40600 Behaviour of whales seen p<0.000 p=0.01 p<0.000 U=27829.5 U=54835 U=46722.5 Opportunities to take pictures p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=44552 U=71879 U=52709 Respectful approach to wildlife by other boats p=0.001 p=0.177 p=0.015 U=42968.5 U=56247 U=53587.5 Number of boats around whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.034 U=51485.5 U=71451 U=54542 Variety of wildlife seen p=0.777 p=0.13 p=0.086
Following the importance-performance model (Martilla & James 1977), figures
4.21 to 4.23 present a graphical representation of the linked expectation-satisfaction data for general expectations-satisfactions in each whale-watching location. The graphs are divided into four quadrants: A. Needs Work, B. Doing Well, C. Low Priority, and D.
Possible Overkill. The quadrants are divided by thresholds that separate less from more important expectations, and lower satisfactions from higher satisfactions. The expectation threshold is set at 2 “Slightly Important”, so that any measure of importance is incorporated as a more important expectation. The satisfaction threshold is set at 3
“Very Satisfied”. “Somewhat Satisfied” is included in the lower satisfaction half based on the assumption that “Somewhat Satisfied” reveals that more is desired in that area.
209
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well Respect by my boat Respect by other boats
3.5
e See a whale even if only 1
c
n
a Uncrowded setting Learn about marine wildlife
t
r Variety of wildlife seen Learn about marine environment
o Important 3
p Take pictures of whales See lots of whales
m See whales no matter how far away
I
/ Whales close to boat
n
o i 2.5 Spectacular behaviours t Most of trip with whales
a
t
c
e
p
x Slightly Important 2
E
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill
Not at all Important 1 11.522.533.54 d d ed e e ed fi fi f i f i is is is is at at at at S S S S l l at r y ly a h e e at w V m t e e o tr om x N S E Satisfaction Figure 4.21: General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove
All three graphs display a discrepancy between the important expectation of viewing whales in a respectful manner and the high satisfaction of the participants’ boats versus other boats engaged in whale-watching. Also common to all three locations is a poor expectation-satisfaction score with respect to the numbers of whale-watching boats, representing a feeling of crowding. Figure 4.22 reveals the low expectation-satisfaction of Tofino whale-watchers: 12 of 13 items fall within the “Needs Work” quadrant.
210
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well Respect by other boats Respect by my boat
3.5
e See a whale even if only 1
c
n
a Uncrowded setting t
r Learn about marine wildlife o Important 3 p Variety of wildlife seen Learn about marine environment Take pictures of whales
m I See whales no matter how far away
/
n See lots of whales Whales close to boat
o i 2.5 t Spectacular behaviours
a
t
c Most of trip with whales
e
p x Slightly Important 2
E
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 d d d d ie ie ie ie sf sf sf sf i t i ti t i at a a a S S S S ll t y a a r ly t h e e a w V m t e e o m tr N o Ex S Satisfaction Figure 4.22: General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino
211
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
Respect by other boats Respect by my boat See a whale even if only 1 3.5
e
c
n
a Uncrowded setting Learn about marine wildlife
t r Take pictures of whales Learn about marine environment
o Important 3 p Variety of wildlife seen See whales no matter how far away
m I Whales close to boat
/ See lots of whales
n Spectacular behaviours
o i 2.5 t Most of trip with whales
a
t
c
e
p
x Slightly Important 2
E
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 d d d d ie ie ie ie sf sf sf sf t i t i t i t i a a a a S S S S l t al a r y ly t h e e a w V m t e re o m t N o x S E Satisfaction Figure 4.23: General expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria
212
Satisfaction of the Guide (Q7)
Post-trip survey Q7 satisfactions are linked to pre-trip survey Q5 expectations.
Overall, the two most important expectations, showing concern for the environment and
leaving moments of silence to appreciate the experience, were met with the two highest
satisfactions (Figure 4.24). Again, Tofino respondents possessed the lowest satisfactions.
In ten of eleven statements, Tofino whale-watchers had the lowest satisfaction measures,
for eight of which Tofino possess a statistically significant difference from both other
locations. Telegraph Cove whale-watchers had the highest satisfaction measures for
every statement. Table 4.9 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests of statistical significance for each statement. Statistically significant results are given in bold text.
A guide satisfaction score was created by summing the scores for each statement for each respondent and calculating the mean (maximum score=44). Scores with missing cases were eliminated. The trip satisfaction score for all locations is 33.66. Telegraph
Cove participants possessed the highest trip satisfaction score (36.59), followed by
Victoria (33.35) and Tofino (30.33). These differences were statistically significant
(F=57.356, df=2, p<0.000). Variances are unequal (Levene’s=4.675, p=0.01);
Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc test revealed statistically significant differences exist between all three locations (TC vs. TOF: Tamhane’s T2=5.97, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC: Tamhane’s
T2=2.68, p<0.000; TOF vs. VIC: Tamhane’s T2=-3.30, p<0.000).
213
Showed concern for env.
Moments of silence
Answered questions
Info safety
Info marine environment
Told where we went
Deepened awareness whales
Info local history
Got to know passengers
How I can help with protection
Helped passengers socialize
not0123 at all somewhat very extremely satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.24: Satisfaction of guide by location
214
Table 4.9: Mann-Whitney U-tests of satisfaction of the guide by location
Mann-Whitney U-Test Satisfaction Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=34179.5 U=61143.5 U=50098 Showed concern for the environment and marine wildlife p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=36256.5 U=59450.5 U=53769.5 Provided moments of silence p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=34084.5 U=64792 U=46807.5 Answered my questions and concerns p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=39855 U=57039.5 U=57355.5 Safety and trip introduction p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.547 U=34718.5 U=61534.5 U=49468.5 Quality of information about marine environment p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=47909.5 U=72822.5 U=56346 Description of where you went p=0.056 p=0.277 p=0.309 U=25218 U=52773 U=45936 Deepened my awareness of the situations of whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=50431 U=75380.5 U=56478 Quality of information about local area, history p=0.482 p=0.844 p=0.351 U=29866 U=74682.5 U=34945.5 Got to know me and other passengers p<0.000 p=0.661 p<0.000 U=17248 U=37881.5 U=47178 Informed me how I can help with marine wildlife protection p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=32205 U=71311 U=39995.5 Helped passengers socialize and get to know each other p<0.000 p=0.119 p<0.000
215
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
Show concern for environment 3.5
e Moments of silence to appreciate experience c Deepen awareness of whales and marine environment n Answered my questions
a t Teach about marine environment r Tell where we are going
o Important 3
p Tell how can help with marine wildlife protection Tell me about safety features
m of boat I
/ Teach about local history
n
o i 2.5
t
a
t
c
e
p x Slightly Important 2 E
Got to know passengers
Help passengers socialize 1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ed d d d fi ie ie ie s sf sf sf t i t i t i i a a a at S S S S ll a at r y ly t h e e a w V m t e e o m t r N o x S E Satisfaction Figure 4.25: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove
Figures 4.25 to 4.27 present guide expectation-satisfaction grids for the three locations. The trends are similar in each location, with the majority of items in each location falling within “Doing Well.” Two exceptions to this pattern are “Needs Work” scores for “Tell me how I can help with marine wildlife protection” in Tofino and
Victoria, and “Deepen my awareness of the situation of whales and the marine environment” for Tofino. The lack of importance for the guide to play a social role
(sensu Cohen 1985) is evident in all three locations as “Low Priority.”
216
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
Show concern for environment 3.5 e Deepen awareness of whales Moments of silence to appreciate experience c
n and marine environment Answered my questions
a
t
r Teach about marine environment Tell where we are going
o Important 3 p Tell how can help with Tell me about safety features of boat
m I marine wildlife protection Teach about local history
/
n
o i 2.5
t
a
t
c
e
p
x
E Slightly Important 2
Got to know passengers
1.5 Help passengers socialize
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 11.522.533.54
ed d d d fi ie ie ie s sf sf sf t i t i ti t i a a a a S S S S ll a at ry ly t h e e a w V m t e e o m tr N o x S E Satisfaction Figure 4.26: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino
217
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
Show concern for environment 3.5
e Moments of silence to appreciate experience
c
n Deepen awareness of whales and marine environment Answered my questions
a
t Tell where we are going Tell me about safety features of boat r
o Important 3
p Teach about marine environment Tell how can help with marine
m I wildlife protection / Teach about local history
n
o
i 2.5
t
a
t
c
e
p x Slightly Important 2 E Got to know passengers Help passengers socialize
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 d d d d ie ie ie ie sf sf sf f t i i i is a at at at l S S S S al at r y ly t h e e a w V m t e e o t r N om x S E Satisfaction Figure 4.27: Guide expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria 218
Learning Satisfaction (Q8)
Post–trip Q8 is linked to pre-trip Q6. The most important expectation overall,
learning the meanings behind whale behaviours, was only the sixth highest satisfaction
rating (Figure 2.28, Table 4.10). The second highest expectation, learning about
protection measures for marine wildlife, received only the eighth highest satisfaction
rating. The highest learning satisfaction was food and feeding habits of whales, the
seventh highest expectation. Table 4.10 lists Mann-Whitney U-tests of statistical
significance for each statement. Statistically significant results are given in bold text.
Telegraph Cove whale-watchers satisfaction ratings are statistically higher than both other locations for all but one comparison to Victoria.
A learning satisfaction score was created by summing the scores for each statement for each respondent and calculating the mean (maximum score=52). Scores with missing cases were eliminated. The learning satisfaction score for all locations is
33.44. Telegraph Cove whale-watchers possess the highest learning satisfaction score
(38.56), followed by Victoria (31.95) and Tofino (28.99) participants. These differences are statistically significant (F=66.196, df=2, p<0.000). Variances are unequal
(Levene’s=8.009, p<0.000); Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc test revealed significant differences exist between all three locations (TC vs. TOF: Tamhane’s T2=9.27, p<0.000; TC vs.
VIC: Tamhane’s T2=5.85, p<0.000; TOF vs. VIC: Tamhane’s T2=-3.42, p<0.000).
219
Food and feeding
Social behaviour
Species identification
Habitat use
Communication
Meaning of behaviours
Viewing regulations
Protection of marine wildife
Research on whales
Ecology
Reproduction
Traditional use
Myths and legends
not0123 at all somewhat very extremely ifid ifid ifid ifid Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.28: Learning satisfaction by location
220
Table 4.10: Mann-Whitney U-tests of learning satisfaction between locations
Mann-Whitney U-Test Satisfaction Statement TC vs. TOF TC vs. VIC TOF vs. VIC U=37039 U=55343 U=58412 Food and feeding habits of whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.877 U=23144 U=47841 U=45697.5 Social behaviour of whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=22708 U=43172 U=49069 How to identify different species of whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=39196.5 U=64544 U=53635.5 Habitat use of whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.039 U=16251.5 U=34717 U=45239.5 Communication between whales p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=34387.5 U=63177.5 U=48526 The meaning of behaviours you see the whales do p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=31836 U=68754 U=42904 Regulations for watching marine wildlife p<0.000 p=0.016 p<0.000 U=28439.5 U=55605.5 U=47726.5 Protection of marine wildlife p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=23326.5 U=40445.5 U=53028.5 Research being done on whales and other marine life p<0.000 p<0.000 p<0.000 U=30879.5 U=56180.5 U=50400.5 Ecology p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.001 U=29726.5 U=48782.5 U=54365 How whales reproduce and raise their young p<0.000 p<0.000 p=0.08 U=48008 U=72615 U=56954 Traditional aboriginal use and value of marine wildlife p=0.073 p=0.271 p=0.468 U=43186 U=69871.5 U=54168.5 Myths and legends about whales and other wildlife p<0.000 p=0.045 p=0.067
221
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
3.5 e Protection of marine wildlife c Habitat use
n Social behaviour
a Meaning of behaviours
t Communication
r Regulations Food and feeding habits o Important 3 Reproduction
p How to identify species Aboriginal use
m Ecology
I Research
/
n
o i 2.5 Myths & legends
t
a
t
c
e
p x Slightly Important 2 E
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 d d d d ie ie ie ie sf sf sf f t i i i is a at at at S S S S ll t a a ry ly t h e e a w V m t e e o tr N om x S E Satisfaction
Figure 4.29: Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Telegraph Cove
Learning expectation-satisfaction grids reveal the reciprocal satisfaction to guide expectation scores discussed above (Figures 4.29 to 4.31). This trend is particularly true in Tofino and Victoria, where 100% of the items fall within “Needs Work.” This trend for specific learning items does not match with more broad learning items in Victoria, where the general expectation-satisfaction items “Learn about marine wildlife,” and
“Learn about the marine environment,” as well as the guide expectation-satisfaction items
222
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
3.5
e
c Meaning of behaviours n Protection of marine wildlife a Social behaviour
t
r Communication
o Important 3 Habitat use p Reproduction Food and feeding
m Research I Aboriginal use How to identify species
/
n Regulations
o i 2.5 Myths & legends Ecology
t
a
t
c
e
p x Slightly Important 2
E
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 d d e d e d f i ie fi ie is sf s sf t t i t i ti a a a a S S S S ll t a a ry ly t h e e a w V m t e r e o m t N o Ex S Satisfaction
Figure 4.30: Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Tofino
“Teach me about the marine environment,” and “Deepen my awareness of the situation of
whales and the marine environment” all fall within the “Well Done” quadrant.
223
Essential 4 Needs Work Doing Well
3.5
e
c Meaning of behaviours
n
a Protection of marine wildlife Social behaviour
t r Communication Food and feeding o Important 3 p Reproduction Habitat use
m Research Regulations I
/ Aboriginal use
n Ecology How to identify species
o i 2.5 Myths & legends
t
a
t
c
e
p
x Slightly Important 2 E
1.5
Low Priority Possible Overkill Not at all Important 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 d e d ed d f i ie fi ie s sf s f ti i t i is a at a at S S S S ll t y a a r ly t h e e a w V m t e e o t r N om x S E Satisfaction Figure 4.31: Learning expectation-satisfaction scatter plot for Victoria 224
4.4.2.6 Demographics
This section summarizes the demographic data collected in questions Pre-
Q13/Post-Q15 through Pre-Q16/Post-Q18. The questions are presented by location as well as in summary.
Country of Origin (Pre-Q13/Post-Q15)
In total the highest proportion of participants were Canadians, followed by
Americans and British (Figure 4.32). Canadians formed the highest proportion of whale- watchers in Telegraph Cove, followed by British and Americans. Canadians were the highest percentage in Tofino, followed by Americans and British. The largest proportion of whale-watchers in Victoria was American, followed by Canadians and British. Whale- watchers who participated in this study came from 25 different countries altogether.
225
Canada
U.S.A.
