UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS MARINAS
DOCTORADO EN CIENCIAS EN OCEANOGRAFÍA COSTERA
The influence of whalewatching on the behaviour of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, and
surrounding waters: Management plan proposal
T E S I S
QUE PARA OBTENER EL GRADO DE
D O C T O R E N C I E N C I A S
PRESENTA
GISELA HECKEL DZIENDZIELEWSKI
Ensenada, Baja California, May 2001.
i
ABSTRACT
The exceptional growth of whalewatching in Baja California Sur (BCS) and other parts
of Mexico during the last ten years motivated the design and implementation of a
Mexican whalewatching law based on experiences in BCS. This study proposes a
management planning process that regulates whalewatching activities in Todos Santos
Bay, Baja California, Mexico, in order to minimise their influence on the gray whale's
behaviour and to enhance the fleet's operation.
The influence of whalewatching boats on the behaviour of gray whales was investigated
on their migratory route in Todos Santos Bay, near the port of Ensenada, Baja
California, Mexico. The objectives were: 1) to compare the swimming direction and
speed of whales in the presence and absence of whalewatching vessels, and when other
boats were fishing, cruising or drifting; 2) to contribute with scientific data to the
improvement of whalewatching regulations which are specific to the Ensenada area.
During winters of 1998 and 1999 theodolite tracking was accomplished from a
lighthouse tower located on northern Todos Santos Island. In 1999 the northern
migration started in mid-February. During both years, the migration corridor was about
2.5km wide at the islands, and this was relatively narrow when compared to other shore
stations along the northern coast (USA). Sightings were separated into northbound and
southbound migration and the variability of whale swimming direction was analysed by
circular statistics. Angular deviation of whale swimming direction was not different in
the absence and presence of whalewatching and other boats during the southbound
migration. This variable, however, was statistically different both with whalewatching
(p= 0.007) and with other boats (p = 0.02) during the northbound migration. Whale
swimming speed variance showed significant differences without boats and with
whalewatching boats during both migrations (northbound, p = 0.04; southbound,
p<0.001). Analysis of speed variance in the absence and presence of other boats did not
yield significant differences for either of the migrations. In addition, head-on approach
to whales by whalewatching boats significantly changed their swimming direction
ii
(p=0.05) and speed (p = 0.015) when compared with approach towards the rear or
flanks. Although the Mexican regulation is explicit about maneuvers around whale
groups, one addition to the existing regulations was suggested to prevent unintentional
head-on approach. Restricted and controlled zones for the whalewatching area in
Ensenada were outlined, based on the observed tracks of migrating gray whales and
boats in this study.
To understand the social, economic and legal situation of whalewatching in Ensenada,
qualitative research techniques were used. The actors involved were identified. The
information obtained made it possible to identify the primary whalewatching grounds in
Todos Santos Bay, the history of this tourist activity in Ensenada, the tour operators'
interactions among themselves and their attitudes towards regulations, the government
officials' approach toward tour operators, the severe limitations of law enforcement, as
well as the policy process. The information was ordered and analysed with qualitative
models to plan strategies for an ecotourism management process in Ensenada. The
management plan proposes to adapt regulations to this area annually, to promote
adherence to regulations by encouraging self-regulation and strengthening law
enforcement, and to improve the service provided to tourists on board. The feasibility of
the proposed management plan was discussed in terms of positive and negative forces
that could affect coastal ecotourism outcomes.
Keywords: Whalewatching, gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, migration, behaviour,
Ensenada, Mexico, natural resource management, sustainable tourism, ecotourism.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to Ileana Espejel (Facultad de Ciencias, UABC) for supervising this work,
and to Jorge de la Rosa, Kim Murphy, Roberto Enríquez, Reginaldo Durazo (Facultad
de Ciencias Marinas, UABC), and Steve Reilly (Southwest Fisheries Science Center-
National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, California, USA) for accepting to be in my
thesis committee, for their advice and encouragement. Ileana introduced me to natural
resource management, a whole new experience that opened my perspective to include
the human sphere. Special thanks to Jim Sumich, (Grossmont College, San Diego,
California) for his time and great ideas.
Data collection on the field was supported by Yolanda Schramm, Eduardo Morteo, Julio
Hernández, Oscar Guzón, Santiago Mejía, Elia Kim, and Paola Batta of Investigación y
Conservación de Mamíferos Marinos de Ensenada, A.C. Lorenzo Rojas, Instituto
Nacional de la Pesca, motivated the start of this research and supplied the most recent
IWC meeting references. He and Yolanda reviewed earlier drafts of this thesis. The
height of the lighthouse tower was measured by Alfredo Chee Barragán (Instituto de
Investigaciones Oceanológicas, UABC) who also taught us (Yoli and me) how to
operate the theodolite. I thank Yoli for her time and support on the field, where she
helped me to "standardise" the method and collect data during several field trips, for
helping me to prepare each week's adventure during two field seasons, and for her
patience when she stayed at home. I greatly appreciate the hospitality of lighthouse
keepers Antonio Osuna and Fernando García Vyera on northern Todos Santos Island.
They invited us to stay in their respective houses, shared water, and sometimes even
meals. Mexican Navy marines were also helpful.
Horacio de la Cueva, Centro de Investigación Científica y Educación Superior de
Ensenada (CICESE) advised on statistical procedures. Thanks to Conchita Arredondo,
Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, UABC, I took a course on Geographic Information
Systems (GIS). I was assisted in map drawing by Luis Galindo (thank you for coastline
and bathymetric data of Todos Santos Bay), Roberto Pérez, Alex García Gastelum,
iv
Conchita Arredondo, and Georges Seingier. David Fischer (Facultad de Ciencias
Marinas, UABC) contributed to the management part of the study. Thanks to the many
researchers around the world who sent me reprints of their works on whalewatching
research and management.
Field work and equipment were financed by Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la
Naturaleza (projects DO-97/013 and A98/051) and PADI Foundation (grant No. 62).
Abulones Cultivados, S. de R.L. gave free boat transport to the island. I had grants from
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, CICESE, Misener Constru-Marina, Rosarito,
B.C., and my brother, Walter Heckel. I also thank my mother, Ursula Heckel, for her
support throughout this study and my long years as a student. This research was
conducted under permits DGG/SP/553/97, DGG/SP/1388/98 (Secretaría de
Gobernación), DOO 750/1063/98 and DOO 750.-13320/98 (Secretaría de Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca).
v
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................................iii CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................ 1 NATIONAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF WHALEWATCHING............................................................................................. 5 LEGAL ASPECTS IN MEXICO...................................................................................................................... 6
HYPOTHESES............................................................................................................................................ 8 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................. 9
GENERAL OBJECTIVE................................................................................................................................. 9 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 9
STUDY AREA........................................................................................................................................... 10 THE INFLUENCE OF WHALEWATCHING ON THE SWIMMING DIRECTION AND SPEED OF MIGRATING GRAY WHALES IN TODOS SANTOS BAY AND SURROUNDING WATERS .................................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 12 METHODS................................................................................................................................................ 14
Field Data Collection and Data Treatment ....................................................................................... 14 Analytic Methods ............................................................................................................................... 16
Mapping Migration Tracks ............................................................................................................................16 Swimming direction.......................................................................................................................................17 Swimming Speed ...........................................................................................................................................19
RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................. 20 Observation effort.............................................................................................................................. 20 Migration timing................................................................................................................................ 20 Migration tracks ................................................................................................................................ 21 Swimming direction ........................................................................................................................... 27 Swimming speed ................................................................................................................................ 28
DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................. 31
vi
Observation effort.............................................................................................................................. 31 Migration timing................................................................................................................................ 32 Migration tracks ................................................................................................................................ 33 Swimming direction ........................................................................................................................... 34 Swimming speed ................................................................................................................................ 37 Potential long-term effects of whalewatching on gray whales .......................................................... 40 The precautionary principle .............................................................................................................. 41 Recommendations for regulation of whalewatching in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico ............ 43
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 46 COASTAL ECOTOURISM MANAGEMENT IN ENSENADA, MEXICO: WHALEWATCHING PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES............................................................... 48
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 48 METHODS................................................................................................................................................ 51
Interviews .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Participant observation ..................................................................................................................... 52 Other data sources............................................................................................................................. 53 Analyses............................................................................................................................................. 53
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 55 GROWTH OF WHALEWATCHING IN ENSENADA AND DIRECT INCOME ....................................................... 59 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ................................................................................................................ 63 ANALYSIS OF ACTORS............................................................................................................................. 64 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................................................... 66
Problem definition ............................................................................................................................. 66 Feedback model: The possible solutions ........................................................................................... 69 Management plan proposal ............................................................................................................... 71
IS THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN FEASIBLE?................................................................................... 74 Objective 1: To adapt the regulation to Ensenada and keep it updated ........................................... 74 Objective 2: To promote the adherence to whalewatching regulations............................................ 76 Objective 3: To improve tourist product quality............................................................................... 78
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 80 FINAL REMARKS: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE TOURISM IN ENSENADA, BAJA CALIFORNIA........................................................................................................................................... 81 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 84 Appendix 1: Gray whale behaviour categories recorded during this investigation ............................ 98 Appendix 2: Summary of meetings organised in Ensenada by SEMARNAP to encourage public participation in regulation and management of whalewatching ............................................. 100
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table I. Observation effort from January to March of 1998 and 1999 on northern Todos Santos Island, Baja California, Mexico. Sightings used in analyses according to selection criteria described in Methods........................................20
Table II. Angular deviation (s) of swimming direction without boats (control observations) and with whalewatching boats (ww), compared by the nonparametric test for dispersion of circular data (Batschelet, 1981). Data for both 1998 and 1999 were combined. ⎯φ = mean angle, s = angular deviation; Z = normal approximation of Mann-Whitney U (Zar, 1999). .................................................................................................................27
