Whale Watching, Iconography, and Marine Conservation

Diversity Whale Watching, Iconography, and Marine Conservation

PETER J. CORKERON Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, Pb 6404, N-9294, Tromsø, Norway, email [email protected]

As our populations have grown, more of us have moved on whales. Whale demography, the history of exploitation to the coast. As some of us have become richer, Boe- of most whale populations, and the magnitude and vari- ing and Airbus have allowed us to indulge our desire to ability of the ranging patterns of whales constrain studies see the world. Coastal vessels have become faster and of the impacts of whale watching on behavior. safer, so we expect gratification of our desire for novel Assuming that we could detect subtle changes in rates experiences at sea. As all this has happened, large whales of change of whale populations in time frames useful off some coasts have increased in number, evidence that for managers (an unlikely premise), what would this tell some international protection measures of the 1970s have us? Could we ever definitively attribute these changes to worked. The confluence of these unrelated historical pro- whale watching? Given other anthropogenic influences cesses has led to the spectacular rise of the vessel-based on whale populations, this is exceptionally unlikely. This whale-watching industry. being so, how do we proceed? Discussion on how to Nature-based tourism does not necessarily maintain en- address the important questions about whale watching vironmental quality. Ecotourism is supposed to be that seems to have stagnated during a decade when the whale- special subset of nature-based tourism that provides lo- watching industry grew at an estimated 12% per year cal economic benefit without environmental degrada- (Hoyt 2001). tion (Goodwin 1996). Whale watching tends to be clas- Does anyone question the exponential growth of whale sified as ecotourism, but it does affect whales’ behavior watching? Usually, such questions are raised by non- in the short term (e.g., Corkeron 1995). The debate on governmental organizations (NGOs) associated with en- how to manage whale watching has moved to whether vironmental protection. Yet some NGOs interested in this matters. Do “short-term” impacts have “long-term” cetacean issues actively encourage the increase in com- consequences? mercial whale watching. The president of the Interna- Research to date demonstrates that anthropogenic tional Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) wrote recently, noise is primarily responsible for the short-term behav- “IFAW is now widely recognized as a driving force behind ioral changes observed. Analogs from marine hydrocar- the growth and development of responsible whale watch- bon extraction can provide some answers to longer-term ing worldwide” (O’Regan 2001). The Web sites of other questions: use of habitat by bowhead whales seems al- NGOs (e.g., http://csiwhalesalive.org/, http://www. tered by industrial activities (Schick & Urban 2000). But wdcs.org/) demonstrate that supporting whale watching current thinking now calls for demonstrations of “bio- is not a lone stance. logically significant”—in other words, population-level— I see four main arguments put forward by NGOs to jus- effects (e.g., International Whaling Commission 2001). tify their support for the whale-watching industry: obser- How do we demonstrate these effects? Assessing the vation induces conservation; commercial vessels are plat- impact of dive tourism on coral reefs requires application forms of opportunity for research; viewing free-ranging of established impact-assessment techniques in commu- animals is better than viewing captive animals; and whale nity ecology (e.g., Plathong et al. 2000). Studies of the watching and whaling don’t mix, so whale watching pro- effects of terrestrial tourism on wildlife ask questions at vides an economically viable alternative to whaling. These the habitat scale (e.g., Burger 2000), requiring techniques arguments could be applied equally to coral reefs (replace that are logistically and financially beyond most research “whaling” with “fishing”), but most NGOs interested in the conservation of coral reefs do not actively encourage mass tourism. Paper submitted June 9, 2003; revised manuscript accepted November The real reasons those interested in cetacean conser- 12, 2003. vation support tourist activities lie in history, economics,