United Kingdom
Germany
Country of Origin Holland
Switzwerland
Other (19 co's.)
0 1020304050 Percentage of Respondents
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.32: Country of origin by location
226
Gender (Pre-Q13/Post-Q15)
Whale-watchers who participated in this survey were 41.1% male and 57.1% female; 3.4% of the questionnaires were answered as a couple (Figure 33). There is no significant difference between locations.
Victoria
Tofino
Telegraph Cove
Total
0 102030405060 Percentage of Respondents
Couple Male Female
Figure 4.33: Gender
227
Age Groups (Pre-Q14/Post-Q16)
Figure 4.34 presents the age groupings of the participants. The largest age group were those 30-39 years old. Telegraph Cove attracted a younger age group, which is a statistically significant difference from Tofino (U=107304.5, p=0.008).
under 19
20 - 29
30 - 39
Age Group 40 - 49
50 - 59
over 60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage of Respondents
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.34: Age groups by location
228
Highest Level of Education Completed (Pre-Q15/Post-Q17)
Whale-watch participants in British Columbia in 2000 were well educated (Figure
4.35). Forty-eight percent of the participants held a university degree or post-graduate degree. There are no statistically significant differences between locations.
University degree
Post-graduate degree
Some college/univ.
College diploma Highest Level of Education High school
Grade school
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage of Respondents
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.35: Highest level of education completed
229
4.4.3 Question 2: Difference in Attitude Between Pre- and Post-Trip Groups
Pre- and post-trip group demographics were tested to determine whether the two
groups were from the same population, in order to test between them. Table 4.11 presents
statistical test results of pre- versus post-trip demographics for country of origin, gender,
age and level of education completed. There is no significant difference between pre- and post-trip groups for country of origin, gender or level of education. Due to the significant difference between ages in Telegraph Cove and Tofino pre- and post-trip age groups are compared at each location. A significant difference in pre- and post-trip age groups does exist for the Telegraph Cove data (U=15817.5, p<0.000). However this difference accounts for only 15.6% of the total sample used to test for demographic differences; it was therefore assumed that this statistical difference may not represent a significant demographic difference and that the pre- and post-trip groups came from sufficiently similar populations to test between them.
Pre- and post-trip groups were analysed for change in views toward whale management (Figure 4.36, Table 12) and NEP (Figure 4.37, Table 13). For views toward whale management there are statistically significant decreases in agreement concerning payment guaranteeing whale sightings (U=259482.5, p<0.000) and allowing commercial
whale hunting (U=279072.0, p=0.019). There are statistically significant increases in
agreement that protecting whales is important (U=283313.0, p=0.039) and for limitation of vessel numbers (U=245982.5, p<0.000). Overall, there is a statistically significant increase in View Towards Whale Management scores between pre- (40.78) and post-trip
(42.26) groups (t=-3.705, df=1, p<0.000).
230
Table 4.11: Mann-Whitney U-tests of demographics for pre- and post-trip groups
Demographic Mann-Whitney U-test Country of Origin U=262038.0, p=0.396 Gender U=248713.0, p=0.350 Telegraph Cove U=15817.5, p<0.000
Age Group Tofino U=29537.0, p=0.488
Victoria U=33395.0, p=0.619 Level of Education Completed U=246199.5, p=0.099
The New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) section is used to test for attitudes towards general natural resource management issues. There is a statistically significant increase for the statement: “When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results” (U=241789.5, p=0.020), and a weak statistically significant decrease for the statement: “Plants and animals exist primarily to be used for humans”
(U=241002.0, p=0.040). Overall, however, there is no significant difference between pre-
(36.53) and post-trip (36.47) groups for the NEP score (t=0.114, df=1, p=0.909).
231
Protect whales
Gov't obligation protect
Limit no. of boats
$$ to research
Areas no w-watching
Boats minimum distance
Times no w-watching
Endangered no w-watching
Pay guarantee whales
First Nations ceremonial
Competing whales culled
First Nations commercial
Commercial whaling
strongly01234 slightly no slightly strongly disagree disagree opinion agree agree Post-trip Pre-trip Figure 4.36: Views toward whale management by pre- and post-trip group
232
Table 4.12: Mann-Whitney U-tests of views toward whale management between pre- and post-trip groups
Whale Management Statement Mann-Whitney U-Test U=283313 Protecting whales is important p=0.039 U=245982.5 Boats should have to stay minimum distance from whales p<0.000 Portion of cost to go whale-watching should go to directly to research and U=281627 management p=0.107 U=283450.5 Number of whale-watching boats around whales should be limited p=0.178 U=281593.5 The government has an obligation to protect whales p=0.067 U=285660.5 Should be some areas set aside where whale-watching is not allowed p=0.290 Should be some time set aside when whales get a break from whale- U=287508.5 watching p=0.436 Whale populations that are endangered should be off limits to whale- U=279176.5 watching p=0.074 U=259482.5 Paying for a whale-watching trip should guarantee I see whales p<0.000 First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for ceremonial U=291813.5 purposes p=0.799 Whale populations should be reduced when they compete with human food U=290287 resources p=0.652 First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for commercial U=284681 purposes p=0.187 U=279072 Commercial hunting of whales should be allowed p=0.019
233
Must live in harmony
Nature's balance easily upset
Severely abusing env.
Interfere disasterous results
Limited resources: spaceship
Need steady state economy
Limit to growth exists
Near population limit
Right to modify env.
Created rule nature
Animals for human use
Need not adapt: technology
strongly01234 slightly no slightly strongly disagree disagree opinion agree agree Post-trip Pre-trip
Figure 4.37: New Environmental Paradigm by pre- and post-trip group
Table 4.13: Mann-Whitney U-tests of New Environmental Paradigm between pre- and post-trip groups
New Environmental Paradigm Statement Mann-Whitney U-Test U=250001.0 Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive p=0.152 U=245937.0 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset p=0.059 U=243517.5 Humans are severely abusing the environment p=0.229 U=241789.5 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results p=0.021 U=252435.5 The Earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources p=0.524 To maintain a health economy we will have to develop a "steady state" U=249668.5 economy... p=0.811 There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot U=244265.0 expand p=0.445 We are approaching the limit to the number of people that the Earth can U=251998.0 support p=0.562 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their U=248253.0 needs p=0.349 U=242040.0 Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature p=0.092 Humans need not adapt to the environment because the can remake it to U=246324.5 suit their needs p=0.268 U=241002.0 Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans 0.040 234
4.4.4 Question 3: Whale-Watcher Specialization
The specialization index was calculated to classify participants by their
knowledge and previous experience regarding whales and whale-watching. The index is
composed of survey questions concerning previous experiences seeing whales (Q1),
participating on whale-watching trips (Q2), the priority of participating in a whale- watching trip during their vacation (Q3), and learning about whales (Pre-Q10/Post-Q12).
The maximum specialization score is 20 (see Table 4.1 in Methods). The index was then used to compare specialization by location to examine whether site-specific management programs would be required (sensu Duffus and Dearden 1990).
Overall, whale-watchers in British Columbia in 2000 have a specialization index score of 9.11 (n=1555) (Table 4.14). Whale-watchers in Telegraph Cove are the most specialized (specialization score=10.68), followed by Tofino (8.68) and Victoria (8.19).
These differences are statistically significant (F=113.48, df=2, p<0.000). The variances are unequal (Levene’s=31.533, p<0.000) necessitating the use of a post-hoc test that allows unequal variances. Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc test revealed that differences in specialization scores are statistically significant between all three locations (TC vs. TOF:
Tamhane’s T2=2.0, p<0.000; TC vs. VIC: Tamhane’s T2=2.49, p<0.000; TOF vs. VIC:
Tamhane’s T2=0.5, p=0.009). A reliability test on the index gives an alpha value of 0.66.
Groups are labelled from least experienced to most experienced: Novice,
Intermediate, Advanced and Expert. Overall, 81.6% of the participants are classified as
Novice (34.1%) and Intermediate (47.5%) (Figure 4.38). Victoria has the least specialized whale-watchers with 90.7% in the Novice and Intermediate categories, versus
235
Table 4.14: Calculation of Specialization Index
Location: Index mean ANOVA Tukeys HSD Dependant Locations Johnstone JS/TOF JS/VIC TOF/VIC Variables Tofino Victoria Combined F p Strait p p p How many times seen whales in 2.22 1.73 1.66 1.85 40.299 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 0.543 wild? How many times on commercial 1.98 1.53 1.46 1.64 35.059 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 0.491 whale-watching trip? Priority of whale- 3.84 3.11 2.89 3.25 99.906 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 0.004 watching
Previous learning 2.64 2.33 2.19 2.37 26.069 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 0.058
Specialization 10.68 8.68 8.19 9.11 113.48 <0.000 <0.000 <0.000 0.009 Index
86% in Tofino and 66.1% in Telegraph Cove. Telegraph Cove received 34.9% Advanced and Expert whale-watchers, versus 14.1% in Tofino and 9.4% in Victoria.
Mean scores for View Towards Whale Management (Figure 4.39) and NEP
(Figure 4.40), as well as for expectation and satisfaction (Figure 4.41), were analysed by specialization groups. Statistically significant differences exist between all specialization groups for View Towards Whale Management and NEP (Table 4.15).
236
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced Specialization Group
Expert
0 1020304050 Percentage of Respondents
Total Telegraph Cove Tofino Victoria
Figure 4.38: Specialization groups by location
Significant differences are given in bold. Expectation scores show little difference between groups (Table 4.16). Satisfaction scores show greater difference; the
Novice group has significantly lower satisfaction than the other three groups (Table
4.17).
Correlation between the View Towards Whale Management and NEP scores and
specialization groups was relatively weak, although the associations were statistically
significant (Table 4.15). There is therefore some evidence of correlation between specialization groups and View Towards Whale Management, less so for New
Environmental Paradigm. There is also a correlation between the learning expectation score and specialization group, although not between specialization group and trip or
guide expectations (Table 4.16). All three satisfaction scores demonstrate statistically significant yet weak correlations with specialization groups (Table 4.17). 237
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced
Expert
0 1020304050
New Environmental Paradigm (max score=48) Attitude to Cetacean Managememt (max score=52)
Figure 4.39: View Towards Whale Management and NEP scores by specialization group
Table 4.15: ANOVA and correlation tests of View Towards Whale Management and NEP scores by specialization group
Correlation ANOVA Tamhane’s T2 Post-Hoc Kendell’s Spearman’s N vs I T=-1.82 p<0.000 N vs A T=-3.83 p<0.000 View towards Cetacean F=25.548 N vs E T=-6.64 p<0.000 0.165 0.208 Management P<0.000 I vs A T=-2.01 p=0.002 p<0.000 p<0.000 I vs E T=-4.82 p<0.000 A vs E T=-2.81 p=0.042 N vs I T=-1.41 p=0.043 N vs A T=-3.24 p<0.000 New Environmental F=13.470 N vs E T=-6.68 p<0.000 0.103 0.130 Paradigm p<0.000 I vs A T=-1.83 p=0.046 p<0.000 p<0.000 I vs E T=-5.28 p<0.000 A vs E T=-3.45 p=0.045 N=Novice, I=Intermediate, A=Advanced, E=Expert
238
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced Specialization Group
Expert
0 10203040 Expectation Score
Learning Expectations (max score=52) Guide Expectations (max score=44) General Expectations (max score=48)
Figure 4.40: Expectation scores by specialization group
Table 4.16: ANOVA and correlation tests of expectation scores by specialization group
Correlation ANOVA Tamhane’s T2 Post-Hoc Kendell’s Spearman’s N vs I T=-0.90 p=0.165 N vs A T=-0.76 p=0.838 F=1.789 N vs E T=-1.28 p=0.862 0.069 0.086 Trip Expectation p=0.148 I vs A T= 0.14 p=1.000 p=0.065 p=0.066 I vs E T=-0.38 p=1.000 A vs E T=-0.52 p=0.999 N vs I T= 0.16 p=1.000 N vs A T=-1.60 p=0.133 F=2.035 N vs E T=-1.16 p=0.974 0.051 0.063 Guide Expectation p=0.108 I vs A T=-1.76 p=0.051 p=0.157 p=0.162 I vs E T=-1.32 p=0.950 A vs E T= 0.44 p=1.000 N vs I T= -0.92 p=0.571 N vs A T=-2.56 p=0.048 F=3.403 N vs E T=-4.05 p=0.343 0.093 0.116 Learning Expectation p=0.018 I vs A T=-1.64 p=0.375 p=0.010 p=0.010 I vs E T=-3.12 p=0.599 A vs E T=-1.48 p=0.982 N=Novice, I=Intermediate, A=Advanced, E=Expert
239
Novice
Intermediate
Advanced Specialization Group
Expert
010203040 Satisfaction Score
Learning Satisfaction (max score=52) Guide Satisfaction (max score=44) General Satisfaction (max score=40)
Figure 4.41: Satisfaction scores by specialization group
Table 4.17: ANOVA and correlation tests of satisfaction scores by specialization group
Correlation ANOVA Tamhane’s T2 Post-Hoc Kendell’s Spearman’s N vs I T=-0.95 p=0.065 N vs A T=-1.47 p=0.016 F=6.599 N vs E T=-2.99 p=0.002 0.114 0.145 Trip Satisfaction p<0.000 I vs A T=-0.52 p=0.838 p<0.000 p<0.000 I vs E T=-2.04 p=0.059 A vs E T=-1.52 p=0.352 N vs I T=-1.19 p=0.053 N vs A T=-1.37 p=0.127 F=3.756 N vs E T=-2.51 p=0.048 0.077 0.097 Guide Satisfaction p=0.011 I vs A T=-0.18 p=0.990 p=0.002 p=0.002 I vs E T=-1.33 p=0.502 A vs E T=-1.14 p=0.688 N vs I T=-1.75 p=0.038 N vs A T=-2.20 p=0.090 F=7.057 N vs E T=-5.79 p=0.001 0.102 0.131 Learning Satisfaction p<0.000 I vs A T=-0.45 p=0.996 p<0.000 p<0.000 I vs E T=-4.03 p=0.033 A vs E T=-3.58 p=0.126 N=Novice, I=Intermediate, A=Advanced, E=Expert 240
4.4.5 Summary of Results
Data were collected from whale-watchers pre- and post-trip in Telegraph Cove,
Tofino and Victoria, British Columbia, during June to September, 2000. Demographic
data reveal that whale-watchers in this study reside primarily in Canada, the U.S.A. or the
U.K. Canadians compose the majority of whale-watchers in Telegraph Cove and Tofino,
Americans in Victoria. There may be a slight bias in the origin data given that whale-
watchers who did not possess a sufficient command of English were not asked to
participate. Whale-watchers in this study were approximately 40% male and 60% female,
are spread evenly in age between 30 and 60, and are highly educated. These trends are
similar in all three locations. Although general education level is similar between
locations, specific education relating to cetaceans is not, and is an important factor in classifying whale-watchers at the different locations.