Table III. Angular deviation (s) of swimming direction without boats (control observations) and with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting), compared by the nonparametric test for dispersion of circular data (Batschelet, 1981). Data for both 1998 and 1999 were combined. ⎯φ = mean angle, s = angular deviation; Z = normal approximation of Mann-Whitney U (Zar, 1999) .......................................................................................28
Table IV. Variance of swimming speed without boats and with whalewatching boats, compared by the variance ratio test (Zar, 1999). ⎯r = mean speed, s2
ln = natural logarithm of variance. .................................................................29
Table V. Variance of swimming speed without boats and with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting), compared by the variance ratio test (Zar, 1999). ⎯r = mean speed, s2
ln = natural logarithm of variance..........................................29
Table VI. Comparison of swimming direction deviation and speed variance when whales were approached by whalewatching boats head-on and towards the rear or flanks (only northbound migration).⎯φ = mean angle, s = angular deviation U = test statistic of the nonparametric test for dispersion (Batschelet, 1981). ⎯r = mean speed, s2
ln = natural logarithm of variance. F = test statistic of the variance ratio test (Zar, 1999)..................30
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. Map of Mexico and localisation of the study area: Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, Mexico. The whalewatching areas in Baja California Sur are encircled: Ojo de Liebre (1), San Ignacio (2), and Bahía Magdalena (3). ........2
Fig. 2. Whalewatching boat route and location of the lighthouse on northern Todos Santos Island, which was the land-based observation platform in this study. Map coordinate systems are in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM, thousand meters) projection. ‘Easting’ is equivalent to Longitude, ‘Northing’ is equivalent to Latitude...................................................................10
Fig. 3. Trackings of gray whale groups without whalewatching or other (fishing, cruising or drifting) boats during the (a) southbound and (b) northbound migrations near Todos Santos Islands from January to March 1998 and 1999....................................................................................................................23
Fig. 4. Trackings of gray whale groups with whalewatching boats during the (a) southbound and (b) northbound migrations near Todos Santos Islands from January to March 1998 and 1999. ............................................................24
Fig. 5. Trackings of gray whale groups with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting) during the (a) southbound and (b) northbound migrations near Todos Santos Islands from January to March 1998 and 1999. .........................25
Fig. 6. Tracks of whalewatching boats during the gray whale migration along Todos Santos Islands, from January to March 1998 and 1999. ........................26
Fig. 7. Examples of whalewatching boats approaching whale groups head-on (a) and towards rear (b). Open circles are whale group locations. a) Sighting No. 102 on 15 March, 1998; b) Sighting No. 289 on 27 March 1999. ..............30
Fig. 8. Controlled and restricted zones proposed for the Ensenada whalewatching area, according to law NOM-131-ECOL-1998. ................................................45
Fig. 9. The growth of whalewatching in Ensenada with respect to the number of boats that have received official authorisations for commercial whalewatching. Data sources: SEMARNAP delegate office and Ensenada Science Museum.................................................................................................60
Fig. 10. Effort of whalewatching in Ensenada in number of trips and passengers. Data sources: Science Museum (1989-2000) and SEMARNAP delegation (1998-2000)........................................................................................................61
ix
Fig. 11. Minimum direct income generated by whalewatching in Ensenada. Data sources: Science Museum (1989-2000), SEMARNAP delegate office (1998-2000). There are no data for 1997-98, when the museum decided not to participate in whalewatching due to bad weather forecast. "El Niño" conditions in the Pacific Ocean would cause severe storms along the entire coast of North America (Pavia, in press). SEMARNAP did not receive any reports from other tour operators, even though they worked during that season..............................................................................................62
Fig. 12. Actors involved in whalewatching in Ensenada, classified according to their relative power and the support they have shown to regulation of the activity. Plus and minus signs indicate greater or lower power and/or support. ..............................................................................................................65
Fig. 13. Cause-effect diagram for whalewatching in Ensenada. This representation has to be read first from the main problem ("effects on gray whale behaviour”) to the left, to understand the chain of events and attitudes that cause it, as well as responsible actors. On the right side of the main problem are the probable consequences in the long term that would lead to the final total loss of the resource..................................................................68
Fig. 14. Feedback model that shows adverse events (between arrows, in italics) that may lead to infeasibility of whalewatching. Actions to remedy these events and prevent total losses are in boxes. .....................................................70
Fig. 15. Management plan proposal for whalewatching in Ensenada. Actors that should get involved in specific actions are also presented. SEMARNAP Delg. = Environmental ministry delegate office in Baja California. PROFEPA = Federal Attorney's Environmental Office. ...................................73
Fig. 16. Analysis of management plan objectives in view of the positive and negative forces that might influence their feasibility. Their relative strength is represented by the size of the arrow. Forces meet at the centre (current state). Positive forces should become stronger in order to overcome the negative ones. This would lead to the desired state, objective 1: "To adapt the regulation to Ensenada and keep it updated". ........74
Fig. 17. Analysis of management plan objective 2: "To promote the adherence to whalewatching regulations". .............................................................................77
Fig. 18. Analysis of management plan objective 3: "To improve tourist product quality"...............................................................................................................78
1
INTRODUCTION
INTERNATIONAL ISSUES
Whalewatching is an important tourism attraction in coastal zones of the world. The
exceptional growth of this economic activity around the world during the last 10 to 15
years has aroused concern about the potential impacts on cetaceans and other marine
mammals (IWC, 1995; IFAW et al., 1995). Eastern Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius
robustus) move so close to shore during their annual migration from Alaska, USA, to
Baja California Sur, Mexico, that it has been possible to observe them from vantage
points on land and in boats for many years (Wilke and Fiscus, 1961). This pattern
motivated whalewatching activities to expand along the whole migratory route from
December to April. In Mexico, the growing demand for viewing whales occurs at the
northwestern coast of Mexico in the two states of the Baja California peninsula (Baja
California and Baja California Sur, Fig. 1) where the activity has created competition
and the need to consider its management (Howell, 1983; Sánchez, 1997a). Some
accounts about the boats' effects on migrating gray whales have been reported (MBC,
1989; Moore and Clarke, in press), although no systematic surveys to evaluate the
significance of this along the migratory route had been attempted prior to this
investigation.
2
Fig. 1. Map of Mexico and localisation of the study area: Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, Mexico. The whalewatching areas in Baja California Sur are encircled: Ojo de Liebre (1), San Ignacio (2), and Bahía Magdalena (3).
The gray whale (E. robustus) was commercially hunted in the North Pacific during the
XIX and XX centuries (Scammon, 1874; Henderson, 1984; Omura, 1984; Reeves, 1984;
Sayers, 1984). The abundance of the eastern Pacific population prior to its exploitation
has been estimated between 23,000 and 35,000 (Reilly, 1982), which declined to a
minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 individuals in the 1800s (Oshumi, 1976). Therefore, in 1946
the species was protected from commercial hunting. This decision was very successful,
sinde the eastern Pacific stock has now recovered (Reeves, 1984; Reilly, 1992; Rugh et
al., 1999) while the western Pacific stock remains endangered (Clapham et al., 1999).
The most recent analysis of the eastern stock estimated a population size of 26,635
3
animals (coefficient of variation = 10.06%) and an average annual rate of increase of
2.52% (standard error = 0.27%) (Rugh et al., 1999). The conservation measure was so
successful that this stock of the gray whale was removed from the US Endangered
Species List in 1994 (Gerber et al., 1999; NMFS, 1999; Rugh et al., 1999). The
International Whaling Commission (IWC) 1 classifies it as a ‘sustained management
stock’. This means that a total catch of 620 whales is allowed (only for those whose
‘traditional, aboriginal and subsistence needs have been recognised’) for the years 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 with a maximum of 140 in any one year (IWC, 2000a). In
1975, the gray whale was included in Appendix I of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and has now the status
of ‘lower risk – conservation dependant’ 2 (Baillie and Groombridge, 1996).
Conservation and management of this population has been supported by additional
international measures; for example, since 1986, the IWC adopted a pause on
commercial whaling of all baleen whale species. Recently, however, Japan has
submitted a proposal to the IWC to downlist the Eastern Pacific stock of the gray whale
from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES 3. Therefore, if the proposal is accepted by
IWC members, commercial whaling of the gray whale could be resumed. The catches
would be taken in the coastal waters of the range States (Russian Federation, Canada,
USA, Mexico), hence implementation of CITES measures would require an agreement
between the country interested in whale trade (Japan) and the range States. Until 1999,
several IWC parties had expressed opposition to the proposal because their conservation
1 The International Whaling Commission was established in 1946 when 15 countries that took these cetaceans sighned the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The purpose was to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. The Convention has a schedule with the precise regulations regarding whaling. The schedule lists the agreements of at least three-fourths of the contracting governments (today there are 40 members), among them the complete protection to certain species, the designation of specific areas as whale sanctuaries, limits on the numbers and size of whales that may be taken, the prescription of opened and closed seasons and areas of whaling, and the prohibition to capture sucklings and female whales accompanied by calves. 2 ‘A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable'. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories, one of them being Conservation Dependant, defined as ‘taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a period of five years’ (IUCN, 1994). 3 Appendix I includes the endangered species that may or may not be affected by trade, which is then subject to a particularly strict regulation in order to prevent the increase of the species' survival risk . Trade is authorized only under exceptional circumstances.
4
policies to not allow the reopening of whaling. Many of them are non whaling nations
and are supported by non governmental organizations that are opposed to whaling
(Gambell, 1999). Therefore, Japan's proposal has not been accepted yet (IUCN, 2000).
Today, the main problems faced by the gray whale are climate change, a natural
reduction of food resources, exposure to contaminants and oil spills, noise caused by
seismic explorations and vessels, IWC-permitted aboriginal or subsistence catches,
entanglement in fishing gear, ship strikes, and whalewatching along the migratory route
and in breeding areas (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983; Jones et al., 1984; Moore and
Clarke, in press).
Gray whales undergo one of the longest annual migrations (about 20,000 km) known for
mammals. In summer they prey mainly on benthic amphipods in the Bering, Beaufort
and Chukchi seas (Nerini, 1984; Kim and Oliver, 1989). By the end of October these
whales start to migrate southward to the breeding lagoons along the western coast of
Baja California, Mexico, such as Guerrero Negro, Ojo de Liebre, San Ignacio, and Bahía
Magdalena (Fleischer, 1991, Fig. 1), as well as in the Gulf of California, where they
have been sighted in its northernmost areas (Silber et al., 1994). Gray whales stay in
their breeding grounds until March or April when they return to the feeding areas.
NATIONAL ISSUES
In Mexico, whalewatching started in 1972 when charter boats from San Diego,
California, USA, began visiting San Ignacio lagoon on the Mexican Pacific coast of the
southern Baja California peninsula during the breeding season in winter (Gilmore,
1955). The activity expanded to Ojo de Liebre Lagoon in 1988 and Magdalena Bay in
1990 (Sánchez, 1998), and has grown considerably, from less than 1000 visitors in 1982
(Jones and Swartz, 1984) to 28,500 in 1997 (Ávila and Saad, 1998; Sánchez, 1998). Not
Appendix II includes the species that are not endangered but could reach that situation unless trade is subject to regulation, as well as species not affected by trade that shall be subject to regulation for an efficient trade control (Diario Oficial de la Federación, 1992).
5
surprisingly, whalewatching is now a more important economic activity than fishing in
these areas (Dedina and Young, 1995).
In Ensenada, Mexico, twelve years ago whalewatching occurred only occasionally, e.g.
when private groups organised one-day trips on their own. From 1989 on, the local
Science Museum arranged regular tours on board sport fishing vessels. For the boat
owners this substitute activity turned out to be attractive because in winter fishing
declined considerably (Leyva, pers. comm. 4), as in Oregon, USA (Manfredo et al.,
1988). The growing demand for whalewatching in Ensenada has created competition
and the requirement to increase the activity.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF WHALEWATCHING
Since 1986, the IWC has discussed the reactions of cetaceans to vessels (IWC, 1986). It
was already noticed that responses varied according to species. In 1993, the IWC
determined it was urgent to identify and assess the potential impacts of marine mammal
viewing (IWC, 1994). In 1994, the IWC Scientific Committee (there are two other main
committees, the Technical and the Finance and Administration Committees) determined
that a Sub-Committee on Whalewatching should be established. This Sub-Committee
would analyse where whalewatching occurs world-wide, how impacts could be
evaluated and would propose working priorities and recommendations to the IWC
Scientific Committee (IWC, 1995).