847

Conservation Biology, Pages 847–849 Volume 18, No. 3, June 2004 848 Whales and Icons Corkeron and politics. Prior to the moratorium on commercial As our impact on the oceans grows and fish disappear, whaling in the mid-1980s, promoting whale watching our perception of how to share the reduced wealth of demonstrated an NGO’s commitment to economic de- the oceans with whales is changing. The dysfunction of velopment and rejection of whaling. Whale watching has the International Whaling Commission (IWC) as an in- gone from being a cottage industry to a large-scale, inter- ternational management organization has not lessened in national tourism business. People now earn more from the past decade, but the core reason for its dysfunction is whale watching than commercial whaling (Hoyt & Hvene- changing. For nations with no whaling industry and less- gaard 2002). Because there is a moratorium on commer- than-exemplary records in environmental management, cial whaling, this is not surprising. However, this eco- ritual whaler-bashing at the IWC remains a convenient nomic disparity gives rise to the opinion by NGOs that conservation fig leaf. But to nations with whalers, or to “whales and people both do better when these animals those currently reviving whaling, whales are no longer are seen and not hurt” (O’Regan 2001). This statement natural resources to be managed sustainably but are com- seems likely to be tested in the near future. Will the threat petitors for fisheries. This leads to governmental support of a boycott of Icelandic tourism (including whale watch- for research programs that seek explicitly to answer ques- ing) force a reversal of the recent revival of Icelandic tions such as, “will fishermen be able to take more [com- whaling? Norway and Japan have both whaling and whale mercial fish species] if the stocks of marine mammals are watching, but in both countries the animals hunted differ reduced?” (Schweder et al. 2000:121). from those being watched. The logical extension of this idea is that whales should The world has changed in other ways in the couple not be allowed to recover to environmental carrying ca- of decades since the initial promotion of whale watch- pacity but rather are in need of culling in the name of ing. The argument over whether whale watching is good ecosystem management (see press releases under http:// or bad influences other aspects of marine wildlife man- www.icrwhale.org). Those who wonder where this agement. Commercial operations taking people to view change from an emphasis on whales as resources to coastal dolphins can now be found in many parts of the whales as fisheries competitors will lead only need to world. This is classified as whale watching because dol- look at current approaches to managing coastal seal pop- phins are cetaceans, and it inflates overall estimates of the ulations taken by members of The North Atlantic Marine value of whale watching (Hoyt 2001), but management Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) for a view of one future issues for whales and dolphins are very different. Coastal for whales. Seals, too, are perceived as fisheries competi- dolphins tend to live in discrete societies with relatively tors. Ecological subtleties such as trophic levels matter small home ranges, so daily disturbance from tourist ves- less than the perception that fewer predators must equal sels becomes habitat degradation. more fish. In 2003 Norwegian quotas for gray seals (Hali- Why does any of this matter? In the big picture of choerus grypus) were set at 25% of abundance estimates, conservation concerns for cetaceans—deaths in nets, and a bounty paid (Anonymous 2003). Sustainable pop- prey removal by fisheries, chemical and acoustic pol- ulations and minimum viable populations are becom- lution, deliberate hunting—the effects of whale watch- ing interchangeable terms in some nations’ approaches ing are pretty trivial. These effects matter, however, be- to managing marine mammals. cause whale watching is backed by NGOs working for So the debate on managing whale killing is moving to whale conservation. Whales developed iconic value for the question of how much of the reduced productivity of the conservation movement in the 1970s. The collapse the oceans and coasts should remain available to whales. of populations of great whales demonstrated the extent This change in argument from sustainable use to culling to which we humans could destroy animal populations. for marine ecosystem management is an important new Peter Matthiessen’s “nothing is wasted but the whale it- development in the management approach propounded self” encapsulated the morality of viewing wildlife as mere by whaling nations. Can the importance of this change resources. But the recovery of some baleen whale popula- be reflected in the way NGOs present issues regarding tions and the move from whaling to whale watching as the whales to the public? Should whales-as-icons join flared primary economic use of whales may not in themselves pants and mirror balls as 1970s discards? demonstrate improved environmental enlightenment. Perhaps whales can have their iconic value refashioned. For centuries our fishing practices have affected coastal Perhaps the whale watching industry can use whales to ecosystems ( Jackson et al. 2001). Now we have industrial- help spread new messages about marine conservation. ized the oceans (Smith 2000). I concentrate on fisheries Should these messages say that whale populations will here, given their role in marine ecosystem degradation fare better under an internationally controlled regime of ( Jackson et al. 2001) and their growing importance in sustainable hunting rather than under culls instigated by discussions of cetacean management. Globally, fisheries individual nations? Does this choice, undoubtedly seen peaked in the late 1980s and are now in decline, leading by many associated with whale watching as one between to urgent calls for dramatic changes to fisheries manage- two evils, represent the best international management ment (Pauly et al. 2002). options available?

Conservation Biology Volume 18, No. 3, June 2004 Corkeron Whales and Icons 849

Should seafood that is not caught in a demonstrably Hoyt, E., and G. T. Hvenegaard. 2002. A review of whale-watching and sustainable fashion (e.g., certified by the Marine Stew- whaling with applications for the Caribbean. Coastal Management ardship Council, http://www.msc.org) be provided on 30:381–399. International Whaling Commission. 2001. Report of the work- whale watching boats? Perhaps it is not the job of whale shop on assessing the long-term effects of whale watching on watching operators to instigate a consumer boycott of cetaceans. Annex N. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management unsustainable fisheries, but enlightenment will require 3(supplement):308–315. example. Jackson, J. B. C., et al. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent col- Should we keep seeking answers to questions that are lapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638. Lusseau, D. 2003. The effects of tour boats on the behavior of bot- probably unanswerable (such as that of the population- tlenose dolphins: using Markov chains to model anthropogenic im- level impacts of whale watching), or should we ask other pacts. Conservation Biology 17:1785–1793. questions? Both recent work investigating changes in the Lusseau, D., and J. E. S. Higham. 2004. Managing marine mammal behavioral states of dolphins in the presence of tourist tourism through the definition and management of critical habitats: vessels and the spatial modeling of ways to minimize ves- the case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sound (New Zealand). Tourism Management (in press). sel impacts (Lusseau 2003; Lusseau & Higham 2004) show O’Regan, F. 2001. Preface. Page 1 in E. Hoyt. Whale watching 2001: one way forward. Maybe it is time for more answers to the worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioe- question of where whale watching should not occur. conomic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette,´ T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. Literature Cited J. Walters, R. Watson and D. Zeller. 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418:689–695. Anonymous. 2003. Report of the NAMMCO scientific subcommittee Plathong, S., G. J. Inglis, and M. E. Huber 2000. Effects of self-guided working group on grey seals. Available from North Atlantic Marine snorkeling trails on corals in a tropical marine park. Conservation Mammal Commission, Tromsø, Norway. Biology 14:1821–1830. Burger, J. 2000. Landscapes, tourism and conservation. The Science of Schick, R. S., and D. L. Urban 2000. Spatial components of bowhead the Total Environment 249:39–49. whale (Balaena mysticetus) distribution in the Alaskan Beaufort Corkeron, P. J. 1995. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)in Sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:2193– Hervey Bay: behaviour and interactions with whale watching ves- 2200. sels. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1290–1299. Schweder, T., G. S. Hagen, and E. Hatlebakk. 2000. Direct and indirect Goodwin, H. 1996. In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conser- effects of minke whale abundance on cod and herring fisheries: vation 5:277–291. a scenario experiment for the Greater Barents Sea. North Atlantic Hoyt, E. 2001. Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, ex- Marine Mammal Commission Scientific Publications 2:120–132. penditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. International Smith, H. D. 2000. The industrialisation of the world ocean. Ocean and Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts. Coastal Management 43:11–28.

Conservation Biology Volume 18, No. 3, June 2004