Whale-watchers that travel to the three different locations comprise different group types, beyond demographics. Telegraph Cove whale-watchers are the most specialized group, possessing more experience with whales and whale-watching, more time spent learning about whales, and having travelled to the area specifically to go whale-watching. They place greater value on conservation for both natural resource management in general (NEP), and cetaceans in particular. Telegraph Cove whale- watchers are extremely satisfied with their whale-watching experience, displaying the highest satisfaction of the three locations.
Tofino whale-watchers are the second-most specialized group, falling between the other two locations in previous experience with whales and whale-watching, learning about cetaceans and in conservation attitudes. Tofino whale-watchers, however, 241
comprise the least satisfied group with respect to the whale-watching experience, the difference often significantly behind the other two locations.
Victoria whale-watchers are the least specialized group of whale-watchers. They have the least prior experience with whales and whale-watching, have less experience learning about cetaceans, and comprise the largest majority of whale-watchers for whom the activity was unplanned. They also display the lowest conservation-oriented attitude.
Victoria whale-watchers are very satisfied with their whale-watching experience, although not as satisfied as those in Telegraph Cove. This difference is also often statistically significant.
A statistically significant difference exists between pre- and post-trip groups for
Views Toward Whale Management issues. In particular, post-trip participants possessed significantly less agreement that paying for whale-watching should guarantee seeing whales and significantly more agreement that boat numbers around whales should be limited. There is no overall significant difference between pre- and post-trip groups for general attitudes toward the environment (NEP). 242
4.5 DISCUSSION
In this study whale-watchers are satisfied with their experience, which is similar to all previous studies. However, when the data are analysed by location, Tofino whale- watchers are 7% less satisfied than Victoria and 15% less than Telegraph Cove whale- watchers. Tofino whale-watchers fall between Telegraph Cove and Victoria whale- watchers in terms of specialization. As specialization is shown to be correlated with satisfaction, Tofino whale-watchers may have been expected to demonstrate satisfaction between the other two locations; however, this was not the case.
The reason for this result likely lies in two specific aspects of whale-watching in
Tofino, unrelated to the whale-watchers: the species that are watched and vessel placement. Killer whales, the primary viewing subjects in Telegraph Cove and Victoria, are often watched in groups numbering ten or more animals, and are quite visible given their tall dorsal fins and black and white colouration. They exhibit spectacular behaviours such as breaching and spyhopping, and are emblematic of whale-watching in British
Columbia. Further, killer whales are likely identifiable to many people from television nature programs, wildlife photographs, British Columbia tourism advertising, movies such as Free Willy, and their prevalence as an aquarium species.
Gray whales foraging in Clayoquot Sound tend to be solitary, and often remain in one spot close to shore where they reveal little of their body and blend into their surroundings. They rarely breach and in recent years have been feeding primarily on shallow water prey (Dunham & Duffus 2001) that restricts deep diving behaviour that raises their tail flukes above the water. Whale-watch vessel operators in Tofino are also generous in abiding by their suggested minimum 100 metre viewing distance, often 243 remaining farther away (Duffus, pers. com., Tombach pers. com., pers. obs.). Thus, the whales, which are cryptic in their appearance near shore are often very difficult to view, especially for inexperienced whale-watchers. The three lowest satisfaction items for
Tofino whale-watchers are “number of whales seen”, “distance from which whales were observed” and “opportunities to take pictures”, emphasizing that respondents are not satisfied with what they saw. Whale-watching in Tofino, when coupled with pre-viewing expectations, may result in a less satisfying experience than in Telegraph Cove or
Victoria.
Similar to Finkler (2001), Muloin (1998), Neil et al (1996) and Tourism Australia
(1999), over 60% of respondents in this study were first-time participants on a commercial whale-watching trip. It is evident, however, that whale-watchers can be classified into specialist groups. Twenty percent more respondents had been commercial whale-watching previously in Telegraph Cove than in Victoria, 17% more than in Tofino.
The disparities are even larger for previously viewing wild whales in any manner.
Education is an important factor; while there were no significant differences in education level between locations, there is a statistically significant difference in previous learning about whales between Telegraph Cove whale-watchers and those in the other two locations. Finally, while 48.5% of Telegraph Cove whale-watchers travelled there specifically to view whales, only 18.1% did so in Tofino, 10.8% in Victoria.
Telegraph Cove whale-watchers are therefore the most specialized, Victoria whale-watchers the least and Tofino whale-watchers fall in between. Duffus & Dearden’s
(1990) framework (Figure 4.5) explains this trend. The required travelling distance to
Telegraph Cove and its low level of tourism infrastructure and tourism activities are 244
beyond acceptable levels for many tourists. Unless whale-watching is important enough
to warrant a dedicated trip, most tourists will not whale-watch in Telegraph Cove. Due to
the dominance of the generalist whale-watcher, for whom whale-watching is one of numerous activities, many would-be whale-watchers may not even know about whale-
watching in Johnstone Strait.
The size, proximity to urban areas and generalist nature of the current whale-
watching industry in Victoria may push more experienced whale-watchers to travel to
Tofino and particularly Johnstone Strait. These push factors are indicative of the
behavioural model of recreation participation (Rollins & Robinson 2002, after Manning
1999) and may explain the presence of more specialized whale-watchers in Tofino and
Telegraph Cove. More specialized whale-watchers may be seeking experiences in a less
urban, more nature-oriented environment. Duffus & Dearden’s (1990) application of
limits of acceptable change to wildlife viewing may also explain this trend. There is a
greater percentage of generalist whale-watchers in Victoria, which is an urban tourist
hub, possesses a more developed tourism infrastructure and offers easy access to whale-
watching. For more specialized whale-watchers, Victoria may have passed the limits of
acceptable change, causing the more experienced group to travel to Tofino and Johnstone
Strait.
ANOVA and Tamhane’s T2 post-hoc tests reveal that there are statistically
significant differences between all specialization groups for the View Towards Whale
Management and NEP scores (Results, Table 4.12). However, these relationships reveal
only weak correlations, although the associations are significant. The satisfaction scores
show several statistically significant differences between the Novice and three more 245
specialized groups, but there are no significant differences between the three more
specialized groups themselves. Correlation is weak but still significant here as well.
These weak correlations may be explained by the high scores obtained for the summary scores, irrespective of specialist group, and the variability within groups. For example, Novice whale-watchers score 40.08 out of 52 for View Towards Whale
Management, while Expert whale-watchers score 46.71, a difference of 6.63. While the specialization group means are significantly different, standard deviations of 8.08
(Novice), 6.98 (Intermediate), 6.92 (Advanced) and 4.29 (Expert) are large enough over the range of summary means to result in a weak correlation. The View Towards Whale
Management is, however, less variable in Expert whale-watchers than Novice. A higher mean score that is less variable supports a group that is more environmentally oriented.
Therefore, while statistical correlation between specialization group and View Towards
Whale Management is weak there is still a basis for the conclusion that the more specialized whale-watchers in this study possess stronger environmental attitudes.
Theoretically, therefore, a location that receives a greater proportion of Advanced and
Expert whale-watchers could therefore develop a more complex education program than one that receives primarily Novice and Intermediate whale-watchers, where more basic environmental education would be required. This is supported by the statistically significant correlation between learning expectation and specialization group; more specialized whale-watchers had a higher learning expectation (Table 4.16).
Whale-watchers in this study are composed of specialized sub-groups and the three different sites examined receive whale-watchers in different proportions from these groups. However, whale-watching in British Columbia is still dominated by generalist- 246
type participants. Novice and Intermediate groups account for 81.6% of B.C. whale-
watchers, resulting in an overall specialization score of 9.11 out of 20. Even though the percentage of Advanced and Expert whale-watchers in Telegraph Cove was 20% greater
than Tofino and 25% greater than Victoria, Telegraph Cove was still composed mainly of
Novice and Intermediate whale-watchers (66.1%). As a result, introductory education
regarding whales in all three locations is warranted. There is not a high enough
percentage of Advanced and Expert whale-watchers in B.C. currently to engage whale- watchers in education programs that discuss the nature of conservation issues on a
broader scale. This is reinforced by the lower priority of learning in whale-watcher
expectations.
The growth in popularity and accessibility of whale-watching in British Columbia
likely results in the attraction of a generalist whale-watcher. Whale-watching is a
recreation activity that requires no special skills, no need to be in good physical shape
and no prior education. It is therefore a wildlife viewing recreational activity that is
accessible to many people. This generalist trend for whale-watching is likely to be
similar in locations such as southern California, Hawaii, New England, eastern Australia
and locations in New Zealand where whale-watching draws from a large, generalist
tourist-base. Greater proportions of specialist whale-watchers may occur in remote
locations, where ecotourism is the sole tourism attraction. Such locations include
Churchill, Canada, the Karnali Basin, Nepal and Midway Island, U.S.A. Areas where
whale-watching remains undeveloped, such as the Solomon Islands, Eastern Russia and
African countries such as Kenya and Tanzania, may also attract more specialized whale-
watchers. As these areas become more developed, incorporating more varied tourist 247
attractions and greater infrastructure, the proportion of generalist whale-watchers will
increase.
Currently, an understanding of whale-watcher specialization in B.C. indicates a
generalist-dominated industry that requires basic cetacean and marine ecology education
programs. However, in Telegraph Cove, Stubbs Island Charters has begun to develop
more sophisticated on-board education programs in Telegraph Cove (J. Borrowman, pers.
com). A program that more readily addresses the ecological and social aspects of whale-
watching and marine conservation, such as uncertainty, precautionary approach and self-
regulation, those ideas that can lead to greater ecological understanding and more
environmentally friendly behaviour, may reach a larger percentage of whale-watchers in
Telegraph Cove than the other two centres. However, there remains a large percentage of generalist whale-watchers visiting Telegraph Cove that may limit this. Further, construction of the Inland Island Highway, which improves access to the northern areas of Vancouver Island, and the construction of a resort in Telegraph Cove may result in an
increase in generalist whale-watchers in Telegraph Cove in the near future.
In the literature review I presented the idea that education has an important role to play in whale-watching, as a vehicle to promote environmentally friendly behaviour and as an element in whale-watching management. If this idea is true then the creation of an increasingly specialized whale-watcher is possible. A larger population of specialized
whale-watchers, larger than is now present in British Columbia, could provide a
management tool in that Advanced or Expert type whale-watchers would be more able to
identify conservation issues such as vessels approaching too closely to whales, or may
consider encouraging whale-watching companies to donate a portion of their fare to 248
cetacean research or use more environmentally friendly vessel propulsion mechanisms.
However, the body of empirical research that has been conducted calls the practicality of
these goals into question. The prime motivation to go whale-watching is to experience
seeing whales. Although learning is apparently a desirable part of the whale-watching
experience it always holds a lower, in some cases much lower priority (e.g. Duffus 1988,
Finkler 2001, Muloin 1998, Orams 2000, Russell & Hodson 2002, Tourism Queensland
1999, Wilson 2000), and therefore may not be desired at the level needed to allow
education to play the roles stated above. Muloin (1998) found that learning ranked below
experiential aspects and was equal to relaxing in a pleasant setting. Finkler (2001) found that learning how one could help to protect whales had an extremely low importance.
Results from the present study are consistent with previous findings. General learning is important, yet ranks below seeing whales, seeing whales in an uncrowded setting and seeing them in a respectful manner. Specifically, learning about the marine environment ranks sixth, and how to help protect marine wildlife eighth out of eleven items related to expectations of the guide. Among specific learning items, measures taken to protect marine wildlife ranks second, above specific life history subjects. These results and those of Finkler (2001), mentioned above, suggest that whale-watchers want to know that they are not harming whales by watching them, and that whales are being protected in general, however they may not be as interested in learning how they can be active in helping with protection themselves.
These findings are further supported by the lower overall importance placed on specific learning items in the expectations for learning section, as opposed to the importance of items in the general and guide expectations. Coupled with this result are 249
the low expectation-satisfaction scores for specific learning items revealed by the
Martilla & James (1977) importance-performance model scatter plots (Figures 4.29 –
4.31). For Tofino and Victoria in particular, this indicates that although specific learning
possesses a lower relative importance, these expectations are still not being met
successfully. Although not specifically addressed in this study, this result suggests
weaknesses in the interpretation programs aboard the whale-watching vessels sampled in
this study. A similar conclusion was reached by Russell & Hodson (2002). This requires
further investigation. The application of a monitored education program such as that
presented by Orams (1997) (Figure 4.6) may serve to improve the delivery of interpretation during whale-watching. Such a program would require knowledge of what
whale-watchers would specifically like to know, development of an education program
that applied this knowledge, followed by examination of whether the information was
received. To be effective, monitoring of whether the information is received should be
both short and long-term. In the long-term, as mentioned above, the goal would be to
create more specialized whale-watchers.
Orams (1997) illustrated that participants at a dolphin-feeding site exposed to a
pre-experience education program answered questions regarding dolphins better than the
control group. However, with respect to general ocean management attitudes, intentions
to educate others and take actions such as joining an environmental organisation there
was no significant difference between groups. If education is to be a successful
management and behaviour modification tool it is the second group of questions and
intentions investigated by Orams (1997) that need to be affected. Orams (1997)
demonstrated only partial success in the short term. 250
The long-term effect of education, however, has received very little attention. Neil et al. (1996) found that whale-watchers who had been whale-watching before exhibited higher general knowledge of humpback whales, however, knowledge of specific behaviours, whaling history and its effects and conservation issues was poor for both groups. In the current study Post-trip Q5, which asked respondents to indicate which species they had seen on the trip (Appendix 4.2), was discarded due to the number of respondents who approached the naturalists and myself to ask what they had just seen
(pers. obs., C. Garside pers. com., J. Jackson pers. com.). In the interests of company- customer relations, the naturalists felt they should answer the respondents’ questions.
These results indicate that whale-watchers may retain little that is imparted during the trip. It may also, however, indicate poor interpretation (cf. Russel & Hodson 2002).
While these findings are not promising, techniques that might be explored for creating more effective interpretation programs would be useful in future research.