In 1995, after the Sub-Committee on Whalewatching had gathered information related to
this problem, a first workshop was held to discuss scientific aspects on managing
whalewatching. The situation was analysed and several methods were proposed to
measure short- and long-term effects on cetacean populations (IFAW et al., 1995). In
addition, several international workshops were held to discuss the educational values of
4 Claudia Leyva worked as a whalewatching guide for the Ensenada Science Museum for five years. C. Leyva. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Km 103 Carretera Tijuana-Ensenada. Ensenada, B.C., Mexico.
6
this ecotourist activity (IFAW et al., 1997), as well as socioeconomic (IFAW, 1998) and
legal aspects (Spalding, 1998; Birnie and Moscrop, 2000). At IWC’s meeting in June
1996, the Sub-Committee on Whalewatching determined that insufficient information
was available, and that there was considerable variation among species (in their
behaviour, distribution, feeding and breeding habits), among habitats of one single
species and different whalewatching modes (i.e., watching from land or boats, feeding
by tourists, or swimming with dolphins). Therefore, they decided it was impossible to
propose general guidelines for regulation of whalewatching activities (IWC, 1997).
Recent studies have measured many short-term effects (immediate reactions) of
cetaceans, searching for scientific ground to regulate whalewatching (Gordon et al.,
1992; Constantine and Baker, 1996; IFAW, 1996; Janik and Thompson, 1996; Montero
et al., 1997; Arnold and Birtles, 1998; Barr and Slooten, 1998; DeNardo, 1997; Bejder
and Dawson, 1999). However, little evidence is available to determine whether or not
short-term effects result in long-term effects on individuals, groups, or populations
(Bryant, 1994).
LEGAL ASPECTS IN MEXICO
Mexico protected the gray whale and its habitat when Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio
lagoons were declared whale refuges in 1972 and 1979, respectively. This protection
was expanded to Guerrero Negro and Manuela lagoons in 1980, and finally the El
Vizcaíno Biosphere Reserve, established in 1988, included all of them (Dedina and
Young, 1995). The expansion of whalewatching to Bahía Magdalena motivated the
design of an emergency law (Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-EM-074-ECOL-1996,
SEMARNAP, 1996) that regulated the activity in Baja California Sur.
Today, and after a three-year public consultation process, the Mexican Official Law
NOM-131-ECOL-1998 (SEMARNAP, 2000) regulates whalewatching nation-wide by
specifying maneuvers during whale encounters and the requirement of an official
7
authorisation for commercial and scientific whale viewing. This law also establishes that
an "announcement" has to be published annually (prior to the commercial season that
usually starts after Christmas) where further, very important details will be described
(number of boats allowed, defined controlled zones, season duration, etc.) regarding
each of the lagoons in Baja California Sur, and on the migratory route in Mexican
waters, such as in Todos Santos Bay, Ensenada, Baja California.
The Mexican whalewatching regulation was designed originally for Baja California Sur
and based on local studies (Jones and Swartz, 1984; Sánchez, 1997b; Urbán et al., 1997
and 1998) and on the experience of government officials from the National Institute of
Fisheries (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, INP) and from the El Vizcaíno Biosphere
Reserve administrative office. Officials and researchers considered that specifications
needed to be established (based on local scientific research) for each area due to
differences in the whales’ behaviour (reproduction vs. migration), the habitat (enclosed
lagoons and open waters) and the features of the whalewatching tourist activity in each
area (Reyna and Alcántara, 2000). Furthermore, they suggested that the recommendation
of the IWC Sub-Committee for Whalewatching should be followed in that complete
management plans for each area where whalewatching occurs have to be proposed that
would that consider all aspects that such a plan requires: scientific, legal, economic, and
social aspects (such as the educational values of this activity) (IWC, 1993).
8
HYPOTHESES
Eastern Pacific gray whales are exposed to whalewatching boats during their annual life
cycle. Tourists visit them in summer in their feeding areas in Alaska and in winter in
their breeding grounds in Baja California Sur, Mexico. In addition, they are viewed from
boats during their migration along the western coast of North America because they
navigate very close to shore in a relatively narrow corridor (2-6km wide). Short-term
effects are expected to occur with respect to these cetaceans' behaviour: Whales evade
boats by changing their swimming direction and swimming speed when pursued by
whalewatching boats. The presence of other boats in their migratory corridor elicits
some reactions that are less conspicuous, i.e., the changes in swimming direction and
speed are not significant because they do not follow the whales, they only navigate in
the same area where whales migrate.
Whalewatching is an important factor to consider in a bay like Todos Santos (in addition
to changes in oceanographic conditions, food availability, and habitat modification) that
might affect the gray whales' biology (long-term effects), with respect to energy
expenditure, displacement from optimal habitats (feeding and breeding areas, migrating
corridor), reproductive success (calf production), morbidity (disease) and mortality rates.
Even when the link that may exist between short- and long-term effects has not been
scientifically proven yet, the precautionary principle in setting action limits to
whalewatching has to be applied by means of codes of conduct and boat maneuvers.
Therefore, regulation and management of the tourist activity in each whalewatching area
are necessary measures which contribute to the prevention or remedy of short- and
possible long-term effects.
9
OBJECTIVES
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To propose a management plan that regulates whalewatching activities in Todos Santos
Bay, Baja California, Mexico, in order to minimise their influence on the gray whale's
behaviour and to enhance operation of whalewatching boats and the organisation of the
social and governmental sectors involved in this ecotourist activity.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. To analyse the influence of boats on the swimming direction and speed of migrating
gray whales in the area, during winters of 1998 and 1999, by shore observations
(lighthouse on an island).
2. To analyse the legal, social and economic aspects of this ecotourist activity in
Ensenada.
3. Based on combined scientific and socio-economic analyses, to propose additions to
the regulations as well as specific objectives, strategies and actions for management
of whalewatching in Ensenada.
10
STUDY AREA
Todos Santos Bay, Baja California, is on the north-western coast of Mexico, between
31°40'N and 31°56'N, as well as 116°36'W and 116°50'W (Fig. 1) and is located on the
path of the California Current, a cold and productive marine ecosystem (Lynn and
Simpson, 1987). The area has tectonic origins and is comprised of igneous and
sedimentary rocks of the Cretaceous period (Cruz-Colín and Cupul-Magaña, 1997). The
continental shelf outside the bay is steep and narrow, marked by the 200m depth contour
that is only 2km from shore (CSDS, 1971). The Port of Ensenada is located in the centre
of the bay (Fig. 2).
515000 520000 525000 530000 535000
Easting
3505000
3510000
3515000
3520000
3525000
3530000
Nor
thin
g
0 km 5 km 10 km 15 km
Ensenada
Todos Santos Bay
Whalewatching boat route (December 26 to March 31)Whale path
Lighthouse
Fig. 2. Whalewatching boat route and location of the lighthouse on northern Todos Santos Island, which was the land-based observation platform in this study. Map coordinate systems are in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM, thousand meters) projection. ‘Easting’ is equivalent to Longitude, ‘Northing’ is equivalent to Latitude.
11
A submarine canyon (550m deep) separates two small volcanic islands from Punta
Banda peninsula (CSDS, 1971). Both Todos Santos islands are covered by coastal sage-
succulent scrub. In Mexico it occurs only in the north-western region where a
Mediterranean type of climate prevails (dry in summer, rainy season is in winter, annual
mean temperature 22°C). This vegetation is very important for conservation issues
because of its high endemism; 42 plants have been recorded and two species of the
genera Dudleya are endemic to the islands. This type of vegetation has been declared
endangered in California, and in Baja California it is reducing rapidly because of
urbanisation and agriculture. On the islands there are some remnants that work as
refuges because almost no human activities occur there, although exotic plant species
and animals are invading the islands, especially an invasive, highly opportunistic grass
(Bromus rubens) (Espejel et al., 2001).
In 1990, 170,000 people lived in Ensenada and 89,000 were engaged in economic
activities: 68% in commerce and services (including tourism), 16% in industry and 12%
in fisheries, agriculture, cattle or timber. In 1990, 70% of the working population earned
less than 3.75 USD each day (INEGI, 1996). The city and port of Ensenada is
developing and tourism is a priority. In the preliminary results of the 2000 census, the
population was estimated to be 203,000 (INEGI, 2000).
This thesis was divided into two major knowledge areas: ethology and natural resource
management. First, a scientific research was completed during two winter seasons,
where the influence of whalewatching boats on the behaviour of migrating gray whales
was assessed. Second, since effects on swimming direction and speed of migrating
whale groups were statistically significant, two additions to the whalewatching
regulations were proposed. Furthermore, a social investigation was carried out and with
the results a management plan proposal was accomplished to order and enhance the
ecotourist whalewatching service that is offered to locals and foreigners.
12
THE INFLUENCE OF WHALEWATCHING ON THE SWIMMING
DIRECTION AND SPEED OF MIGRATING GRAY WHALES IN TODOS
SANTOS BAY AND SURROUNDING WATERS
INTRODUCTION
Although concern has been expressed about reactions of gray whales to boat traffic since
the earliest days of whalewatching in San Diego about 40 years ago (Wilke and Fiscus,
1961), few studies have investigated the effects of vessels on gray whale behaviour or
demography. The concern about the effects of this tourist activity on gray whales has
been more focused on the breeding lagoons in Baja California Sur, Mexico, because in
these areas the whales carry out crucial activities for their biological viability: mating
and nursing of calves during their first two months. In addition, the tourist activity
started there during the 1970's, and therefore the whales are well known to the
international community and ecotourism has grown very fast (Gard, 1974; Villa-
Ramírez, 1975, Gilmore, 1978; IWC, 1997; IWC, 1998; Hoyt, 2000). At San Ignacio
Lagoon, Swartz and Jones (1978) studied the reaction of whales to boats. Most of the
whalewatching vessels (26 out of 28) experienced encounters with gray whales where
the cetaceans had approached the boats and tourists would touch them. This “friendly”
or “curious” behaviour of whales had previously been observed by several authors
(Gilmore, 1976, cited by Reeves, 1977; Dahlheim et al., 1981). However, Swartz and
Jones (1978) also noticed some that whales avoided their research vessel, as well as
whalewatching boats, fishing boats and large sport-fishing vessels, although they did not
count the eveding whales nor used a method to measure the effect on their behaviour.
As in the above mentioned work, most of the accounts of observed behaviour
disturbance along the migratory route have been anecdotal and none has been the subject
of systematic research (Wyrick, 1954; Sumich, 1983; Malme et al., 1983 and 1984;
MBC, 1989; Moore and Clarke, in press). Only recently has theodolite tracking been
13
implemented to evaluate gray whale behaviour when approached by whalewatching
boats on the migratory route (Schwarz, pers. comm. in San Diego; this study) and at
breeding sites, as Bahía Magdalena, Mexico (Ollervides et al., 2000).
This chapter's hypothesis states that whales evade boats by changing their swimming
direction and swimming speed when pursued by whalewatching boats. The presence of
other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting) in their migratory corridor elicits less
significant changes in the swimming direction and speed. However, some level of
habituation is possible due to the constant exposure of gray whales to vessel traffic in
their coastal habitat (the migratory route and the feeding and breeding areas).