Data were analysed in this study to examine whether current whale-watching practices in British Columbia have the potential to change attitudes towards whale management and general conservation issues. There are four significant changes (out of thirteen items) in Views Toward Whale Management issues between pre- and post-trip groups (Table 4.12). First, whale-watchers decreased their agreement that paying for whale-watching should guarantee they see whales. This result indicates that some whale- watchers learned that animals in the wild are unpredictable and uncontrollable by humans; and should remain so for a wild viewing experience. This could have been a result of contact with wild animals as well as teaching from the naturalist. Second, respondents increased their agreement that whale-watching vessels should stay a 251
minimum distance away from whales. This change could have been the result of experiential learning, seeing boats near the whales. However, seeing a whale up close to the boat was not an important expectation. These two trends indicate that close proximity
may not only be unimportant initially, but also gains support as a result of participation
on a whale-watching trip. Two other significant differences were an increase in
agreement that protecting whales is important and a decrease in agreement to allow
commercial whaling. These two results may emanate from teaching about whales or be a
reaction to seeing wild whales; however, it indicates that the whale-watching experience
may garner support for cetacean conservation. This general result is similar to Russell &
Hodson (2002), in which whale-watchers indicated that whale-watching increased their
appreciation of whales
Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in the Views Toward Whale
Management Score, indicating an increase in conservation-oriented attitudes toward
cetacean management. Whether this is primarily a result of the experiential aspects of
participating on a whale-watching trip or from information given by the naturalist is
unclear; naturalist programs are not standardized in B.C. and the education varies in
subject and quality (pers. obs.). Further it is unknown whether the changes recorded in
this study have any long-term impact in thought or action. This is a difficult trend to
address due to intervening variables that may or may not affect the subject during the
interval between whale-watching and subsequent investigation. However, these results
indicate that further attention is warranted regarding the potential of whale-watching to educate participants about cetacean conservation. 252
Testing of the New Environmental Paradigm between pre- and post-trip groups provided less significant results than Views Toward Whale Management. The only significant difference was an increase in agreement that “when humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results.” It is unclear if this difference resulted from education during the whale-watching trip, although issues such as the effects of whaling, toxins, over-fishing and forestry on cetaceans are sometimes discussed on whale- watching vessels in B.C. (pers. obs.) However, there was no overall significant difference in the NEP Score. There are two possible reasons for this result: 1) participants were already predisposed to the NEP, or 2) the link between specific issues, such as toxins, over-fishing and forestry, and global environmental conservation was not made.
The concept of education as a vehicle for behaviour modification and whale- watching management tool is therefore still unclear. The prime motivations of whale- watchers indicate that whale-watching is an experiential and aesthetic activity, rather than an intellectual one, although some learning may be indicated by these results. Identifiable benefits are enjoyment and satisfaction of the experience. Whale-watchers do not appear to engage in whale-watching to be prompted into environmentally-friendly action.
Therefore, they may not absorb the type of information that will cause behaviour modification, even if it is presented, especially in the short time frame available for whale-watchers to achieve their more experiential goals.
The time needed to develop the bridge between marine conservation issues that can be linked to the whale-watching experience and more sophisticated, far-reaching issues, such as those encapsulated in the NEP that can lead to behaviour alteration, may 253
not be available during a whale-watching trip. It is interesting to note that although some
authors (e.g. Forestell 1993, Neil et al. 1996) mention the time limitation of whale-
watching, education is still suggested as a transcendent benefit of whale-watching and a
potential management tool. As mentioned above, the investigation of techniques to
enhance the delivery of interpretation to promote conservation is needed.
This goal will likely be difficult, as it appears that the role of education in whale-
watching for the majority of whale-watchers is a secondary benefit, likely to enhance the experience of seeing whales. It can satisfy curiosity but may not be able to alter behaviour. Whale-watching is a recreational experience that satisfies escape, curiosity
and adventure motivations. For the majority of whale-watchers the return of everyday life
may distance them from the experience.
254
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
Results of Duffus (1988), Finkler (2001), Wilson (2001) and this study reveal whale-watcher characteristics in British Columbia (including San Juan Islands, WA) over twelve years have changed little. While this body of work provides a detailed description of who goes whale-watching, what they expect and what they experience, it points to less in the way of specific management solutions. The similarity of results in the British
Columbia research to work in other areas of the world also indicates that general characteristics of whale-watchers are becoming well understood. The specialization research in this study has revealed dominance by generalist whale-watchers. The majority
of whale-watchers, especially in Victoria, where the majority of people go whale-
watching in British Columbia, may not have basic ecological contexts upon which to base
conservation messages. Education must begin with basic whale and marine ecology,
interspersed around the experiential foci sought by whale-watchers in B.C. The limited
time during whale-watching trips makes it difficult to progress to more detailed
conservation ideals. This scenario is not immediately transferable to other whale-
watching locations without specialization research, although as discussed above, research in other locations has revealed whale-watchers with similar characteristics. In addition, the methods of assigning specialization to ecotourists is still rudimentary, requiring further investigation into the concept of itself.
Three areas which require further exploration in B.C., which are also applicable elsewhere, are: 1) the quality of the interpretation product aboard whale-watching vessels, 2) whether education imparted during the whale-watch remains with the participant in such a way to contribute to increased conservation-oriented behaviour, and 255
3) if getting extremely close to whales is an important motivation for whale-watchers.
Each have implications for whale-watching management.
Results from this study do not provide conclusive evidence that education is a benefit stream of whale-watching. Although several statistically significant differences in attitude occurred that potentially indicate education of whale-watchers took place, it is unclear whether the cause was experiential or pedagogical. Further, it is uncertain whether these changes have any managerial utility for whale-watching, or remain with the participant to contribute to behaviour modification that benefits conservation issues. It is difficult to assess whether these goals can be achieved, due to the economic costs of such studies and the potential to miss intervening variables that can make identification of cause-effect processes problematic. The limited work that has attempted to address these subjects, such as Neil et al. (1996), Orams (1997), Russell & Hodson (2002), and
Wiley et al. (1995), is also inconclusive as to the role education can play in whale- watching management. Application of novel approaches to investigate this issue are important however, as whale-watching currently carries a presumed education banner.
The main issue in whale-watching management currently is proximity (whether by few or many boats). There is evidence, arising from this study as well as Finkler
(2001), Neil et al. (1996), and Orams (2000) that extremely close proximity to whales may not be of prime importance to whale-watchers. Getting close to whales lies below seeing whales and other experiential aspects during a whale watch and satisfaction is achieved without close proximity. However, Wiley et al. (1995) demonstrated that given the opportunity private boats will approach close to whales. Monitoring of private and commercial whale-watching activities in the Southern Vancouver Island/San Juan Is., 256
WA also indicates encroachment occurs (DFO 2001, Soundwatch 2001). My own
extensive experience with whale-watching in Victoria indicates the same trend. This is a
key issue, because it directly applies to management. Then, if there is a role for education
to play in management, perhaps it can be applied to vessel operators who may be mistakenly attempting to achieve close proximity to achieve satisfaction from their passengers. The creation of a larger population of specialized whale-watchers through effective education programs, if possible, may help in this instance as well, as such a group may be more willing to ask boat captains to remain further away from whales.
It currently appears that the accessibility of whale-watching, and consequent participation by generalist whale-watchers with their primarily experiential goals, may contribute to whale-watching existing in British Columbia not as a form of ecotourism but more simply as wildlife adventure tourism. Until the issue of whether or not whale- watching is providing a beneficial educational product, by definition, whale-watching in
British Columbia can not be considered bona fide ecotourism. This does not denigrate the activity itself; it satisfies current popular public desires to experience the thrill of viewing wild whales (although the question of negative ecological impact also remains).
However, the term ecotourism carries with it an ideal of conservation education that
whale-watching may not currently achieve in British Columbia, and should therefore not
be portrayed so. With standardized, high quality education programs (following a model
such as Orams 1997), whale-watching in British Columbia may be a potential tool for
conservation education in the future; however, in its current form such a goal may be
limited. 257
4.7 REFERENCES
Albrecht, D., G. Bultana, E. Hoiberg and P. Nowak. 1982. The New Environmental Paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education. 13:39-43.
Amante-Helwig, V. 1996. Ecotourist’s beliefs and knowledge about dolphins and the development of cetacean tourism. Aquatic Mammals. 22(2):131-140.
Armstrong, J.B. and M.E. Hutchins. 1996. Development of an attitude scale to measure attitudes towards humans’ use of nonhuman animals. Perceptual and Motor Skills 82:1003-1010.
Aylward, B., K. Allen, J. Echeverria and J. Tosi. 1996. Sustainable ecotourism in Costa Rica: the Monteverdi Cloud Forest Reserve. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:315- 343.
Baird, R.W. 1999. Status of Killer Whales in Canada. Report submitted to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Bright, A.D., H.K. Cordell and M.A. Tarrant. 1997. Attitudes toward wildlife species protection: assessing moderating and mediating effects in the value-attitude relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2(2):1-20.
Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research 9(3):174-187.
Bryan, H. 1979. Conflict in the great outdoors: towards understanding and managing for diverse sportsmen preferences. Sociological Studies No. 4, Bureau of Public Administration, The University of Alabama, University, Alabama.
Bulbeck, C. 1999. The “nature dispositions” of visitors to animal encounter sites in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Sociology. 35(2):129-148.
Burton, I. 1971. The social role of attitude and perception studies. In Perceptions and attitudes in resources management, W.R. Sewell and I. Burton (eds). Policy Research and Coordination Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, ON. p. 1-6.
Butler, J.R., and G.D. Fenton. 1987. Bird watchers of Point Pelee National Park, Canada: Their characteristics and activities with special consideration to their social and resource impacts. Alberta Naturalist.17(3):135-146.
Carlson, C. 1996. Whalewatching and its effects on the whales. Whalewatcher. 30(1):8- 10.
258
Chipman, B.D. and L.A. Helfrich. 1988. Recreational specialization and motivations of Virginia river anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 8:390- 398.
Chittleborough, G.C. 1992. Shouldn’t Our Children Know? Freemantle Arts Centre Press, Freemantle, Australia.
Clark, R.N. 1974. Social science, social scientists and wildlife management. Transactions of the 38th Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference. 38:103-107.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1999. Status assessment report, April 1999. COSEWIC, Ottawa, ON.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2001. Status assessment report, November 2001. COSEWIC, Ottawa, ON.
Constantine, R. 1999. Effects of tourism on marine mammals in New Zealand. Science for Conservation: 106, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Crompton, J. 1979. Motivations for pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism Research. 6:408-427.
Davis, D., S. Banks, A. Birtles, P. Valentine, and M. Cuthill. 1997. Whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine Park: managing tourism in an Austalian marine protected area. Tourism Management. 18(5):259-271.
Decker, D.J. and J.W. Enck. 1997. Examining assumptions in wildlife management: a contribution of human dimensions inquiry. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2(3):56-72.
Decker, D.J. and G. R. Goff. 1987. Valuing wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Ditton, R.B., D.K. Loomis and S.K. Choi. 1992. Recreation specialization: reconceptualization from a social world’s perspective. Journal of Leisure Research. 24(1):33-51.
Duffus, D.A. 1996. The recreational use of grey whales in southern Clayoquot Sound, Canada. Applied Geography. 16(3):179-190.
Duffus, D.A. and P. Dearden. 1993. Recreational use, valuation and management of killer whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Environmental Conservation. 20(2):149-156.
Duffus, D. A. and P. Dearden. 1992. Whales, science and protected area management in British Columbia, Canada. The George Wright Forum. 9:79-87. 259
Duffus, D. A. and P. Dearden. 1990. Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: a conceptual framework. Biological Conservation. 53:213-231.
Dunham, J.S. and D.A. Duffus. 2001. Foraging patterns of gray whales in central Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 223:299-310.
Dunlap, R.E. and K. Van Lierre. 1978. The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education. 9:10-19.
Dunn-Ross, E.D. and S.E. Iso-Ahola. 1991. Annals of Tourism Research. 18:226-237.
Eagles, P.F.J. 1992. The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research. 31(2):3-7.
Giroul, C., G. Ouellet and R. Soubrier. 2000. Etude des attentes et de la satisfactions de la clientele des croisieres aux baleines dans le secteur du parc marine du Saguenay-Saint-Laurent. Departement des Sciences du Loisir et de la Communication Sociale, University du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres.
Hammitt, W.E., J.N. Dunlin and G.R. Wells. 1993. Determinants of quality wildlife viewing in Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21(1):21-30.
Hanemann, W. M. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Perspectives. 8(4):19-43.
Hendee, J.C. and D. Potter. 1971. Human behaviour and wildlife management: needed research. Transactions of the 36th North American Wildlife and natural resources Conference. 36:383-396.
Hendee, J.C. and C. Schoenfeld. 1973. Human dimensions in wildlife programs. Reports on recent investigations. The Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
Higham, J.E.S. 1998. Tourists and albatrosses: the dynamics of tourism at the Northern Royal Albatross Colony, Taiaroa Head, New Zealand. Tourism Management. 19(6):521-531.
HLA Consultants, GAIA Consultant and Cottonwood Consultants (1990). Marketing watchable wildlife tourism in wildlife. Report prepared for Alberta Tourism and Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Edmonton, AB.
260
Hvenegaard, G.T. 1996. Tourist, ecotourists and birders at Doi Inthanon national park, Thailand. PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.
Hvenegaard, G.T. 1994. Ecotourism: a status report and conceptual framework. The Journal of Tourism Studies. 5(2):24-35.
Inskeep, E. 1987. Environmental planning for tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 14(1):118-135.
International Fund for Animal Welfare. 1997. Report of the International Workshop on the Educational Values of Whale Watching, Provincetown, MA, USA, 8th-11th May, 1997.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. 1989. Motivation for leisure. In Understanding Leisure and Recreation: Mapping the Past, Charting the Future. Venture Publishing, State College, PA. P. 247-279.
Iso-Ahola, S.E. 1982. Toward a social psychological theory of tourist motivation: a rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research. 9(2):256-262.
Kellert, 1999. American perceptions of marine mammals and their management. The Humane Society of the United States, Washington D.C.
Kellert, S.R. 1991. Canadian perceptions of marine mammal conservation and management in the Northwest Atlantic. International Marine Mammal Association Technical Report No. 91-04.
Kellert, S.R. 1989. Human-animal interactions; a review of American attitudes to wild and domestic animals in the Twentieth Century. In Animals and people sharing the world, A. Rowan (ed.). New England University Press, New England. P. 137- 175.
Kellert, S.R. and J.K. Berry. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge and behaviours toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:363-371.
Kozak, M. 2002. Comparitive analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tourism Management 23:221-232.
Kuhn, R.G. and E.L. Jackson. 1989. Stability of factor structures in the measurement of public environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education. 20(3):27-32.
Leopold, A. 1966. A sand county almanac with other essays on conservation from Round River. Oxford University Press, New York.
261
Lindberg, K. and B. McKercher. 1997. Ecotourism: A Critical Overview. Pacific Tourism Review. 1:65-79.
Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Martin, S.R. 1997. Specialization and differences in setting preferences among wildlife viewers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2(1):1-18.
McConnell, K.E. and I.E. Strand. 1997. Northeastern harbour porpoises: do scientists preference and values reflect those of the public? Ambio. 26(2):124-126.
McFarlane, B.L. 1996. Socialization influences of specialization among birdwatchers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 1(1):33-50.
McFarlane, B.L. 1994. Specialization and motivations of birdwatchers. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22:361-370.
McFarlane, B.L. and P.C. Boxall. 1996. Participation in wildlife conservation by birdwatchers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 1(3):1-14.
Muloin, S. T. 2000. The psychological benefits experienced from tourist-wildlife encounters. PhD Dissertation, School of Business, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
Muloin, S. 1998. Wildlife tourism; the psychological benefits of whale-watching. Pacific Tourism Review. 2(3/4):199-213.
Neil, D., Orams, M. and A. Baglioni. 1996. Effect of previous whale-watching experience on participants knowledge of, and response to, whales and whale- watching. In K. Colgan, S. Prasser and A Jeffery (eds), Encounters With Whales: 1995 Proceedings, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra ACT, Australia.
Orams, M. 2000. Tourists gettiing close to whales, is it what whale watching is all about? Tourism Management. 21(6):561-569.
Orams, M. 1997. The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into “greenies”? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research. 3:295-306.
Orams, M. 1996. A conceptual model of tourist-wildlife interaction; the case for education as a management strategy. Australian Geography. 27(1):38-51.
Orams, M.B. 1994. Creating effective interpretation for managing interaction between tourists and wildlife. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. 10:21-34.
262
Orams, M.B. and G.E. Hill. 1998. Controlling the ecotourist in a wild dolphin feeding program: is education the answer? The Journal of Environmental Education. 29(3):33-38.
Pearce, P.L., A.M. Morrison and J.L. Rutledge. 1998. Tourism: Bridges Across Continents. McGraw Publishing, Rooseville, NY.
Peyton, R.B. and E.E. Langenau, Jr. 1985. A comparison of attitudes held by BLM biologists and the general public toward animals.
Piaget, J. 1970. Psychology and Epistemology. W.W. Norton, New York.
Propst, D.B. and D.W. Lime. 1982. How satisfying is satisfaction research? In Forest and river recreation: research update. Agricultural Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 18, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Reynolds, P.C. and D. Braithwaite. 2001. Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management. 22:31-42.
Ross, P.S., G.M. Ellis, M.G. Ikonomou, L.G. Barrett-Lennard and R.F. Addison. 2000. High PCB concentrations in free-ranging Pacific killer whales, Orcinus orca: effects of age, sex and dietary preference. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40(6):504- 515.
Russell, C. L. 1994. Ecotourism as experiential environmental education? Journal of Experiential Education. 17(1):16-22.
Russell, C.L. and M.J. Ankeman. 1996. Orangutans as photographic collectibles: ecotourism and the commodification of nature. Tourism Recreation Research. 21(1):71-78.
Russell, C.L. and D. Hodson 2002. Whale-watching as critical science education? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 2(4):485- 504.
Ryan, C. 1998. The Tourist Experience: A New Introduction. Cassell Publishing, London.
Schanzell, H.A. and A.J. McIntosh. 2000. An insight in to the personal and emotive context of wildlife viewing at The Penguin Place, Otago Penninsula, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 8(1):37-52.
Scherl, L.M. 1987. Our wilderness: a psychological view. Habitat Australia. 15(4):32-35.
Schiff, M.R. 1971. The definition of perceptions and attitudes. In Perceptions and attitudes in resources management, W.R. Sewell and I. Burton (eds). Policy 263
Research and Coordination Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, ON. p. 7-12.
Schreyer, R., Lime, D. and D. Williams. 1984. Characterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behaviour. Journal of Leisure Research. 16(1):34-50.
Siachoono, S.M. 1995. Contingent valuation as an additional tool for evaluating wildlife utilization management in Zambia: Mumbwa Game Management Area. Ambio. 24(4):246-249.
Spash, Clive L. 1997. Ethics and environmental attitudes with implications for economic evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management. 50:403-416.
Tilt, W. 1987. From whaling to whale-watching. Transactions of the 52nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 52:567-585.
Tourism Queensland. 1999. 1998 Whale-watching survey: research findings.
Watson, A., Roggenbuck, J. and D. Williams. 1991. The influence of past experience on wilderness choice. Journal of Leisure Research. 23(1):21-36.
Weigel, R. and J. Weigel. 1978. Environmental concern: the development of a measure. Environment and Behaviour. 10(1); 3-15.
Wellman, J., J. Roggenbuck and A. Smith. 1982. Recreation specialization and the norms of depreciative behavior among canoeists. Journal of Leisure Research. 14(4):323-240.
Wight, P.W. 1996. North American ecotourism markets: motivations, preferences and destinations. Journal of Travel Research. 35(1):3-10.
Wiley, D. 1995. Can education programs effectively control harassment by recreational boaters? Background paper prepared for the Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Managing Whale-Watching, Montecastello di Vibio, Italy, March 30th – April 4th.
Williams, D., R. Schreyer and R. Knopf. 1990. The effect of experience use history on the multidimensional structure of motivations to participate in leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research. 22(1):36-54.
Wilson, J.M. 2001. Sustainable management of ecotourism: whale-watching in Tofino, British Columbia; a case study. MA Thesis, Whale Research Lab, Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.
264
Wortman, C.B., E.F. Loftus and M. Marshall. 1981. Psychology. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Ziffer, K. 1989. Ecotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. Conservation International and Earnst & Young, Washington, D.C.
265
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS
This dissertation is composed of three distinct research studies:
1. an examination of the global state of whale-watching management and
concomitant research
2. an analysis of the historical development, current practices and future
prospects of whale-watching management in British Columbia
3. a human dimensions case study of B.C. whale watchers to explore the utility
of social science research for B.C. whale-watching management.
This dissertation clearly illustrates that on a global scale whale-watching
protocols are extremely variable, and bear more relation to historical characteristics of the
site than to the size of the industry, the type of whale watched or their primary activities in the area. Whale-watching protocols have been established on the assumption that distance as a management tool is biologically meaningful to cetaceans. Minimum distances used have no proven biological meaning yet present the appearance that effective management is occurring; such management is therefore pseudo-precautionary.
Cetacean-human interaction research has been narrowly focussed. It lacks sufficient exploration of physiological measurements relating to vessel proximity, needs to address the role of intervening variables, employ experimental research designs and discuss methodological weaknesses. Terrestrial wildlife-human interaction research
should be consulted for comparative results and research design.
Whale-watching management in British Columbia is currently attempting to catch
up to the level of whale-watching industry development. Cetaceans viewed in B.C.,
although under the auspices of federal protection, constitute a commons resource. The 266
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada should enter into a co-management regime
to take advantage of stakeholder efforts that have developed detailed regional self-
regulatory protocols. The level to which industry-led development of whale-watching
management has reached is a strength of whale-watching management in B.C., although
some free-riding does occur. However, a set of federal regulations, with the threat of enforcement is needed to raise the level of legitimacy of whale-watching protocols and provide a stricter set of rules for organization of whale-watching activities so that research may take place. In order to address the main weakness of whale-watching management in B.C., lack of biological relevance of guidelines, research needs to be a priority within the co-management regime.
Human dimensions research may have a useful role to play in whale-watching management. It is illustrated herein that whale-watchers can be categorized into specialization classes, and that higher levels of specialization are related to higher interest in learning and attitudes to cetacean conservation. Development of monitored education programs aimed at increasing the percentage of specialized whale-watchers may produce whale-watchers that will become active in whale-watching management, through impact upon whale-watch vessel operator behaviour and whale-watch operator participation in research.
The conclusions and recommendations from each chapter allow for discussion of the fundamental questions posed in the introduction.
267
• What is the current general character of whale-watching?
Currently, whale-watching is a wildlife adventure tourism activity that could fall
prey to the tragedy of the commons. The open-access nature of the activity as it now operates creates a scenario in which tragedy of the commons could occur. It is not clear whether whale-watching is yet a classic case of tragedy of the commons because, although the number of resource users, and the number of their vessels, is unrestricted in most locations, it is unknown what effect this is having on the resource base.
The primary concern with respect to impact is proximity of vessels to the animals.
There is no consistency in the establishment of proximity guidelines, which are pseudo- precautionary in nature given that there is no understanding of whether minimum approach distances serve any biological function. The state of knowledge regarding this issue is poor, and will remain poor until fundamental whale-watching research develops that addresses physiological impacts to cetaceans. Interestingly, however, research herein supports the recent suggestion that perhaps close proximity to whales is not an important motivation for whale-watchers participating in the activity. While more extensive research needs to be undertaken regarding this issue, it may be an extremely important tool in promoting compliance to whale-watching protocols. Whether precautionary or pseudo-precautionary, minimum approach distances should still function to apply order to the act of whale-watching, and establish known variables for impact research.
Currently in British Columbia, whale-watchers are generalist in nature. Most are first-time whale-watchers who have little prior experience learning about whales. This is important to the education question because it reveals that whale-watchers may have little 268
context upon which to base issues pertaining to cetacean conservation. The study does reveal, however, that different whale-watching locations do attract whale-watchers with different levels of specialization. As this is the first study to examine specialization in whale-watchers, the concept is unrefined; however, the applicability of specialization to whale-watching education and management in general is worth exploring in other regions as it is a useful tool in examining the education question in more detail.
• What mechanisms have been, and are being, used to manage the activity on global and regional scales?
There appears to be little consistency in mechanisms to manage whale-watching
on a global scale. Whale-watching protocols seem to bear more relation to the size and
rate of increase of the industries in the 1990s than to the general ecological characteristics
examined here (large whales or dolphins watched, dominant activity, such as migration,
breeding feeding). The inconsistency in whale-watching practices insinuates that
minimum distances are established ad-hoc. Gray whales are a good example. On
breeding grounds in Mexico, minimum approach distance is 30 metres, while migrating
through U.S. waters 100 yards, in B.C., whether migrating or feeding, 100 meters, except
in Clayoquot Sound where minimum approach is 50 meters. This exemplifies that the
establishment of whale-watching regulations suffers from incomplete ecological
knowledge. In the case of gray whales, cooperation precedents through NAFTA, or by
the International Whaling Commission, could set the stage for harmonization of gray
whale viewing protocols at the multi-national level and provide an exemplar for the
viewing management of other migratory species. 269
Whale-watching protocols are currently enforced mainly through self-regulation by industry operators. Even where legislation exists, compliance is a problem, indicating a lack of enforcement, and therefore a dependence on the operators who are engaged in whale-watching to police themselves. Although there is documented evidence of repeated non-compliance with whale-watching protocols, and therefore free-riding on the good will of others, self-regulation has been an important and successful mechanism for whale-watching management. In British Columbia, self-regulation, particularly in
Southern Vancouver Island, has required stakeholders to work together for orderly function of the industry. Now, as Fisheries and Oceans Canada engages in amending the
Marine Mammal Regulations, whale-watch operators and other stakeholders are organized to co-operate with the agency in developing regulations based on the experience and established guidelines gained through self-regulation. As whale-watching grew in B.C., self-regulation served a valuable purpose. However, the current size of the industry, particularly in Southern Vancouver Island, along with public and media scrutiny, requires a more enforceable type of management regime; this is required to assess more validity to the rules, as well as providing more rigid control to whale- watching activities in order for research to be undertaken.
• What techniques are available for managing the activity given its nature and our state of knowledge?
Whale-watching will continue to grow and become more popular on a global scale (Hoyt 2001). Given our current lack of knowledge, the only way to reduce the potential for increased negative impact is to place a cap at the number of whale-watchers 270
that currently visit each area. A cap in whale-watcher numbers instead of vessel numbers will eliminate the possibility of operators maximizing their vessel number with extremely
large vessels to allow their passenger numbers to grow. To cap whale-watching numbers
permitting systems must be put in place where they do not exist. Restricting access to the
resource-base, cetaceans, is the only way to avoid a tragedy of the commons. The
establishment of science-based whale-watching protocols will necessarily have to wait
for biological science to base them on. Given the difficulties and cost of enforcing
whale-watching regulations, the goal should be protocols that have a scientific basis to
encourage compliance, rather than require enforcement. But this can only happen using
the available scientific techniques that have so far been ignored in favour of subjective
behaviour observations.
Management of the educational aspect of whale-watching can be improved through the establishment of an educational model as presented by Orams (1997). By developing educational programs, enforcing their implementation and monitoring the
results, questions concerning the learning desires of whale-watchers and learning results
can more effectively be tracked and the programs adapted. Ultimately, increasing the
specialization of whale-watchers and their potential as a management tool will benefit
whale-watching management and the cetaceans themselves.
• Can we classify whale-watching as ecotourism, or is whale-watching simply an economic exploitation of nature?
Ecotourism has been labelled with many different definitions, however, common
themes are non-consumptive, educational and economically supportive to local 271
economies. That whale-watching is economically supportive is well documented.
However, there remain two reasons why we can not currently classify whale-watching as ecotourism: it is not known whether whale-watching is a consumptive or non- consumptive activity, nor is it clear whether whale-watching educates the public.
The question of ecological impact will not become clear unless human-cetacean interaction research can answer questions beyond nominally subjective interpretation of behaviours observed at the surface. Research must, through replicable research designs, ask questions regarding physiological impacts and the role of intervening variables that confound clears interpretation of results.
This study did not conclusively show that education occurred during whale- watching. Even so it reveals that whale-watchers are supportive of cetacean conservation and that attitudes towards cetacean conservation can be changed during a whale-watching trip. Does it matter whether this change is experiential or pedagogical? There is still substantial research needed in this area regarding the quality of interpretation, the level at which interpretation should be aimed, learning desires of whale-watchers, and the effect of education once the whale-watcher disembarks.
Even though these important questions remain unanswered, whale-watching continues to expand around the world; in only a few locations are the number of companies and/or vessels restricted. It appears that the economic benefits outweigh the need to resolve the ecological and educational questions. This makes it easy to argue that whale-watching is simply an economic exploitation of nature.
272
• Is there a foundation for whale-watching that encourages sustainable management of cetacean populations?
This is the fundamental question explored in this dissertation. Currently, however,
the answer is inconclusive. On a global scale, the variability and lack of relation to
biology in whale-watching management indicates that the establishment of whale-
watching protocols is deficient of consistent, science-based management. There is no
evidence, positive or negative, of the utility of current management protocols; it therefore
unclear whether whale-watching is a sustainable activity or a tragedy of the commons.
In Canada, however, the information presented in this dissertation points towards the positive. Whales in Canada were traditionally managed as a consumptive fishery, followed by little in the way of management after the hunting moratorium in 1972. From the B.C. experience, the growth of the whale-watching industry, and growing public and academic concern, has forced the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to address their mandate to conserve cetacean populations. This may lead to focussed management of whale-watching activities.