To test this hypothesis, two variables of the gray whale's behaviour on its migratory
route were measured that could be modified in the presence of whalewatching boats.
The investigation was carried out during the winters of 1998 and 1999, when the whales
passed along Todos Santos Bay, México. The specific objectives were two: 1) to
compare the swimming direction and speed of whales in the presence and absence of
whalewatching vessels, and when other boats were fishing, cruising or drifting; 2) to
contribute with scientific data to the improvement of whalewatching regulations specific
for Todos Santos Bay and surrounding waters.
14
METHODS
Field Data Collection and Data Treatment
From January to March 1998 and 1999, land-based observations were conducted from a
lighthouse tower located on northern Todos Santos Island (31°48’43"N, 116°48’26"W,
Fig. 2). This site was selected because in this area whales are encountered more often on
the commercial whalewatching route and the altitude of the tower (51.64m) was
adequate for reliable calculations derived from theodolite observations (whale location,
distance, heading, and swimming speed) according to Würsig et al. (1991).
The working team (two observers) stayed on the island from Friday to Tuesday of every
week (weather permitting) since whalewatching occurs mainly from Friday to Sunday.
On Monday, vessel traffic is almost absent in Todos Santos Bay. Sightings 5 during
these days and when no boats were in view (approximately 20km with good visibility)
were used as independent control sightings, where no influence from vessels on whales’
behaviour was assumed. Two observers watched for the longest time possible every day,
according to light and weather conditions. Watches started at 8:00AM and finished
usually around 1:00PM, when visibility became poor due to high winds (Beaufort sea
state > 3). Sightings were terminated when fog reduced visibility to less than 4km, or the
tracked whale group entered sun glare.
Vessel and whale movements were followed from the lighthouse platform. After a whale
group was detected, one of the observers tracked its movements with a Topcon DT102
electronic theodolite. The second observer used 7x50 binoculars and a stopwatch to
record a sighting’s start and finish time and timing of all observations (especially
important for later calculation of swimming speed) (IFAW et al., 1995). The second
observer dictated data (angles, times and behaviour, see Appendix 1) into a
5 Sighting: Tracking of a single whale or whale group. Started with the first whale sign (usually a blow, or part of whale body) and ended 15 mins. after the last whale sign was observed. Sightings (and not individual whales) were the basic sampling unit because behavioural observations of individuals within a group might be difficult to achieve. A group is an aggregation of whales where maximum distance between individuals is less than five body lengths (MBC, 1989).
15
microcassette recorder. Watching positions were not rotated to eliminate possible inter-
observer discrepancies. After the end of each day’s session, recordings were transcribed
into check sheets. Later, data were captured into a computerised database.
The theodolite measured vertical and horizontal angles (in degrees from true north) from
the platform to an object. The angles were transformed into x, y coordinates with T-Trak
(an IBM-compatible computer program by Cipriano, 1990) and these were plotted on a
map. The major source of error in location is incorrect measurement of platform height
(Würsig et al., 1991). Therefore, the exact height of the lighthouse platform (51.64m
above mean lowest low water level) was determined following Würsig et al. (1991) by
means of a topographic profile. Furthermore, calculations of x, y coordinates considered
height change due to tidal water level fluctuations (observed water levels at a station in
San Diego, California, USA; NOAA, 1999) and curvature of the Earth (Cipriano, 1990).
Other errors might occur due to heat haze and swell, although these factors were not
considered because they are difficult to correct. A 100cm error in height of our platform
(which might have occurred at times with high swells) may represent a position error of
approximately 15m to the observed object at a range of 1000m (Würsig et al., 1991).
Vertical and horizontal angles of whalewatching and other boats (fishing, cruising or
drifting) were measured when present with whales. These were sightings defined as
‘with whalewatching boats’ and ‘with other boats’.
Possible confounding effects in the data analyses were also considered (Sumich, 1983;
Reilly et al., 1983). However, sex and age composition of whale groups (except
adult/calf pairs) could not differentiated. From the original data set, sightings were
categorised according to certain characteristics to minimise errors:
a) All sightings were separated into southbound and northbound migrations. The first
northbound swimming whales passed Ensenada by mid-February and moved slower
than when they migrated south. This has also been observed by Rice (1965) and
MBC (1989).
16
b) Group size. Behaviour of cetaceans may be different in small or large groups.
Groups with one to four whales were used because their swimming speed did not
vary significantly (see Results).
c) Visibility. Because weather conditions affect the probability of detecting whales,
only sightings with ‘good’ visibility or better (according to Reilly et al., 1983) were
included in the analysis.
d) Sightings were eliminated when the whale group was located less than three times
(theodolite ‘fixes’).
e) Fieldwork was terminated by the end of March, when the whalewatching season
ends in Ensenada. This seems to coincide with the end of the northbound "Phase A"
migration, when almost no females with their calves are migrating yet (Herzing and
Mate, 1984). Only a few adult/calf pairs were observed in this study (see Results)
and were eliminated from the analyses because of the small sample size and because
their behaviour differs from that of other whale groups (MBC, 1989).
Analytic Methods
MAPPING MIGRATION TRACKS
To understand the migration path of gray whales along the coast of Ensenada, as well as
possible changes due to whale-boat interactions, the tracks observed during this study
were investigated.
During each sighting, locations (‘fixes’) were obtained of single whales, whale groups
and boats (objects) which were plotted on a digitised map of the study area (INEGI,
1982) with computer drawing tool AutoCADR13, using the Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) projection 6 (Greenhood, 1964). Thus the x, y coordinates for each
6 UTM is the usual projection in topographic maps. Unit measurement is in meters. INEGI uses the Clarke 1866 spheroid and the North American 1927 datum (sea level reference) for Mexico. The UTM projection divides the Earth into 60 zones, each 6 degrees wide in longitude. Mexico is in zone 11.
17
object location (origin at the lighthouse tower on northern Todos Santos Island) were
transformed into UTM, based on the lighthouse location (518338 Easting, 3519424
Northing = 31°48’43"N, 116°48’28"W). Consequently, object locations in real positions
on the map were plotted and their swimming directions were shown as straight lines of
true compass directions (tracks). Six maps with whale tracks were generated: sightings
during the northbound and southbound migration without boats (controls), with
whalewatching boats and with other boats. In addition, a map with whalewatching boat
tracks alone was drawn.
SWIMMING DIRECTION
Direction is a ‘circular variable’, a special form of interval scale measured in compass
points (0° to 360°) that requires special statistical procedures (Batschelet, 1981; Zar,
1999) 7. Malme (1983) used circular statistics to detect changes in swimming direction
of migrating gray whales when exposed to an artificial underwater sound source.
Swimming direction is the course followed by a whale group between two geographic
locations (in this study, theodolite 'fixes'). Direction was calculated following polar
coordinates (the angle φ ij, and the unit vector eij, i.e. angle or vector j in sighting i) that
were transformed into rectangular coordinates (xij , yij). During each sighting, several
directions for each whale group were obtained, and therefore mean angle (⎯φ i) 8 and
mean vector length (ri) for each sighting were calculated by trigonometry.
The grand mean for sightings categorised as ‘without boats', 'with whalewatching boats’
and 'with other boats’ was calculated with the mean rectangular coordinates of each
sighting (⎯xi, ⎯yi ), and second-order analyses were utilised (the first-order sample is the
mean of one sighting, Batschelet, 1981; Zar, 1999). Parametric tests could not be used to
7 Notation of circular statistics follows Batschelet (1981). 8 Calculated with computer programme T-Trak (Cipriano, 1990).
18
compare the samples 9 because the assumptions of bivariate normal distribution of all
samples’ rectangular coordinates, similar variances and covariances were not fulfilled.
Therefore, Mardia’s nonparametric procedure was applied to compare sightings without
boats-with whalewatching boats, and then sightings without boats-with other boats
(Batschelet, 1981). Sightings without boats were tested for differences between years
1998 and 1999. The nonparametric Mardia-Watson-Wheeler test was used to search for
differences in the mean angle (Batschelet, 1981). Even though the Mardia-Watson-
Wheeler test seems to be the most powerful to search for differences in the mean
between two independent samples (Batschelet, 1981), no significance was found
between any pair of samples.
Therefore, the change in behaviour had to be detected. In other words, even though a
whale group changed its swimming direction during a sighting when approached by a
whalewatching boat (quite evident in some cases when the corresponding map was
inspected), the average swimming direction would not be particularly different from the
swimming path usually followed. Therefore, a variability measure was used, and for
direction this may be expressed as the angular deviation (s) or the angular distance
(⏐φ ij -⎯φ i ⏐), among other dispersion measures.
Thus, the nonparametric test of dispersion for circular data was applied to test for
differences in the angular deviation (s) of two samples (Batschelet, 1981). Each
sighting’s s is expressed here by the angular distance (⎯φ i -⎯φ ). These were ranked for
both samples. The largest sum of the two samples was compared with the Mann-
Whitney U, although the normal approximation was used when sample sizes were large
(nk > 40; Zar, 1999).
9 Sample: In this study, group of sightings categorised as 'without boats', 'with whalewatching boats' and 'with other boats'.
19
SWIMMING SPEED
Speed (rij for Spanish "rapidez") was calculated with T-Trak, based on the observed
distance and time between successive whale locations during a sighting. Each sighting’s
mean swimming speed was the response variable (⎯ri), and sightings were categorised as
in direction. Multivariate statistical analysis that would combine direction and speed
were not attempted because it was considered that separate analyses for these two very
different types of variables (circular and linear) would make the interpretation of results
easier.
Assumptions for parametric tests were not met either, thus the nonparametric Mann-
Whitney test for two independent samples (Neave and Worthington, 1988) was applied
to search for differences between mean swimming speed without boats and with
whalewatching or other boats (⎯r).
The parametric variance ratio test was used for detecting differences between sample
dispersion (variance, s2). The variances of all sightings (s2i) were transformed into their
natural logarithms to meet the basic assumption of normal distribution (Zar, 1999).
One element was investigated that might have elicited apparent whale reactions to
propose a recommendation for whalewatching boat maneuvers. Sightings with
whalewatching boats during the northbound migration were divided into head-on
approach (45° to the left or right from the whale group’s perspective) and approach
towards the rear or flanks. Classification into these two groups was accomplished by
visual examination of whale and boats’ tracks during each sighting (Fig. 4). Direction
was analysed with the nonparametric test of dispersion and speed with the variance ratio
test.
20
RESULTS
Observation effort
In this study, 55 days of field work were accomplished during which 284 hours were
spent on the lighthouse platform (average 5.03hs./day, range 1.17 to 9.48hs./day), and
whales and/or ships were tracked for 165 hours (Table I).
Table I. Observation effort from January to March of 1998 and 1999 on northern Todos Santos Island, Baja California, Mexico. Sightings used in analyses according to selection criteria described in Methods.
Year Days Effort (hours) No. of sightings Sightings used in analyses
Observation efficiency
1998 19 102.8 107 51 48% 1999 36 181.3 190 131 69% Total 55 284.1 297 182 61%
The effort was lower (and so were whalewatching trips) in 1998 (19 days in the field,
compared to 36 in 1999) because of frequent storms during that year’s ‘El Niño’ event.
A total of 298 sightings were obtained; 182 were selected for the analyses (see
‘Methods’ for selection criteria). The swimming speed of different group sizes (one to
seven whales/group) was compared. Only groups with one to four whales showed no
significant differences (southbound migration: n = 61, Kruskal-Wallis H = 5.19, p= 0.16;
northbound migration: n = 55, H = 5.15, p = 0.16) and were included in the analyses.
Migration timing
Onset of the southbound migration was not established because field work started in
January, when migration was already under way. Early northbound migrants were seen
in the second and third weeks of January (three sightings in 1998, the first on 11
January; two sightings in 1999, the first on 23 January). In 1999, the general northbound
migration was considered to have started during mid-February, because on 15 February
21
the main stream of northward swimming whales started to pass our observation site and
no southbound whales were observed from that date on. The onset of the general
northbound migration was not observed in 1998 due to severe storms which prevented
from field work during the whole month of February 1998. The peak of each migration
(maximum number of whales per hour passing a counting station) was not established
because whales were not counted in this study, only specific groups were followed. By
the fourth week of March (1998 and 1999), only one or two groups were observed
passing northern Todos Santos Island each day. However, groups with one calf were
observed on twelve occasions between 12 and 29 March.
Migration tracks
During the southbound migration (January to mid-February), whales’ tracks spread north
of the islands in a corridor approximately 2.5km wide, then tended to concentrate to ca.
1.2km at the northern island and expanded again when passing along the southern island
(Fig. 3a). Their general direction tended to change from southwest to south and then
southeast; their minimum distance from shore changed from 0.25km at the northern
island to 1km at the southern island (Fig. 3a).
During the northbound migration whale tracks showed a more dispersed and less
directed pattern (Fig. 3b). The navigation corridor was about 1.9km wide at the southern
island, reduced to approximately 0.7km at the northern island and expanded to about
1.5km after passing the islands. The general swimming direction was northwesterly,
although a few tracks showed departures from this. Whales tended to swim closer to
shore (minimum distance < 0.5km) (Fig. 3b) than during the southbound migration. In
addition, nursing and resting were observed less than 200m (depth < 20m) from the
northern island’s shore on 12 and 19 March 1999, respectively.
Moreover, whale tracks were plotted when whalewatching boats were following the
groups (Fig. 4). Tracks seemed to follow the general pattern without boats, although
22
sample sizes differed (southbound: n = 50 without boats, n = 11 with whalewatching
boats; northbound: n = 45 without boats, n = 28 with whalewatching boats).
Whale tracks with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting) during southbound migration
(n = 29, Fig. 5a) apparently were similar to tracks without boats. During the northbound
migration (n = 19, Fig. 5b), however, several whale groups apparently did not swim in
the general northwesterly direction, but northeasterly or to the west.
23
128
127
126
124
123
122
120
119
118
117
604
603
602601
593
592591
590
589
547
546
545544
543
542
541540539
538
537
379
378
377
375
374
373372
371
370
369
368
367
366
332
331
330
329
328
327
204
203
202
201
200
199
180
179
178
177
176
175
174
70
69
68
67
66
2862
2861
28582857
2854
2853
28502849
2847
2845
2842
2840
2839
2837
2835
2833
2831
2829
2827
2826
2825
2824
2823
2822
2821
2820
2819
2815
28142813
28122811
2809
2808
2806
28042802
2801
2794
2792
2789
2787
2786
2785
2541
25402538
25372536
2533
25322531
2530
2528
2524
2459
24582457
2456
2380
2379
2336
2335
2332
2331
23302329
2328
2326
2324
2322
2321
2320
23182317
2316
2315
2314
2313
2310
23092308
2307
2306
2305
2303
2301
2300
2299
2298
2296
2295
2272
2271
2270
2269
2264
2263
2261
2257
2255
223 5
2233
223 2
2231
2230
222 9
2226
2225
2224
2223
2222
2221
2220
2218
2217
2216
2215
2212
2210
2209
2208
2204
2203
2132
2130
2129
2128
2127
2126
2125
2124
2093
2092
2090
2089
2088
2086
2085
2084
20832082
2081
2080
2078
2076
2075
2010
2009
2007
20062005
2004
2003
1999
1997
1995
1994
1993
1991
1990
1988
1987
1986
1985
1873
1872
1871
1870
1869
18671866
1865
1864
1862
1860
1857
1856
1788
1787
1784
1782
1781
1780
1779
1777
1776
1759
1758
17571756
1755
1710
1705
17031702
1700
1699
1698
1697169616951694
16921691
1690
1687
1683
1682
1674
1672
1671
1670
1668
1666
1665
16631662
1661
16601659
1658
165716561655
1654
16511650
1648
1647
1643
1626
1625
1622
1620
1619
1570
1569
1568
1566
1563
1562
1560
1558
1557
1556
1555
1554
1553
15521551
1550
1549
1548
1547
1546
1544
15431542
1541
1540
153915381537
1536
15351534
1532
1531
1530
1529
1527
1493
1492
1491
1490
1489
1488
1487
1486
1485
1484
14551454
14531452
1451
1450
1449
1448
1447
1445
1444
1443
1442
1441
1439
1438
1437
1436
1435
1434
1433
1432
1431
1430
1392
1391
1390
1389
1388
1387
1386
1385
1384
13831382
1381
1380
1378
1377
1376
1375
1373
1372
1371
1370
1369
1367
1366
1365
a) Southbound migration, without boats
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
3522
3520
3518
3516
3514
Nor
thin
g (U
TM)
6 82
6 81
6 8 0
6 79
67 7
621
620619618
617
610
607
606
605
1132
1131
1130
1129
1128
1127
96 4
963
96 2
820
817
813
807
804
802
801
795
792
791
790
785
773
772
771
26882687
2692
2691
2689
4663
4662
4661
46604659
4658
46574656
46544653
4652
4651
4649
4648
46474646
464546444643
464246414640
463946384636
4635
46324631
4628
4627
4626
4625
4624
4623
45634562
4561
4560
4559
4512
45114510
4509
4508
4473
447244714470
44694468
4466
4464
4462
4456
4451
4449
4447
4416
4415
44144413
4412
4410
4409
4407
440544044403
4401
4345
43444343
4341
4340
43384337
4336
4335
4334
4333
4332
4331
4320
43194318
4317
4316
43154314
43134312
4311
4310
4309
43084307
4306
4305
4303
4281
4280
4279
42784277
427642754274
42734272
427142704269
42684267
4266
42654264
4263
4262
426142604259
4258
4257
4256
4255
4254
4166
4165
4164
4161
41604159
415841574156
4147
4146
4145
4144
4143
4142
4141
4140
4139
4138
4137
41364135
4134
4133
4132
4131
4130
41294128
4127
41264125
4124
4121
41204118
4116
3911
3910
3908
3907
3770
3768
3766
3764
37623761
37603759
3758
3721
3720
3718
3716
3714
3710
3709
3671
3670
3669
3668
3666
3664
3663
3662
3661
3660
3659
36583657
36563651
3 6 4 9
3 6 4 8
3 64 7
3 64 4
3470
3468
3466
3377
337633 75
3373
33713370
33693368
3367
3363
3202
3201
3200
3196
31943193
31923191
3190
318931883187
318631853184
31833182
3181
31783177
3176
3175
3174
3171
3170
3167
3166
3164
3161
3158
3156
3154
3153
3152
3151
3148
3147
31463145
3144
3143
3142
3140
3092
3091
3090
3089
3088
3087
2930
2929
2928
2927
2926
2924
2923
29222921
2920
2918
2916
2914
2912
2910
290929082907
2906
2873
2871
28702869
b) Northbound migration, without boats
Theodolite station
Theodolite station
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
n = 50 n = 45
0m 1000m 2000m
Fig. 3. Trackings of gray whale groups without whalewatching or other (fishing, cruising or drifting) boats during the (a) southbound and (b) northbound migrations near Todos Santos Islands from January to March 1998 and 1999.
24
535533
531529
527523
515511
503
498
496
60
58
56
568
567
565
52
5048
46
44
42
40
38
36
247
249252
254255
256
257259260
261
262
263264
271276
286
288
291
295
300301304
305
308
310
312
2741
2739
2734
2721
2712
2706
2704
2671
2669
26652664
2662
2657
2655
2652
2647
2644
325
323
321
319
2609
2606
2604
2515
25112509
2507
25012499
2497
24942493
2490
2489
2486
2480
2479
247824772476
2474
2472
2467
a) Southbound migration, with whalewatching boats
673672 671
667
662
660
654
632
1231
1228
1225
1216
1213
12111206
1202
1199
11971196
1195
1191
11891187
11851181
11791175
1173
11711169
1167
1165
1161115911571155
11531152
1151
1150
1149
114811471146
114511441141
1138
4621
4617
4614
4611
4609
4603
4600
4599
4598
4568
4567
4565
4558
4557
4556
4555
4552
4550
4541
4539
4537
4532
4528
4526
4525
4524
45224520
4519
4517
4515
4210
42094207
4206
42054204
4199
4197
4195
41934191
41884186
4115 41124110
4108
41064104
4102
4100
4095
4080
4079
4078
4077
4076
4075
4071
40684065
4059
4056
4053
4050
4047
4044
4041403840354026 40214018
40154012
4008 39843978
3975
39723969
3957 3954
39513948
3942 39373935
3934
3933
3932
3930
3921
3852
3847
3846
3845
3837
3835
3832
3826
3821
3819
3804
37923790
3788
37853781
37753773
3753
3752
3750
3745
3631
3629
36223621
3619
3617
3614
3611
3606
3597
3594
3590
35863584
3580
3578
3576
3570
3566
35653564
3558
3552
3543
3539
3535 3533
3523
3519
3511350 8
3506
3504
35 00
3459
3453
34513445
3442
3434
3430
34293428
3295
3292
32893288
3283
3279
32773276
3274
327232713270
3248
3246
3245
3 23 2
3 22 8
32 24
3220
3218
3214
3210
3205
3132
3129
3124
3064
3061
3057
2976
2975
2974
2972
2971
29702969
2964
2961
2951
2944
2941
b) Northbound migration, with whalewatching boats
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
3522
3520
3518
3516
3514
Nor
thin
g (U
TM)
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
Theodolite station
Theodolite station
0m 1000m 2000m
n = 11 n = 28
Fig. 4. Trackings of gray whale groups with whalewatching boats during the (a) southbound and (b) northbound migrations near Todos Santos Islands from January to March 1998 and 1999.