There are some requirements for the successful achievement of this mandate:
DFO must take into account whale-watch operators' experience and the current self- regulatory nature of whale-watching; research funding must be available to address the knowledge gap that currently restricts development of science-based whale-watching protocols; management must be adaptable to forthcoming knowledge, and open, allowing participation from multiple stakeholders. In essence, a co-management approach, where
DFO acts as the delegating authority, is necessary, given the level to which whale- watching developed before DFO began to participate. The current process to amend the 273
Marine Mammal Regulations seems to be following a multi-stakeholder approach, in which commercial operators, researchers and the public are being openly consulted. The issue of species and site-specific management requirements appear to be being considered.
Education imparted aboard whale-watching vessels also has the potential to provide a management tool. The more specialized whale-watchers in B.C. showed more interest in learning and were more concerned with whale conservation issues. If education during whale-watching trips can increase the percentage of specialized whale- watchers this may lead to an increased desire to learn about conservation issues and contribute to whale-watching management itself by actions such as requesting vessel captains to refrain from close approaches to the animals or encouraging companies to donate a portion of fares to research. The issue of education as a management tool does need more work, however, as it is still unclear how and if whale-watchers are educated by current interpretation programs.
While the question of whether there is a basis to whale-watching that promotes sustainable whale populations remains inconclusive from this dissertation, it is evident that the following four characteristics are required for management of sustainable whale- watching:
• Rules that encourage compliance, rather than a requirement for enforcement.
• Focussed research agenda with the goal of science-based management.
• Education agenda based on social-science research of site-by-site expectations, satisfactions and specialization classification, and monitored for further development.
• Based on a co-managed program that incorporates all stakeholders.
274
The inconclusiveness of some of the questions in this dissertation does not indicate that the wrong questions were asked. Rather, it reveals that fundamental issues pertaining to whale-watching as a non-consumptive, sustainable activity are not known:
• Under what circumstances may whale-watching pose a negative biological impact to cetaceans?
• Does distance, along a two-dimensional plane, have any currency to organisms, such as cetaceans, that live in a three-dimensional environment?
• Are there any universally applicable components to whale-watching management?
• What is the nature of an educational program that encourages a desire in whale-watchers to become conservation-oriented?
These fundamental questions regarding whale-watching should be addressed if whale-watching is to become a bona fide ecotourism activity and a benefit to the sustainability of cetacean populations. 275
.APPENDICES
Appendix 3.1: Johnstone Starit Killer Whale Committee Management Recommendations (JSKWC 1992b)
General
1. B.C. Parks should manage the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological reserve as a sanctuary for killer whales.
2. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) should immediately designate a Special Management Zone in the killer whale core area of western Johnstone Strait (Fig.1, page 10). This Special Zone and Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological reserve should be identified on marine charts.
3. Starting in 1992, DFO, in collaboration with BC Parks, should establish a seasonal patrol vessel program in the Special Management Zone to educate whale-watchers, monitor their activities, and enforce whale watching regulations.
4. DFO and BC Parks should immediately establish a Joint Management Committee on Killer Whales to help implement the recommendations of the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee.
Education
5. BC Parks should maintain its visitor program on killer whales in the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve and vicinity.
6. DFO should produce a pamphlet on whale-watching for wide circulation to provide information on killer whales and acceptable whale-watching practices.
7. Consultation should take place between the Joint Management Committee on killer Whales, DFO and affected commercial fishermen regarding appropriate behaviour around killer whales in the Special Management Zone; DFO should encourage and assist commercial fishing organizations to provide special education programs for commercial fishermen regarding appropriate behaviour around killer whales.
8. BC Parks and DFO should support the Regional District of Mount Waddington’s proposal for a whale interpretive centre in the region, away from Robson Bight.
276
Enforcement and Regulations
9. DFO should immediately enact regulations to close the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve to all vessels, except by permit, or as required for safety reasons.
10. DFO should, as soon as possible, amend existing marine mammal regulations to better protect whales from harassment, including controlling discharge of firearms from fishing boats.
11. BC Parks should improve the regulations of the Ecological Reserve Act to better define the application and enforcement of the Act to control human activities on land in the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve.
Research/Photography
12. BC Parks should continue to support killer whale research in the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve.
13. DFO should continue long-term monitoring of killer whale populations on the B.C. coast, and initiate new research on killer whales outside the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve, especially regarding the impacts of human activities.
14. Starting in 1992, an integrated research program should be implemented in cooperation with the Joint Management Committee on Killer Whales and the Tsitika Follow-up Committee to investigate land management impacts on killer whale habitat. Studies should include an expanded sediment monitoring program and a more detailed study of rubbing beach formation and maintenance.
15. DFO, BC Parks and the Joint Management Committee on Killer Whales should establish a process to review killer whale research and photography proposals, issue permits, and develop a comprehensive monitoring program in the Special Management Zone.
Commercial Fishing
16. Upon consultation with commercial fishermen, DFO should eliminate mooring and commercial fishing within the boundaries of the marine portion of the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve (Fig 2, page 12).
277
Whale Watching
17. All whale watchers, including the general public, charter operators, photographers and film-makers, should be required to adhere to general whale watching regulations, except by permit.
18. BC Parks should create a land-based whale watching park in the western Johnstone Strait area, away from the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve, after undertaking the necessary feasibility studies. BC Parks should involve local Native people in this initiative.
19. The Ministry of Tourism should work with whale watching charter operators to establish a charter association and develop a code of conduct.
Land Access
20. BC Parks should expand the land portion of the Ecological Reserve south and east to further limit access and provide a better buffer for rubbing beaches; and expand the marine portion of the Reserve one kilometre east (Fig. 2, page 13).
21. BC Parks should close the Robson Bight (Michael Bigg) Ecological Reserve to all access by land, except by permit.
22. The Ministry of Forests should require Western Forest Products and MacMillan- Bloedel to continue access restrictions in the Schmidt Creek and lower Tsitika River drainages.
Forest Management
23. The Ministry of Forests should immediately declare a five-year moratorium on all forest harvesting activities in the lower Tsitika drainage below Catherine Creek and in the entire Schmidt Creek drainage (Fig 1, page 10) to allow completion of the sedimentatioin study and additional research on killer whales and their habitat.
24. The Tsitika Follow-up Committee should continue to impose strict control on forestry practices in the upper Tsitika drainage to minimize changes to natural flows and sediment regimes in the Tsitika River.
25. The BC Ministry of Forests should include the Schmidt Creek drainage in the mandate of the Tsitika Follow-up Committee, or provide for a similar for a similar management process. 278
Other Issues
26. The Joint Management Committee on Killer Whales should include in its deliberations the concerns of Native people, as well as those of the public and non-Native user groups; every effort should be made to involve local Native people throughout the management process for the Special Management Zone.
27. In order to ensure the continued presence of killer whales in Johnstone Strait, DFO should continue to manage salmon stocks in a conservative manner in this area.
The public repeatedly expressed strong concern regarding the protection of old growth forest in the lower Tsitika valley; and regarding the aesthetics of Robson Bight which they feel are of international significance and should not be altered by logging. No recommendations are made as these issues were outside the Terms of reference of the Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Committee. 279
Figure 1, page 10, JSKWC (1992) 280
Figure 2, page 13, JSKWC (1992) 281
Appendix 3.2: Johnstone Strait Killer Whale Joint Management Committee Draft Guidelines (JSKWJMC 1993)
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
Appendix 3.3: Johnstone Strait Whale-Watching Guide (JSKWJMC 1994)
290
291
292
293
Appendix 3.4: Tofino Whale Watching Operators’ Voluntary Guidelines (Strawberry Isle Research 1995)
294
295
296
Appendix 3.5: Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Marine Mammal Viewing Regulations (Parks Canada 2003)
WHALE VIEWING GUIDELINES
APPROACH GUIDELINES
• Approach whales from the side or rear • Establish layout and movement of vessels before approaching whales • Do not approach whales head on • Use radio communication with others on-scene to assess viewing situation • Move closer gradually • Slow down to 7-8 knots 800 m away • Reduce speed to “no wake speed” at 250 away • Approach travelling whales from behind or from the side with speed and direction consistent with the behaviour of the whales • If whales appear to be avoiding the vessel, increase distance between the vessel and whale • Don’t chase whales • Vessels should be positioned only on one side of the whales • Whales should not be circled • Positioning vessels ahead of whales and waiting for the whales to pass is not to be used • Avoid crossing ahead of travelling whales • If crossing ahead of whales is unavoidable, there should be 800 m clearance
VIEWING GUIDELINES
• Do not approach closer than 50 m “no go zone” • Vessels should work with other whale watching vessels in rotation • When the “close viewing zone” (50-100 m) is occupied, other vessels should wait beyond 100 m • Use radio communications to co-ordinate rotation into and out of the “close viewing zone” • Up to 3 vessels “under 5 tons” or 1 vessel “over 5 tons” inside the “close viewing zone” • Time in the “close viewing zone” (50–100 m) should be limited to 10-15 minutes • All vessels should be on one side of the whale(s) • Do not get between a mother and calf • No circling whales 297
• Leave engine running is up to the discretion of the driver • To avoid startling whales, paddlers should make some sort of regular, repetitive, low volume noise (like tapping floor of vessel) when inside the “close viewing zone” • Avoid sudden alteration of vessel speed • Avoid sudden alteration of vessel direction • Avoid sudden alteration of vessel angle • If a whale approaches the vessel, stop until it moves away at least 50-100 m • Fixed-wing aircraft must maintain a minimum height if 1000 feet • Helicopters should maintain a minimum of 1000 feet
KILLER WHALE GUIDELINES
• Response and needs may be different for transient and resident killer whales • There is a greater potential to impact transients with noise: keep noise low
GRICE BAY GUIDELINES •
Grice Bay N
W E
S
Distance Markers
Distance Markers
On-Shore Markers Distance markers Low tide rout e High Tide ApproachesGrice_approaches.shp Slow down lines No Go Area - Eel Grass Flats Grice bay eel grass
• During high tide (>6 feet), whale watching vessels should only enter and exit Grice Bay by means of the specified high tide route (see map) • During low tide (<6 feet), whale watching vessels should only enter and exit Grice Bay by means of the specified low tide route (see map) • Slow down to 7-8 knots at 800 m or upon entering designated slow areas • Boats should travel single file in a slow one-way loop, staying in the deep water channel 298
• Boats should keep on the deep side of whales • During high tide, general gray whale viewing guidelines apply • DEPARTURE GUIDELINES
• Depart slowly until beyond “no wake zone” (250 m) and then increase speed gradually
RESEARCH GUIDELINES
• With a research permit, researchers may be allowed to approach whales at a distance less than 50 m • Researchers must display a “research flag” or “research markings” on their vessel indicating they are engaged in research • Researchers must be contactable by VHF radio 299
PINNIPED VIEWING GUIDELINES
APPROACH GUIDELINES
• Vessel behaviour should be based on the most sensitive or easily disturbed species on site (which may not be the species that is sought for viewing) • Approach at an indirect angle that provides the maximum visibility for the animals or birds • Move closer gradually • Monitor behaviour on approach. Watch for signs of agitation and increase your angle away from the animals or birds if they become visibly agitated. • Slow down to 5 knots (no wake speed) at 250 m • Do not approach head on • Avoid loud noises • Avoid rapid movements • Avoid sneaking up to animals • Use radio communication with others on-scene to assess the situation • Avoid circling islands or travelling close to shore at close distances • Kayakers should avoid hugging the shore • Use binoculars instead of your vessel to bring animals into closer view • Aircraft must maintain a minimum height of 1000 feet • When viewing pinnipeds, aircraft should be attentive to the response of birds, which may occupy the same site: adjust height and/or approach to avoid flushing birds • Helicopters are not appropriate for viewing animals or sea birds • Personal watercraft are not appropriate for viewing animals or sea birds • Be more cautious at the beginning of the season. Animals may require more space early in the season. Later in the season animals may become more accustomed to boats, allowing closer viewingwe • Birthing areas are “no go zones”: remain at least 250 m offshore • Avoid approaching pinnipeds on cliff areas or areas with steep drops where animals may injure themselves if they flee the area
300
VIEWING GUIDELINES
• Do not approach closer than 50 m “no go zone” • Be aware that this 50 m “no go zone” is a minimum distance: a greater distance may be required earlier in the season and/or year round at certain sites • If stopping to view pinnipeds, avoid rapid movements: stop and depart slowly and keep a steady speed when viewing. • Leave engine running is up to the discretion of the driver • Do not go ashore • Vessels should view animals and shorebirds in rotation with other vessels • Use radio communication to co-ordinate rotation into and out of the “close viewing zone” (50-100 m) • Up to 3 vessels “under 5 tons” or 1 vessel “over 5 tons” inside the “close viewing zone” (50-100 m) • 10 minutes maximum in the “close viewing zone” (50-100 m) • If an animal approaches the vessel, it is appropriate to observe it at whatever distance the animal chooses • Move slowly away from the animals or birds when leaving the area • Do not feed the animals or birds
DEPARTURE GUIDELINES
• Depart slowly from the “no wake zone” (250 m) and then increase speed gradually
RESEARCH GUIDELINES
• With a park permit, researchers may collect data inside the 50 m “no go zone” • Researchers must display a research flag or research markings on their vessel to indicate they are engaged in research • Researchers must be contactable by VHF radio
301
SEABIRD AND SHORLINE VIEWING GUIDELINES APPROACH GUIDELINES
• Vessel behaviour should be based on the most sensitive or easily disturbed species on site (which may not be the species that is sought for viewing) • Approach at an indirect angle that provides the maximum visibility for the animals or birds • Move closer gradually • Monitor behaviour on approach. Watch for signs of agitation and increase your angle away from the animals or birds if they become visibly agitated • Slow down to 5 knots (no wake speed) at 250 m • Do not approach head on • Avoid loud noises • Avoid rapid movements • Avoid sneaking up to animals • Use radio communication with others on-scene to assess the situation • Kayakers should avoid hugging the shore • Use binoculars instead of your vessel to bring animals into closer view • Aircraft must maintain a minimum height of 1000 feet • Helicopters are not appropriate for viewing animals or sea birds • Personal watercraft are not appropriate for viewing animals or sea birds • Personal watercraft should maintain a minimum distance of 500 m from flocks, colonies, haul out sites, nesting sites or shorelines • Give birds on the water a wide birth • Birds in large flocks are easily flushed: give them more space • Nesting sites and colonies are sensitive sites: approach with extra diligence • Sea caves and other areas with cliff-nesting cormorants and murres are “no go zones”: remain 50 m away
302
VIEWING GUIDELINES
• Do not approach closer than 50 m • Be aware that this 50 m “no go zone” is a minimum distance: a greater distance may be required earlier in the season and/or year round at certain sites • Leave engine running is up to the discretion of the driver • Do not go ashore • Vessels should view animals and shorebirds in rotation with other vessels • Use radio communication to co-ordinate rotation into and out of the “close viewing zone” (50-100 m) • 10 minutes maximum in the “close viewing zone” (50-100 m) • Move slowly away from the animals or birds when leaving the area • If an animal approaches the vessel, it is appropriate to observe it at whatever distance the animal chooses • Do not feed the animals or birds • Give large flocks in estuaries more space as they are easily flushed
DEPARTURE GUIDELINES
• Depart slowly from the “no wake zone” (250 m) and then increase speed gradually
RESEARCH GUIDELINES
• With a park permit, researchers may be allowed to collect data inside the 50 m “no go zone” • Researchers must display a research flag or research markings on their vessel to indicate they are engaged in research • Researchers must be contactable by VHF radio
303
SITE SPECIFIC VIEWING GUIDELINES
CLELAND ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
• Use radio communication with all vessels on site to agree on consistent direction of travel • Stay at least 100 m offshore, except through the Gap. Vessel travel is permitted through the Gap on the conditions that 1) there is no whale in the Gap and 2) vessels continue moving at slow (no-wake) speed and maintain course through the Gap’s centre • Maximum speed 5 knots in “close viewing zone” (100 m – 200 m)
GOWLAND ROCKS
• Approach and view from the beach side only • The entire seaward shore is buffered by a 200 m “no-go zone” • Harbour Seal Lagoon on the east side is a “no-go zone” (200 m buffer)
SEA LION ROCKS
• The entire seaward shore is buffered by a 100 m “no-go zone”
WHITE ISLAND
• Nesting are and study site. Entire area is buffered by a 200 m “no-go zone”
SEABIRD ROCKS
• Approach and view from the beach side only • Stay 100 m offshore
WOUWER ISLAND
• Stay 50 m offshore inner Wouwer
304
SEA CAVES
• “no-go zones”. Stay 50 m offshore
LA CROIX GROUP
• Maintain no-wake speed while travelling through the islands (area locally referred to as “the snake pit”: Tree Island and Rocks, including Foam Reef and rocks south of Tree Island.