25
138
137
134
133
132
131130129
9089
88
86
83
33
32
28
26
23
2221
20
19
17
402401
400
399
398
397
396
387386
385
198197
196
195194193
189
188
186
183
157
155
154
152
116
115
114
112111110
109
107
76
75
74
72
71
2780
2777
2774
2686
2685
2683
26822681
2680
26792677
2676
2675
2674
2586
2585
25842583
2582
2581
2578
2577
2393
2391
2388
2387238623852384
2383
2377
2376
2375
2372
2367
2366
2344
2341
2340
2339
2162
2158
2155
2154
2153
2151
2148
2146
2144
2142
2141
2140
2138
2137
2135
2134
2120
21192118
2117
2116
21152114
2113
2112
2111
2110
2108
2106
2104
21032102
2100
2099
2098
2095
2073
2071
2069
2068
2067
2066
2065
2064
2063
20572056
2052
2049
2048
2045
2041
2040
2035
2 033
2031
2029
2027
2025
2023
2022
20202019
2018
2017
2016
1944
1943
1942
1936
1933
1931
1926
1924
1921
1916
1912
1910
1901
19001899
1898
1897
1896
18941893
1892
1891
189018891888
1887
1885
1883
1879
1855
1854
1852
18501849
18441842
1841
1840
1839
18381837
1836
18351834
18331831
18301829
1828
1754
17 53
1748
1 746
17 45
1744
1741
1739
1 738
1737
1618
1617
16151614
1612
16111610
1609
16071606
1605
1604
160316021601
16001599
1598
1596
1595
1594
1593
1592
15911590
15891588
15831582
15761575
1571
1525
1524
1523
1521
1519
1518
15171516
1515
1514
1513
1512
1505
1503
1501
1499
1497
1495
1494
1428
1427
1426
1425
1424
1423
1421
1417
1416
1415
1414
1413
1412
1409
1408
1406
1405
1403
e) Southbound, with other boats
756753
749748
745
738
729
728
1353
1348
1346
1337
132613251313
1312
13081305
1302
1299
1298
12961295
129412931292129112901289
1031
1030
10271026
102310211019
10181017
10161015
1011
1010
1008
1007
1006
1005
1004
1003
10021001
998
991
989
988
987986
985
984
983
982
981
961960
958
957
956
955
954
947
945 943
848
847
844
842
836834
833831830
829
827
825824
823
769
768
767
765763
761
759
757
45954594
4593
4592
4590
45894588
458745864585
45844583
4582
4580
4578
4577
4505
4504
4501
44984497
4496
4494
4493
44904489
4487
4485
4484
4483
44824481
4384
4383
4382
4381
4380
43794378
4377
43754374
4372
43704368
436643654364
4363
4361
43594357
4355
43544353
4352
4351
4350
4349
4348
42344233
42304229
4228
4223
422242214220
42174216
421542144213
4212
4211
3902
3901
3899
38983897
3895
3894
3892
3889
388738863885
3884
3882
3736
3733
37293728
3726
3724
3707
3702
37013700
3697
36933692
369136903689
36883687
3684
3681
3679
3678
3410
3407
34053404
34033402
3401
339 9
3 398
3388
33853 3843382
3380
3378
3121
3119
3110
3102
3101
3095
f) Northbound, with other boats
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
3522
3520
3518
3516
3514
Nor
thin
g (U
TM)
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
Theodolite station
Theodolite station
0m 1000m 2000m
n = 29 n = 19
Fig. 5. Trackings of gray whale groups with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting) during the (a) southbound and (b) northbound migrations near Todos Santos Islands from January to March 1998 and 1999.
26
Whalewatching boats’ tracks were also plotted to understand how they navigate in the
area when following whales during the southbound and the northbound migration (Fig.
6). As expected, the boats were distributed approximately in the same area as the whales.
62
61
5957
55
54
53
5149
47
45
43
413937
570
1361
566
564
562501
522
520
517508
505
536
534532
530
528526
524
521
519
518
516
514
510
507
504
502
500
497
307
302
298
297
293
287
284
278
275
315
313
311
309306
303
299 296
292290
282
277
274
285
280
272
270
268
294
289
283
279
273
267265
2 51
2717
2715
2714
2747
2745
2742
2740
2738
2736
2733
2730
2728
2727
27262725
2720
27192718
27162713
2710
2709
2708
267026682667
266626632661
2660
2659
2656
2654
2653
2651
2650
2648
2646
2645
2643
2642
2641
2640
2639
2638
2637
2636
2635
2634
2628
2625
2624
2623
2622
2621
2620
2619
2612
2611
326
324
322
320
26102608
2607 2605
2603
2602
2601
2522
2520
2519
2516
2514
2513
2512
2510
2508
2506
2505
2504
2503
25022500
2498
2471
24 70
2469
2468
2466
a) Whalewatching boats' paths, southbound migration
0m 1000m 2000m
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
3522
3520
3518
3516
3514
Nor
thin
g (U
TM)
516 518 520Easting (UTM)
666
665
663
661
659
657
655653
651649
647643
641
639
637
635633
631
629
1235
1232
1230
12271224
1221
1218
1215
1236
1233
1229
12261223
1220 1217
1214
1212 1210
1209
1207
1205
1203
1200
1198
1192
1190
1188
11861184
1182
11801178
1176
1174
1172
1170
1168
1166
1164
1162
116011581156
1154
4622
4620 4619
4618
4616
4615
4613
4612
46104608
4607
4606
4605
4604
4602
4601
4571
4569
4566
4564
4551
4547
4544
4542
4540
4538
4536
4534
4533
4531
4529
4527
4203
4202
4201
4200
4198
4196
4194
4192
4190
41894187
4115 41124110
4108
41064104
4102
4100
4095
4070
4067
4060
4058
4054
4052
4049
4045
40424040 4037
4034
4030
4027
4022
4074
4073
4072
4069
40664064
4061
4057
4055
4051
4048
4046
4043
4036
4031
4028
402440234020 4017
4014
40044001
3998
3989
3986
3983
3980
3977
3974
3971
3968
39653962
3959
3955
39523949
39473943 3940
3938
4025
4019
4016
40133997 3991
3979
3976
3973
39703967
3964
3958 3953
395039463944
39413936
3928
3927
3926
3925
3924
3923
3922
3920
3919
3918
3917
39163915
3914
3913
3859
3857
3855
3854
3853
3851
3849
3848
3831
3830
3827
3825
3824
3823
3802
3799
3797
3796
3829
3818
3817
3816
3815
3814
3813
3812
3811
3809
3808
3806 3803
38013800
37983795
379437933791
3787
3786
37843782
3780
3779
3778 3777
377637743772
3789
3757
3756
3755
3754
3751
3748
3746
3744
3743
3742
3741 3740
3739
3642
3641
3640
3639
3638
3637
3636
3635
3634
3633
3632
3630
36283627
3626
36253623
3620
3618
3616
3615
3613
3612
3609
3608
3607
3605
3604
3603
3602 36013600
3599
3598
3595
3593
3591
3589
3588
3587
3585
3583
3582
3581
3579
3577
35753574
3572
3557
3554
3553
3551
3550
3548
3546
35443542
3538
35363534
3532
3530
3528
3526
3524
3522
3520
3516
35 13
3510
35 0535 02
351 8
3515
3512
3509
3507
3503
3461
3460
3458
3457
3456
3454
3452
34503448
3446
3444
3443
344134403439
3437
3435
3433
3432
3431
3307
3306
3305
3304
3303
3302
3301
3300
3299
3298
3294
3293
3290
3287
3285
3284
3282
3280
3278
32753273
3269
3249
3247
3244
3243
3242
3241
3240
3238
3237
3236
3235
3234
3233
3231
3229
3227
3223
3222
3221
3219
3217
3215
32133211
3209
3208
3207
3204
3203
3206 3139
3138
3137
31363135
3133
3130
3127
3125
3123
30863085
30843083
308230813080
3079
3078
3077
3075
3069
3067
3066
3063
3060
3059
3076
3074
3071
30703068
3065
3062
3058
3055
2968
2966
2963
2960
2967
2965
2962
2959
2958
2956
2953
2950
2948
2946
2943
2940
2938
2936
2934
2932
2957
2955
2952
2949
2947
2945
2942
2939
2937
2935
2933
2931
b) Whalewatching boats' paths, northbound migration
Fig. 6. Tracks of whalewatching boats during the gray whale migration along Todos Santos Islands, from January to March 1998 and 1999.
27
Swimming direction
A more variable swimming direction of whales (without boats) was noticed during the
northbound than during the southbound migration (Figs. 3a and 3b). The angular
deviation (s) during the northbound (21°15’) and during the southbound migration
(14°17’) proved to be significantly different (Z = 5.30, p < 0.001, n1 = 50, n2 = 45).
The comparison of mean whale swimming direction (⎯φ ) between pairs of samples
(1998 and 1999 without boats, 'without boats–with whalewatching boats', 'without
boats–with other boats') in either migration showed no significant differences.
Therefore, the angular deviation (s) was used to detect possible changes of swimming
direction during a sighting (Tables II and III).
Sightings without boats were not statistically different in s between field seasons 1998
and 1999, in either migration (southbound: U = 271, p = 0.34, n1 = 14, n2 = 36;
northbound: U = 185, p = 0.39, n1 = 10, n2 = 35) . Hence, sightings without boats during
both years were combined to further compare with whalewatching boats (Table II).
During the southbound migration there were no significant differences in swimming
direction deviation between whale groups without boats and with whalewatching boats
(p = 0.16). In contrast, during the northbound migration, the difference was statistically
significant (p = 0.007, Table II).
Table II. Angular deviation (s) of swimming direction without boats (control observations) and with whalewatching boats (ww), compared by the nonparametric test for dispersion of circular data (Batschelet, 1981). Data for both 1998 and 1999 were combined. ⎯φ = mean angle, s = angular deviation; Z = normal approximation of Mann-Whitney U (Zar, 1999).
Southbound Northbound Without
boats With ww
boats Without
boats With ww
boats n 50 11 45 28
⎯φ 215°06’ 211°03’ 328°20’ 326°55’ s 14°17’ 15°07’ 21°15’ 25°57’ U 328 846 Z 0.99 2.45 p 0.16 0.007*
28
Swimming direction deviation without boats was also compared with other boats
(fishing, cruising or drifting, Table III) and was not statistically different during the
southbound migration in this study (p = 0.14). However, during the northbound
migration the difference was significant (p = 0.02).
Table III. Angular deviation (s) of swimming direction without boats (control observations) and with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting), compared by the nonparametric test for dispersion of circular data (Batschelet, 1981). Data for both 1998 and 1999 were combined. ⎯φ = mean angle, s = angular deviation; Z = normal approximation of Mann-Whitney U (Zar, 1999)
Southbound Northbound Without
boats With other
boats Without
boats With other
boats n 50 29 45 19 ⎯φ 215°06’ 213°14’ 328°20’ 327°41’ s 14°17’ 15°40’ 21°15’ 26°28’ U 832 571 Z 1.09 2.11 p 0.14 0.02*
Swimming speed
A significant difference in mean speed (without boats) was detected between
southbound (⎯r = 2.10 ± 0.65 m/s) and northbound (1.44 ± 0.39) whales during 1999 10
(Mann-Whitney U = 1127, Z = 5.72, p < 0.001, n1 = 36, n2 = 35). The variability of
swimming speed (variance, s2ln), however, was not different (southbound: 0.062;
northbound: 0.057; F = 1.14, p = 0.35, n1 = 36, n2 = 35).
Mean swimming speed seemed to increase in the presence of whalewatching boats
during both the southbound and the northbound migration and to decrease in the
presence of other boats. None of these differences were significant. Therefore, the
10 Data for 1999 only because mean speed during southbound migration was significantly different between the two years (1998 = 1.78 m/s and 1999 = 2.10 m/s; U = 160, p = 0.005*, n1 = 14, n2 = 36).