305
Appendix 3.6: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Recommended Guidelines for Marine Wildlife Viewing (WWOANW 1997b) (Printed in 1998)
306
307
Appendix 3.7: Whale Watch Operators Northwest Guidebook (WWOANW 1997c)
308
309
310
311
312
Appendix 3.8: Whale Watch Operators Northwest Courtesy Reminder, 1997
313
Appendix 3.9: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Guidelines (WWOANW 1999)
314
315
316
317
318
Appendix 3.10: Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest Best Practices Guidelines (WWAONW 2001)
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
Appendix 3.11: Management Recommendations by Duffus & Dearden (1989)
1. Maintenance of the integrity of the resource base upon which the industry is based. This is obviously of critical concern. It dictates that the industry must develop cautiously so as not to have a detrimental impact upon the whales. An ongoing monitoring programme should be established to detect and assess possible negative interactions over a longer time period.
2. There should be a foundation laid for increased enforcement of regulations. At the moment, the industry is largely self-policing. It is in the interests of the industry as a whole not to disturb the resource upon which their businesses are based. Most infractions of whale-watching regulations detected in the field work reported in this study were by private boats and new charter operators. Some of the violations were quite severe. Overall, the current system is adequate but there needs to be an ongoing awareness programme directed at new operators and those with consistently bad records in this regard. Enforcement personnel from fisheries and Oceans Canada should be specifically made aware of the problem and their enforcement role. Signage and brochures explaining the regulations should be available not only at the site, but at surrounding ports of embarkation.
3. There needs to be ongoing co-operation and communication. Government agencies involved (particularly Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministries of Tourism and Parks), the operators and knowledgeable personnel in the area must further enhance the existing lines of communication to ensure the coordinated development of industry potential without compromising the resource base.
4. There is a need to continue to integrate and develop the industry within the context of the growing interest in nature and marine tourism as a whole. Although whales constitute the main source of satisfaction on the trips, other nature and wildlife opportunities were also sources of considerable satisfaction, such as seeing sea lions and various marine bird species.
5. To maximize satisfactions it is important to minimize negative effects. The main detraction to satisfaction at both sites was scenic destruction by logging activities. Increased co-ordination should be requested of the Ministry of Forests in coming to terms with the desires of users.
6. Marketing has to address the different aspects of the market and the different products available. Two specific targets would be to promote in the prairie provinces, market the gray whale migration in March and April at Pacific rim and to help develop the specialist whale-watching market in California for summer killer whale-watching at Robson Bight.
7. The development of new sites as well as new markets should be encouraged. Locations such as Victoria and the Queen Charlotte Islands offer new sites for whale- 329
watching that will fulfil customer needs at the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of visitor commitment.
8. Government should provide organizational and co-ordinating assistance to ensure that the Pacific Rim Whale Festival becomes an annual and well- advertised event. This could be tied to the promotion of the prairie market suggested above.
9. The Ministry of Tourism should use wild whales with an explicit whale- watching theme in some of its promotional material. Both Quebec and Newfoundland are using or plan to use whale-watching to spearhead tourist promotions and this should be considered in British Columbia.
10. Promotional material on other nature and wildlife related opportunities shouls be made available at whale-watching sites. Whale and whale-watching, as pointed out by the Wildlife Viewing study, are a good entry point for wildlife viewing as a whole. Consideration should be given to the formation of a Wildlife Viewing Co-ordinating Committee representing involved agencies, operators, The Wilderness Tourism Council and knowledgeable research personnel. This would advise on the marketing and development, management, integration and technical aspects of the resource base of the wildlife viewing segment of the tourism industry as a whole.
11. The Ministry, possible in conjunction with the industry, should consider the development of a special promotional brochure on whale-watching that could be distributed at specific outlets. Locations such as Oakland California's Whale Center attract people who would be considered specialists, a market not fully tapped. A video on whale-watching in British Columbia could also be produced to show to particular markets such as members of nature-oriented societies. This same market can also be reached by advertisements and stories in magazines such as Equinox, Sierra, Audubon, Canadian Geographic, Oceans and Whalewatcher.
12. It may be advantageous for charter operators to form an industry association to facilitate marketing and product development and present a strong position in the future management planning for whale-watching. Such items as new research on harassment and behaviour of whales, changing Coast Guard regulations, workshops and other items of interest shuld be available on a systematic basis to operators. As well, an industry association could provide valuable input into management planning with their perspective.
13. It is recommended that operators, both current and potential, should avail themselves of the government programs that are in place to aid in tourism industry development. This may be done through a seminar for whale-watching operators, or as part of the presentation of this report. 330
Appendix 3.12: Soundwatch Boater Guidelines (Soundwatch 2002)
331
332
333
334
335
336
Appendix 3.13: Marine Mammal Monitoring Project Voluntary Guidelines (M3 2001)
337
Appendix 3.14: Draft of Harmonized Guidelines (including proposed changes noted by author during WWOANW meeting, 20 February, 2002)
338
Appendix 4.1: Before Whale-watching Trip Questionnaire
BRITISH COLUMBIA WHALE-WATCHING STUDY
University of Victoria Whale Research Lab
In Cooperation with British Columbia Whale-Watching Companies 339
By completing and returning this questionnaire I understand that I am acknowledging my consent to participate in the research entitled “British Columbia Whale-Watching Study” and that I have read the accompanying information about the study.
Your Previous Whale-Watching Experiences
Q1. Before today, about how many times have you seen whales in the wild? Please circle the number beside your answer.
1 NEVER 2 ONE TIME 3 2 TO 5 TIMES 4 6 TO 10 TIMES 5 MORE THAN 10 TIMES
Q2. Before today, about how many times have you been on a commercial whale-watching trip? Please circle your response.
1 NEVER 2 ONCE 3 TWICE 4 THREE TIMES 5 MORE THAN THREE TIMES
Q3. Is whale-watching (please circle):
1 THE MAIN PURPOSE OF YOUR TRIP TO THIS AREA 2 ONE OF SEVERAL PLANNED ACTIVITIES DURING YOUR TRIP 3 AN UNPLANNED ACTIVITY DURING YOUR TRIP
340
Your Expectations For This Trip
Q4. What are your expectations for your whale-watching trip today? Circle the number beside each statement that describes the level of importance to you for each statement.
NOT AT ALL SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT A. See a whale even if it is only one ……………………… 1 2 3 4 B. See lots of whales ………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 C. See whales up close to the boat ………………………. 1 2 3 4 D. See whales no matter how far away they are ………... 1 2 3 4 E. Spend most of the trip with whales ……………………. 1 2 3 4 F. Take pictures of whales ………………………………… 1 2 3 4 G. See whales in a manner which is respectful to the whales and their environment ………………………… 1 2 3 4 H. See spectacular behaviours such as jumping or a whale’s tail as it dives ………………………………… 1 2 3 4 I. See a variety of wildlife besides whales ……………….. 1 2 3 4 J. See marine wildlife in an uncrowded setting …………. 1 2 3 4 K. Learn about marine life …………………………………. 1 2 3 4 L. Learn about the marine environment ………………….. 1 2 3 4
M. Other (please state): ______
Q5. What would you like your guide to do on your trip? Circle the number beside each statement that describes the level of importance to you for each item.
NOT AT ALL SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT A. Tell me about the safety features of the boat ………… 1 2 3 4 B. Tell me where we are, where we are going ………….. 1 2 3 4 C. Teach me about the marine environment …………….. 1 2 3 4 D. Teach me about the history of the area ………………. 1 2 3 4 E. Answer my questions and concerns …………………... 1 2 3 4 F. Leave some moments of silence to appreciate the experience ……………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 G. Show a concern for the environment and marine wildlife ……………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 H. Deepen my awareness of the situation of whales and the marine environment ………………………………… 1 2 3 4 I. Tell me how I can help with marine wildlife protection . 1 2 3 4 J. Get to know me and other passengers ……………….. 1 2 3 4 K. Help passengers socialize and get to know each other 1 2 3 4
L. Other (please state): ______
341
Q6. What do you want to learn about whales and other marine wildlife? Circle the number beside each statement.
NOT AT ALL SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT ESSENTIAL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT A. Ecology (how marine wildlife and their environment are linked) ………………………… 1 2 3 4
B. How to identify different species of whales …… 1 2 3 4
C. Food and feeding habits of whales …………… 1 2 3 4
D. Communication between whales ……………… 1 2 3 4
E. Social behaviour of whales …………………….. 1 2 3 4
F. How whales reproduce and raise young ……… 1 2 3 4
G. The meaning of behaviours you see the whales do …………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
H. Habitat use of whales (daily movements, migration) ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4
I. Research being done on whales and other marine wildlife …………………………………… 1 2 3 4
J. Protection of marine wildlife …………………… 1 2 3 4
K. Regulations for watching marine wildlife ……… 1 2 3 4
L. Traditional aboriginal use and value of marine wildlife ……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
M. Myths and legends about whales and other marine wildlife …………………………………….. 1 2 3 4
N. Other: ______
342
Your Views on Whale Management
Q7. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following questions regarding whales and whale-watching management. Please circle the number in the column that applies.
STRONGLY SLIGHTLY NO SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE A. Paying for a whale-watching trip should guarantee I see whales ……………………… 1 2 3 4 5
B. The number of whale-watching boats around whales should be limited ……………………. 1 2 3 4 5
C. Boats should have to stay a minimum distance away from whales …………………. 1 2 3 4 5
D. There should be some time set aside when whales get a break from whale-watching … 1 2 3 4 5
E. There should be some areas set aside where whale-watching is not allowed ……... 1 2 3 4 5
F. Whale populations that are endangered should be off limits to whale-watching boats 1 2 3 4 5
G. A portion of the cost to go whale-watching should go directly to whale research and management ………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
I. Commercial hunting of whales should be allowed ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
J. First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for ceremonial purposes ……… 1 2 3 4 5
K. First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for commercial purposes ……... 1 2 3 4 5
L. Whale populations should be reduced when they compete with human food resources … 1 2 3 4 5 M. Protecting whales for future generations is important ………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
N. The government has an obligation to protect whales …………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
343
Q8. Presently in Canada the management of whales kept in aquariums is being reviewed. We would like your opinion on the issue. Please circle your response to each statement.
STRONLY SLIGHTLY NO SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE A. Whales in aquariums are an important form of marine education ………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
B. Whales presently living in aquariums should be set free …………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
C. Whales in aquariums provide important marine education in places where there is no whale-watching …………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
D. It is ethically wrong to keep whales in aquariums …………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
E. Whales in aquariums raise public awareness of the need to protect whales in the wild …... 1 2 3 4 5
F. Whales in aquariums suffer mentally from not being in the wild ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
G. Whales in aquariums provide important marine education that is a cheaper alternative to whale-watching ……………….. 1 2 3 4 5
H. Whales in aquariums suffer physically from not being in the wild ………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
I. Whales that have lived for long periods of time in aquariums are capable of surviving in the wild if set free …………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
J. Whales born in aquariums suffer from not being in the wild ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
K. Whales in aquariums are important for scientific research ……………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
L. Whale-watching should replace seeing whales in aquariums …………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
344
Q9. Overall, considering these arguments, do you support or oppose whales in aquariums.
1 STRONGLY OPPOSE 2 SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3 NOT SURE / NO OPINION 4 SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 5 STRONGLY SUPPORT
Q10. Before you came today to go whale-watching, have you ever spent time specifically learning about whales? Where did you learn about whales? Circle ALL that apply.
1 NEVER 2 BOOKS 3 MAGAZINES 4 INTERNET 5 TELEVISION 6 EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS 7 AQUARIUM 8 MUSEUM OTHER ______
Your General Views on the Environment
Q11. How would you rank yourself in terms of the following items. Circle the number that corresponds most closely.
SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT QUITE LOW QUITE HIGH LOW HIGH A. Your interest in nature ………………………………….. 1 2 3 4
B. The extent to which you go to natural environments for recreation, education, etc. ………………………….. 1 2 3 4
C. Your concern for environmental protection …………… 1 2 3 4
D. Your knowledge about whales and other marine life ... 1 2 3 4
345
Q12. Indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the number in the column that indicates your level of agreement.
STRONGLY SLIGHTLY NO SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE A. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset …………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
B. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results ………………… 1 2 3 4 5
C. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
D. Humans are severely abusing the environment ………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
E. We are approaching the limit to the number of people that the earth can support ……….. 1 2 3 4 5
F. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources ………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
G. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand ………. 1 2 3 4 5
H. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a "steady state" economy where industrial growth is controlled ……………….. 1 2 3 4 5
I. Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 I. J. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs …………….. 1 2 3 4 5
K. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans …………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
L. Humans need not adapt to the environment because the can remake it to suit their 2 3 4 5 needs …………………………………………..
346
Finally, a few questions about yourself. These questions are only used for statistical purposes.