29
variance was used to search for possible changes of swimming speed during a sighting
(Tables IV and V).
Speed variance during the southbound migration showed no significant differences
between 1998 and 1999 (F = 2.16, p = 0.06, n1 = 14, n2 = 36). Consequently, these data
groups could be pooled for further comparisons. For the northbound migration only data
for 1999 were used; small sample size for 1998 (n = 3) prevented from further analysis
for that year.
Speed variance showed significant differences without boats and with whalewatching
boats during the southbound (p < 0.001) and the northbound migrations (p = 0.04, Table
IV). Differences were not statistically significant with other boats in either of the
migrations (Table V).
Table IV. Variance of swimming speed without boats and with whalewatching boats,
compared by the variance ratio test (Zar, 1999). ⎯r = mean speed, s2ln = natural
logarithm of variance. Southbound Northbound (only 1999) Without
boats With ww
boats Without
boats With ww
boats n 50 11 35 25 ⎯r 1.95 2.05 1.44 1.45 s2
ln 0.062 0.430 0.057 0.103 F 6.96 1.87 p < 0.001* 0.04*
Table V. Variance of swimming speed without boats and with other boats (fishing, cruising or drifting), compared by the variance ratio test (Zar, 1999). ⎯r = mean speed, s2
ln = natural logarithm of variance. Southbound Northbound (only 1999) Without
boats With other boats
Without boats
With other boats
n 50 29 35 9 ⎯r 1.95 1.93 1.44 1.30 s2
ln 0.062 0.054 0.057 0.072 F 1.15 1.26 p 0.35 0.29
30
Finally, significant differences in swimming direction deviation and speed variance were
found during the northbound migration when whalewatching boats approached whales
head-on and towards the rear or flanks (Table VI, Fig. 7).
Table VI. Comparison of swimming direction deviation and speed variance when whales
were approached by whalewatching boats head-on and towards the rear or flanks (only northbound migration).⎯φ = mean angle, s = angular deviation U = test statistic of the nonparametric test for dispersion (Batschelet, 1981). ⎯r = mean speed, s2
ln = natural logarithm of variance. F = test statistic of the variance ratio test (Zar, 1999).
Direction Speed Head-on Towards
rear or flanks
Head-on Towards rear or flanks
n 15 13 n 15 13 ⎯φ 329°34’ 323°57’ ⎯r 1.81 1.67
s 28°07’ 22°54’ s2ln 0.305 0.088
U 134 F 3.46 P 0.05* p 0.015*
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
516 517 518 519 520
Nor
thin
g (U
TM)
Easting (UTM)516 517 518 519 520
Easting (UTM)
a) Head-on approach
0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
b) Approach towards rear
0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Fig. 7. Examples of whalewatching boats approaching whale groups head-on (a) and towards rear (b). Open circles are whale group locations. a) Sighting No. 102 on 15 March, 1998; b) Sighting No. 289 on 27 March 1999.
31
DISCUSSION
Observation effort
Effort during this study depended greatly on weather conditions during February 1998,
when ‘El Niño’ caused severe storms in the area and landing on northern Todos Santos
Island was impossible. Number of days on the field was almost doubled in 1999 (Table
I) which also showed more observation hours and number of sightings. That year was
extraordinarily dry because "El Niño" had ended, meteorological and oceanographic
conditions were opposite, and "La Niña" had started (Durazo and Baumgartner, in
press). Number of observation hours per day (average 5.03 hs./day, range 1.17 to 9.48
hs./day) was similar to the effort reported for a study on migrating gray whales at Point
Sal, central California (5.2 hs./day, range 1.4 to 8.3 hs./day, MBC, 1989). The wide
range in observation hours per day was due to variable viewing and weather conditions.
High winds (Beaufort > 3) after 13:00 hs. would reduce visibility considerably. Only
182 of 297 sightings (61%) were selected for the analyses according to previously
defined characteristics in order to minimise errors (see Methods). The percentage of
useful sightings seems to be normal, since Sumich (1983) used only 54% (74 out of 137)
of southbound gray whale sightings, although these were obtained during five years of
theodolite tracking observations at Point Loma, San Diego.
The number of sightings (sample sizes) with whalewatching boats was much smaller
during southbound than northbound migration (n = 11 vs. n = 28, Figs. 3c and 3d). This
was not due to insufficient effort (compare with sample sizes for sightings without boats,
n = 50 and n = 45, Figs. 3a and 3b), but because whalewatching tours were much fewer
during January (both years) than in any other month. This can be explained by the
normal dynamics of peoples income during the first weeks after Christmas and New
Year’s celebrations. Financial resources of tourists are scarce, and this usually coincides
with the automatic price increments of January.
32
Migration timing
The gray whale’s migration timing is relatively constant and predictable (Rugh et al.,
1999). Even though the exact onset of the southbound migration was not established
during this investigation, sport fishing tour operators have observed the first gray whales
in Todos Santos Bay by the end of November (González, pers. comm.11). The start of the
northbound migration at Todos Santos Island observed during this research (mid-
February) seemed to coincide with San Diego, California, USA, where onset of northern
migration has been observed to start at this time (Rice and Wolman, 1971; Leatherwood,
1974). This coincidence might be expected, because San Diego lies only approximately
100km north of Todos Santos Islands and gray whales travel at an average speed of
139km/day ± 18km/day (Rugh et al., 1999). The peaks of the migration (both
southbound and northbound) were not confirmed in this study because whales were not
counted; groups were only tracked with the theodolite. However, the peak of the
southbound migration should occur at this site during the second week of January as
reported for San Diego, when groups are mainly composed of juveniles (Rice and
Wolman, 1971; Leatherwood, 1974; Sumich, 1986; MBC, 1989).
The peak of the northbound migration (Phase A, groups without calves, Poole, 1984)
should occur during mid March (Gilmore, 1960; Leatherwood, 1974; MBC, 1989). The
end of Phase A of the northbound migration was probably detected in this study when
only one or two groups per day passed northern Todos Santos Island during the last
week of March 1998 and 1999. The twelve sightings of groups with one calf during the
second half of March in this study may be interpreted as the approximate onset of Phase
B in the area, and this is also similar to the timing for southern California (Poole, 1984;
Schulman-Janiger, 1999).
11 J. González. Javier's Sport Fishing. Ensenada, Baja California.
33
Migration tracks
Whales seemed to surround the Todos Santos islands on their southbound migration,
thereby concentrating at the northernmost tip of the northern island (Fig. 3a). This area
has been selected by whalewatching tour operators as the primary ‘whalewatching
ground’ since they have experienced here the highest rate of encounter (Leyva, pers.
comm.). Coastal promontories seaward to 15km have been found to be important areas
of gray whale concentration along the California coast, such as Point Conception, Point
Vicente and Point Loma, California (Hill, 1981, in Bird, 1983).
Even though whales were tracked up to 6km from the lighthouse (the observation point
during this study), the migration corridor seemed to be relatively narrow (2.5km, Fig.
3a) when compared with other sites along the USA coast (Reilly et al., 1980; Herzing
and Mate, 1984; MBC, 1989). However, this should be confirmed by aerial surveys
because sightings have been reported offshore at Guadalupe Island (29°N, 118°20’W)
(Gilmore, 1955; Leatherwood, 1974), almost 300 km from the closest point on the Baja
California peninsula (Punta San Antonio).
Migration corridors have been described for many sites along the coast of the USA
because it is important for shore-based censuses to know how many whales are not
being sighted from the counting station (Reilly et al., 1980; Herzing and Mate, 1984;
MBC, 1989). A narrow migration corridor seems to favour Granite Canyon in northern
California as the best site for the annual gray whale census: 98.7% of whale migration
occurs within 3 nautical miles (5.4km) of the observation station (Reilly et al., 1983;
Rugh et al., 1999). In contrast, along Oregon and Washington the migrating corridor
seems to be up to 20km wide, and 66% of whales travel at more than 10km from shore
(Green et al., 1995). The corridor is also very wide in the Southern California Bight,
where whales are known to travel along several routes between the islands, up to 200km
from mainland (Rice and Wolman, 1971; Gilmore, 1978; Jones and Swartz, 1987).
The width of the migration corridor seems to be related with bottom topography, since
gray whales seem to travel most often in waters no more than 100m deep (MBC, 1989).
34
Therefore, efficient shore census stations occur where the continental shelf is narrow. At
Todos Santos Islands, the whales seemed to travel along the 50m depth contour line
during the southbound migration as reported in other studies (MBC, 1989). However,
this area would not be suitable as a census station because gray whales would be missed
when they swam around the islands or into Todos Santos bay. However, some locations
along the coast north of the bay (for example Jatay or Baja Mar, approximately 20km
north of Ensenada) would probably be suitable for shore censuses because of the narrow
continental shelf and high cliffs.
The whales' tracks at Todos Santos islands observed during the northbound migration
were close to shore and dispersed (Fig. 3b), i.e. whales seemed to have a more
inconsistent swimming path than during the southbound migration. This has also been
observed at other points along the migratory route (Malme et al., 1983; Poole, 1984;
Green et al., 1995) and may be related to foraging and resting behaviour. After five
months of fasting, the migrating animals are probably searching for food sources not
only on the bottom, but also at the surface and in the water column, as has been observed
in other studies (Sund, 1975; Wellington and Anderson, 1978; Nerini, 1984; Palacios et
al., 1994). Other behaviour, such as resting and nursing, could also divert the whales'
routes. This was observed during the study within the 20m depth contour of northern
Todos Santos island, and was reported in central California (MBC, 1989).
Swimming direction
During this investigation a more variable swimming direction during the northbound
migration than during the southbound migration was observed (Figs. 3a and 3b), and this
was confirmed by the statistically significant difference in angular deviation. Few
studies have used theodolite tracking to measure gray whale swimming direction
(Malme et al., 1983 and 1984; MBC, 1989). Only MBC (1989) reported a ‘heading
standard deviation’ for both southbound (27.6°) and northbound migrations (47.4°).
35
The mean swimming direction without boats during the southbound migration was
215°06’ ± 14°17’. This may seem different to some extent from the general southward
direction (180°) or the mean headings reported elsewhere (‘approximately southeast’ in
Rice, 1965; 180° to 194° in Malme et al., 1983; 68° to 202° in Jones and Swartz, 1987;
160.0° ± 27.6° in MBC, 1989). In this study, for the northbound migration the mean
direction was 328°20’ ± 21°15’, whereas others reported 325° ± 47.4° (MBC, 1989) and
11° ± 40° (Malme et al., 1983). These differences between the investigations may be
attributed to the varying coastline configuration where the studies have taken place.
Moreover, the analyses of mean swimming direction in this study did not yield
significant differences in the presence and absence of whalewatching and other boats.
Even though a whale group changed its swimming direction during a sighting when
approached by a whalewatching boat (Fig. 4), the average direction would not
necessarily be different from the path usually followed. Therefore, the aim was to detect
the change in direction during a sighting and the angular deviation (s) was used for this
purpose. This variable was significantly different during the northbound migration in the
presence of whalewatching and other boats (Tables II and III).