Q13. What country do you live in? ______
If Canada or the USA: Which Province / State? ______Which City / Town? ______
Q14. Are you: 1 MALE 2 FEMALE
Q15. What age group are you:
1 UNDER 19 YEARS 2 20-29 YEARS 3 30-39 YEARS 4 40-49 YEARS 5 50-59 YEARS 6 60 YEARS OR OLDER
Q16. What level of education have you completed?
1 GRADE SCHOOL 2 HIGHSCHOOL 3 SOME COLLEGE 4 COLLEGE DIPLOMA 5 SOME UNIVERSITY 6 UNIVERSITY DEGREE 7 POSTGRADUATE DEGREE Other: ______
Q17. Which of the following broad categories best describes the total amount of income received by all members of your household over the past 12 months?
1 Less than $15,000 2 $15,000 to $29,999 3 $30,000 to $44,999 4 $45,000 to $59,999 5 $60,000 to $74,999 6 $75,000 to $89,999 7 $90,000 or more
347
Is there anything else you would like to say about whales or the management of whales? If so, please use the space below.
______This concludes the questionnaire. Thank you. Please return your completed questionnaire to the person who gave it to you.
348
Appendix 4.2: Post Whale-watching Questionnaire
British Columbia Whale-Watching Study
University of Victoria Whale Research Lab
In Cooperation with British Columbia Whale-Watching Companies 349
By completing and returning this questionnaire I understand that I am acknowledging my consent to participate in the research entitled “British Columbia Whale-Watching Study” and that I have read the accompanying information about the study.
Your Previous Whale-Watching Experiences
Q1. Before today, about how many times have you seen whales in the wild? Please circle the number beside your answer.
1 NEVER 2 ONE TIME 3 2 TO 5 TIMES 4 6 TO 10 TIMES 5 MORE THAN 10 TIMES
Q2. Before today, about how many times have you been on a commercial whale-watching trip? Please circle your response.
1 NEVER 2 ONCE 3 TWICE 4 THREE TIMES 5 MORE THAN THREE TIMES
Q3. Is whale-watching (please circle):
1 THE MAIN PURPOSE OF YOUR TRIP TO THIS AREA 2 ONE OF SEVERAL PLANNED ACTIVITIES DURING YOUR TRIP 3 AN UNPLANNED ACTIVITY DURING YOUR TRIP
Your Whale-Watching Trip Today
Q4. About how many whales did you see today? ______whales.
Q5. What types of whales and other marine wildlife did you see? (Circle all that apply)
1 KILLER WHALES (ORCAS) 9 BALD EAGLES 2 GRAY WHALES 10 TURKEY VULTURES 3 HUMPBACK WHALES 11 CORMORANTS 4 DALL'S PORPOISES 12 GULLS 5 HARBOUR PORPOISES 13 MURRES 6 HARBOUR SEALS 14 MURRELETS 7 CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS 15 AUKLETS 8 STELLER SEA LIONS 16 OTHER ______
350
Your Opinions Of Your Whale-Watching Trip Today
Q6. What was your opinion of your whale-watching experience? Please circle the number beside each statement that describes your the level of satisfaction.
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT VERY EXTREMELY SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED A. Number of whales seen ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 B. Distance from which whales were observed ……….. 1 2 3 4 C. Length of time spent with whales ……………………. 1 2 3 4 D. Opportunities to take pictures .………..……………… 1 2 3 4 E. Respectful approach to wildlife by boat you were on 1 2 3 4 F. Respectful approach to wildlife by other boats ……... 1 2 3 4 G. Behaviours of whales seen .………………………….. 1 2 3 4 H. Variety of wildlife species seen other than whales … 1 2 3 4 I. Number of boats around the whales .....….………….. 1 2 3 4 J. What you learned ….……………………….………….. 1 2 3 4
Q7. What was your opinion of your guide / naturalist? Please circle the number beside each statement that describes how you feel.
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT VERY EXTREMELY SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED A. Safety and trip introduction ……..…………………….. 1 2 3 4 B. Description of where you went .………………………. 1 2 3 4 C. Quality of information about marine environment ….. 1 2 3 4 D. Quality of information about local area, history …….. 1 2 3 4 E. Answered my questions and concerns ……………… 1 2 3 4 F. Provided moments of silence to appreciate the experience …………………………………………... 1 2 3 4 G. Showed concern for the environment and marine wildlife ………………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 H. Deepened my awareness of the situation of whales and the marine environment …….………………… 1 2 3 4 I. Informed me how I can help with marine wildlife protection ………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 J. Got to know me and other passengers .…………….. 1 2 3 4 K. Helped passengers socialize and get to know each other ……………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
351
Q8. Were the following subjects discussed to your satisfaction? (Please circle a number beside each item).
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT VERY EXTREMELY SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED A. Ecology (how marine wildlife and their environment are linked) .……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
B. How to identify different species of whales ……….. 1 2 3 4
C. Food and feeding habits of whales …….………….. 1 2 3 4
D. Communication between whales .…………………. 1 2 3 4
E. Social behaviour of whales .………………………… 1 2 3 4
F. How whales reproduce and raise young ………….. 1 2 3 4
G. The meaning of behaviours you see the whales do 1 2 3 4
H. Habitat use of whales (daily movements, migration) 1 2 3 4
I. Research being done on whales and other marine wildlife .………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4
J. Protection of marine wildlife …………….………….. 1 2 3 4
K. Regulations for watching marine wildlife .…………. 1 2 3 4
L. Traditional aboriginal use and value of marine wildlife …………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
M. Myths and legends about whales and other marine wildlife ……………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4
352
Your Views on Whale Management
Q9. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following questions regarding whales and whale-watching management. Please circle the number in the column that applies.
STRONGLY SLIGHTLY NO SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE A. Paying for a whale-watching trip should guarantee I see whales ……………………… 1 2 3 4 5
B. The number of whale-watching boats around whales should be limited ……………………. 1 2 3 4 5
C. Boats should have to stay a minimum distance away from whales …………………. 1 2 3 4 5
D. There should be some time set aside when whales get a break from whale-watching ….. 1 2 3 4 5
E. There should be some areas set aside where whale-watching is not allowed …….………… 1 2 3 4 5
F. Whale populations that are in danger should be off limits to whale-watching boats ………. 1 2 3 4 5
G. A portion of the cost to go whale-watching should go directly to whale research and management ………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
H. Commercial hunting of whales should be allowed ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
I. First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for ceremonial purposes ……… 1 2 3 4 5
J. First Nations peoples should be allowed to hunt whales for commercial purposes ……... 1 2 3 4 5
K. Whale populations should be reduced when they compete with human food resources … 1 2 3 4 5
L. Protecting whales for future generations is important ………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
M. The government has an obligation to protect whales …………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
353
Q10. Presently in Canada the management of whales kept in aquariums is being reviewed. We would like your opinion on the issue. Please circle your response to each statement.
STRONLY SLIGHTLY NO SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE A. Whales in aquariums are an important form of marine education ………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
B. Whales presently living in aquariums should be set free …………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
C. Whales in aquariums provide important marine education in places where there is no whale-watching …………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
D. It is ethically wrong to keep whales in aquariums …………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
E. Whales in aquariums raise public awareness of the need to protect whales in the wild …... 1 2 3 4 5
F. Whales in aquariums suffer mentally from not being in the wild ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
G. Whales in aquariums provide important marine education that is a cheaper alternative to whale-watching ……………….. 1 2 3 4 5
H. Whales in aquariums suffer physically from not being in the wild ………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
I. Whales that have lived for long periods of time in aquariums are capable of surviving in the wild if set free …………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
J. Whales born in aquariums suffer from not being in the wild ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
K. Whales in aquariums are important for scientific research ……………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
L. Whale-watching should replace seeing whales in aquariums …………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
354
Q11. Overall, considering these arguments, do you support or oppose whales in aquariums.
1. STRONGLY OPPOSE 2. SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 3. NOT SURE / NO OPINION 4. SOMEWHAT SUPPORT 5. STRONGLY SUPPORT
Q12. Before you came today to go whale-watching, have you ever spent time specifically learning about whales? Where did you learn about whales? Circle ALL that apply.
1. NEVER 2. BOOKS 3. MAGAZINES 4. INTERNET 5. TELEVISION 6. EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS 7. AQUARIUM 8. MUSEUM OTHER ______
Your General Views on the Environment
Q13. How would you rank yourself in terms of the following items. Circle the number that corresponds most closely.
QUITE LOW SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT QUITE HIGH LOW HIGH A. Your interest in nature ………………………………….. 1 2 3 4
B. The extent to which you go to natural environments for recreation, education, etc. ……………………….. 1 2 3 4
C. Your concern for environmental protection ………… 1 2 3 4
D. Your knowledge about whales and other marine life .. 1 2 3 4
355
Q14. Indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please circle the number in the column that indicates your level of agreement.
STRONGLY SLIGHTLY NO SLIGHTLY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE A. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset …………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
B. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous results ………………… 1 2 3 4 5
C. Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive ………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
D. Humans are severely abusing the environment ………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
E. We are approaching the limit to the number of people that the earth can support ……….. 1 2 3 4 5
F. The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources ………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
G. There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand ………. 1 2 3 4 5
H. To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a "steady state" economy where industrial growth is controlled ……………….. 1 2 3 4 5
I. Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature ………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
J. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs …………….. 1 2 3 4 5
K. Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans …………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
L. Humans need not adapt to the environment because the can remake it to suit their 1 2 3 4 5 needs …………………………………………..
356
Finally, a few questions about yourself. These questions are only used for statistical purposes.
Q15. What country do you live in? ______
If Canada or the USA: Which Province / State? ______Which City / Town? ______
Q16. Are you: 1 MALE 2 FEMALE
Q17. What age group are you:
1. UNDER 19 YEARS 2. 20-29 YEARS 3. 30-39 YEARS 4. 40-49 YEARS 5. 50-59 YEARS 6. 60 YEARS OR OLDER
Q18. What level of education have you completed?
1. GRADE SCHOOL 2. HIGHSCHOOL 3. SOME COLLEGE 4. COLLEGE DIPLOMA 5. SOME UNIVERSITY 6. UNIVERSITY DEGREE 7. POSTGRADUATE DEGREE Other: ______
Q19. Which of the following broad categories best describes the total amount of income received by all members of your household over the past 12 months?
1. $15,000 OR LESS 2. $15,000 TO $29,999 3. $30,000 TO $44,999 4. $45,000 TO $59,999 5. $60,000 TO $74,999 6. $75,000 TO $89,999 7. $90,000 OR MORE
357
Is there anything else you would like to say about whales or the management of whales? If so, please use the space below.
______This concludes the questionnaire. Thank you. Please return your completed questionnaire to the person who gave it to you.
358
Appendix 4.3: Information Letter for Questionnaire Participants
British Columbia Whale-Watching Study
University of Victoria Whale Research Lab In Cooperation with British Columbia Whale-Watching Companies
Hi! Welcome to British Columbia! This questionnaire is part of a study of whale-watchers in British Columbia in 2000. It is being given to whale-watchers in three different whale-watching locations on Vancouver Island.
By participating in this study you will be helping to develop high standards for whale and whale- watching management in Canada, which is in review at the moment.
There are a few things you should know about this research before you start:
The questionnaire is completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to participate. If you feel uncomfortable about answering a question, skip it.
The questionnaire will take you about ten minutes to complete.
All data gathered from these questionnaires will be kept secure and you will not be able to be identified as a participant.
Results of the questionnaire will be part of a Ph.D. dissertation, delivered to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, published in scholarly journals, and will be given to whale-watching companies and other parties who are interested. You may provide your name and address at the end of the questionnaire if you wish to receive the results.
Thank you in advance for participating in this project. Your help is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at the University of Victoria Whale Research Lab, (250) 472-4746.
Sincerely,
Chris Malcolm, MSc. Dave Duffus, Ph.D. Ph.D. Researcher Associate Professor, Director Whale Research Lab Whale Research Lab University of Victoria University of Victoria Whale Research Lab Whale Research Lab
359
Appendix 4.4 Questions from the surveys used in this study
Survey Question Number Question Pre-Trip Post Trip Survey Survey Before today, about how many times have you seen whales in the Q1 Q1 wild? Before today, how many times have you been on a commercial whale- Q2 Q2 watching trip? Q3 Q3 Is whale watching: Q4 n/a What are your expectations for your whale-watching trip today? n/a Q6 What was your opinion of your whale-watching experience? Q5 n/a What would you like your guide to do on your trip? n/a Q7 What was your opinion of your guide / naturalist? Q6 n/a What do you want to learn about whales and other marine life? n/a Q8 Where the following subjects discussed to your satisfaction? Please indicate your level of agreement with the following questions Q7 Q9 regarding whales and whale-watching management. Before you came today to go whale-watching, have you ever spent Q10 Q12 time specifically learning about whales? Where did you learn about whales? Indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following Q12 Q14 statements. (New Environmental Paradigm) Q13 Q16 What country do you live in? Q14 Q16 Gender Q15 Q17 What age group are you? Q16 Q18 What level of education have you completed?
360
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE
I hereby grant the right to lend my dissertation to users of the University of
Victoria Library, and to make single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the Library of any other university, or similar institution, on its behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this dissertation for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or a member of the University designated by me. It is understood that copying or publication of this dissertation for financial gain by the University of Victoria shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Title of Dissertation:
The current state and future prospects of whale-watching management, with special emphasis on whale-watching in British Columbia, Canada.
Author: ______
Christopher Duncan Malcolm
December 12, 2003
Note: This license is separate and distinct from the non-exclusive license for the National Library of Canada 361
VITA
Surname: Malcolm Given Names: Christopher Duncan
Place of Birth: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Educational Institutes Attended:
University of Victoria 1997 to 2003 University of Victoria 1993 to 1997 Memorial University of Newfoundland 1988 to 1993
Degrees Awarded:
M.Sc. University of Victoria 1997 B.A. (Honours) Memorial University of Newfoundland 1993
Honours and Awards:
Maritime Awards Scholarship, Maritime Awards Society, University of Victoria, 1997 Derrick Sewell Scholarship, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, 1995, 1997
Publications:
Malcolm, C.D. and D.A. Duffus In press. Can whale-watching convey an important message of conservation?: an initial perspective from British Columbia, Canada. Prairie Perspectives
Malcolm, Christopher D. and D.A. Duffus 2000. Subjective and statistical analysis of dive data from a TDR attached to a gray whale (Eschrichitius robustus). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 2(3):177-182.
Malcolm, C.D., D.A. Duffus, and S.G. Wishniowski 1996. Small scale behaviour of large scale subjects: diving behaviour of a grey whale. Western Geography. 5/6:35-44.