During the southbound migration swimming direction s with whalewatching and other
boats was not significantly affected (Tables II and III). Power of the test could have been
compromised because of small sample size with whalewatching boats (n = 11, Table II;
Zar, 1999). However, swimming direction seemed not to be disturbed either when other
boats were in the area, where sample size was larger during southbound migration (n =
29, Table III). Therefore, gray whale behaviour seems to be less influenced by boat
traffic (whalewatching and other boats) during the southbound than during the
northbound migration. This appears to be related to straight paths, higher swimming
speed and greater distance from shore during the southbound migration when compared
to the northbound migration (see discussion of "Swimming speed").
Wyrick (1954) described the changes in direction of southbound migrating gray whales
that he was following on a research vessel close to Point Loma, California. He
36
interpreted that whales were ‘disturbed’ when the distance from the whale group was
less than ¼ mile (400m, estimated ‘by eye’) and ahead of the whales. In a study on gray
whale energy expenditure, Sumich (1983) eliminated sightings where boats were at
distances less than 100m from the whale group because he assumed that swimming
behaviour was modified at close range. Malme et al. (1983 and 1984) found that whales
would change their course (measured with theodolite) at less than 200m from a sound
source (playback resembling oil and gas exploration). MBC (1989) reported two
instances where whales appeared to change direction in the proximity of boats. Moore
and Clarke (in press) reported that ‘gray whales sometimes change course and alter their
swimming speed and respiratory patterns when followed by whalewatching boats.’
In addition, significant effects were found when whales were approached head-on by
whalewatching boats during the northbound migration (Table VI). At Point Sal,
California, a vessel that approached the whales head-on caused them to head directly
offshore (MBC, 1989). At San Ignacio Lagoon, whales exhibited the least amount of
disturbance when approached slowly from behind or alongside without abrupt changes
in engine speed (Swartz and Jones, 1978).
In most whalewatching areas around the world, minimum distances have been set in
guidelines and regulations based only on "common sense". Mexican regulation is not an
exception, and it establishes that boats have to keep a distance of at least 30 m to the
whale group. Future research should investigate the distance where whales are affected
by whalewatching boats. With the data gathered during this study, a ‘threshold analysis’
can be carried out for the Ensenada area. The solution may be a model of the movements
of two or more objects at the same time (boats and whales) and under different situations
(approach direction and speed of boat, number of boats in the area, sound produced
according to vessel size and engine type, etc.) (Bird, 1983). A logistic regression model
as employed for interactions of Hector’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori) with boats
and swimmers in New Zealand might be helpful (Bejder and Dawson, 1999).
37
Swimming speed
The mean swimming speeds estimated at Todos Santos Islands for the southbound
(2.10m/s) and northbound (1.44m/s) migrations are comparable to the measurements
achieved by theodolite tracking at other sites along the California coast (Sumich, 1983;
Malme et al., 1983 and 1984; MBC, 1989). For many years, southbound gray whales
have been reported to travel faster than northbound whales (Gilmore, 1960; Pike, 1962),
and this difference was statistically significant in the present investigation at Todos
Santos Bay.
Gray whales exhibit quite different behaviours during the southbound and the
northbound migrations. One might hypothesise that the straight paths, higher speed and
greater distance from shore when heading southwards would seem to be related to a
certain drive to arrive at the breeding areas. This might be related to high hormonal
levels; however, this would have to be confirmed by a physiological study. As to the
northbound migration (Phase A), the slower swimming pace may be related to energetic
expenditure. Whales have fasted for several months and may have less energy to travel
at the same speed as during the southbound migration. The more variable swimming
path and closer distance to shore during the northbound migration may also be related to
the whales' search for food sources along the coast, as well as resting or nursing
behaviour (see Discussion - Migration tracks).
Another hypothesis to explain the differences in swimming speed between southbound
and northbound migrations would be related to the California Current (CC). This is the
eastern limb of the large-scale, anticyclonic North Pacific gyre. Except near the coast,
the CC is a surface (0-300m deep) current which carries water equatorward throughout
the year along the west coast of North America to the North Equatorial Current (Lynn
and Simpson, 1987). In January (during the gray whale's southbound migration), the
equatorward flow off Ensenada has a magnitude of 1 to 4cm/s that becomes stronger in
February, reaching its peak speed (8cm/s) in March (Lynn and Simpson, 1987), during
the gray whale's northbound migration. Therefore, it would seem plausible that whales
38
swim slower during the northbound migration because they are swimming "against the
current". Moreover, the significant difference in mean swimming speed between 1998
(1.70m/s) and 1999 (2.10m/s) during the southbound migration detected in this study
seems to be related to the effects of the 1998 "El Niño" event in the eastern Pacific.
During January that year, off northern Baja California near-surface coastal poleward
flows developed due to warmer and saltier water conditions (when compared to normal
years) that persisted through July, 1998 (Durazo and Baumgartner, in press). In January
1999, during the southbound migration and the second field work season in this
investigation, the "El Niño" event had ended, and a gradual return to cooler and fresher
conditions characteristic of "La Niña" was observed, with a dominantly equatorward
flow at the surface (Durazo and Baumgartner, in press).
The CC, however, is a complex current system with a seasonal variability (Lynn and
Simpson, 1987). Although the equatorward flow is dominant throughout the year at all
latitudes, a surface countercurrent develops seasonally along the California and northern
Baja California coasts (south to Ensenada). This Inshore Countercurrent (IC) develops
near the coast (within 150km) and is strongest during October, November, and
December of each year (according to 28 years of data, Lynn and Simpson, 1987), when
whales are travelling south. Even in January, when the IC has disappeared off Ensenada
(and whales are still on their southbound migration), it remains between Point
Conception (34.5°N) and San Diego (32.8°N) with a poleward speed of 6 to 8cm/s. Only
off Punta Baja (29°N) and farther south, the IC does not develop at any time during the
year, except during "El Niño" conditions (Durazo and Baumgartner, in press). Thus
southbound migrating whales swim "with the current" only from Punta Baja to the
breeding lagoons in Baja California Sur. However, when gray whales migrate
northwards, the equatorward flow of the CC is strongest (20cm/s) at this latitude in
February, March, and April (Lynn and Simpson, 1987). This could mean that, on a
larger time (October to April) and geographic scale (California and northern Baja
California) than the present study, gray whales swim against the current during most of
their migration (both south and north). Therefore, timing of the gray whale migration
39
seems to be more related in the average to food availability and reproductive drive than
to ocean circulation.
The swimming speed data obtained during this study did not compare so well with
observations employing techniques other than theodolite tracking. Speed has also been
calculated by comparing the time at which maximum numbers of whales pass various
census stations in California, Oregon and Alaska and by placing radio tags on individual
whales and tracking them (Pike, 1962; Herzing and Mate, 1984; Mate and Harvey, 1984;
Jones and Swartz, 1987). The range of mean speeds apparently was wider (1.81 to 2.05
m/s) with these other methods than with theodolite tracking, maybe because of the
longer distance between coastal points than the distance between positions fixed with the
theodolite in a relatively small geographic area. Even though thermal image sensors
(Perryman et al., 1999) were employed in local measurements (i.e. at the same spatial
scale as our study) of individually observed whales, the calculated speed for southbound
migrating whales (1.71 m/s) was slower than our estimated mean (1.95 m/s). Perryman
et al. (1999) observed a consistent negative bias in their estimated distances and
corrected them by linear regression. However, the complex distance and speed
calculations by image processing might still have been underestimated in their study.
The estimated mean swimming speed in this study did not increase significantly in the
presence of whalewatching boats. Speed variance, however, was significantly different
in the presence of whalewatching boats compared to this whale behaviour without boats,
both during southbound and northbound migrations (Table IV). Wyrick (1954) while
navigating on a research vessel behind gray whales at Point Loma noticed an increase in
swimming speed. Kenyon (1973, in Bird, 1983) observed that small boats approaching
gray whales at less than 20m would incite the whales to move away rapidly. On the
contrary, gray whales observed in this study in the presence of fishing, cruising or
drifting boats seemed to reduce their mean speed (Table V), although this was not
significantly different from their ‘natural’ behaviour without boats. In addition,
comparison of speed variance without and with other boats did not yield significant
differences either (Table V). Gray whales exposed to oil exploration sound sources
40
reduced their swimming speed and this was interpreted as ‘a cautious pattern of
movement’ (Malme et al., 1983). A similar behaviour was observed at Point Sal,
California, when gray whales were inadvertently approached by fishing vessels (MBC,
1989).
Furthermore, the intentional approach of vessels sometimes might elicit an escape
reaction in whales, and the vessels’ speed, direction, distance and sound seem to be
important factors (Bird, 1983). In this study, whale speed variance was significantly
higher when whalewatching vessels approached the whales head-on, instead of towards
the rear or flanks (Table VI). A change in speed was also observed during the head-on
approach of a fishing vessel at Point Sal (MBC, 1989). The vessels’ proximity and
speed probably resembles a chase as experienced by gray whales when pursued by killer
whales (Morejohn, 1968; Baldridge, 1972; Goley and Straley, 1994) or by Pacific
Northwest and Russian aborigines (Marquette and Braham, 1982; IWC, 1993; Quan,
1999).
Potential long-term effects of whalewatching on gray whales
Short-term effects of whalewatching mainly refer to behavioural, physiological or
acoustic reactions of marine mammals to interactions with boats or swimmers. Long-
term impacts, instead, refer to measuring changes in population parameters (distribution,
abundance, mortality), physical condition of individuals and habituation or tolerance
(IFAW et al., 1995). The IWC Scientific Committee has agreed that in instances where
annual reproduction occurred in a specific location (as in gray whales), any detrimental
effects from exposure to whalewatching in those areas could affect an entire year’s
production and ultimately the status of the stock (IWC, 1999).
During the 1970’s, after a five-year study at San Ignacio Lagoon, no changes in
distribution had been detected and relative abundance had increased (Jones and Swartz,
1984). Urbán et al. (1997) detected a decrease in whale density in the upper lagoon
41
compared to the earlier studies by Jones and Swartz (1984). This variation was perhaps
due to natural modification in timing and movements of the whales in response to
changes in environmental factors, probably physical changes in the lagoon, or human
activities such as whalewatching (Urbán et al., 1997). Later surveys indicated that
abundance was increasing and the distribution of whales in the lagoon followed the same
pattern as in previous years (Urbán et al., 1998).
With respect to the gray whale’s migratory route, during the 1960’s increasing boat
traffic in San Diego, California, USA, appeared to be causing an increasing proportion
of gray whales to migrate far offshore (Rice, 1965; Gilmore, 1978; Reilly et al., 1980).
Whalewatching by recreational and commercial craft may negatively impact migrating
gray whales by interrupting swimming patterns and thereby increasing energy
consumption (IWC, 1993). In view of the complexity to assess long-term effects of
whalewatching on cetaceans, the IWC Sub-Committee for Whalewatching agreed that
research should focus on biologically significant effects (acoustic exposures, disease and
energetic considerations) (IWC, 2000b). Energetic expenditure, measured by swimming
speed and respiratory rates (Sumich, 1983) may be used in appropriate models to
develop ‘critical response thresholds’. Speed and respiratory rates were recorded during
this study, so these data could be analysed to evaluate potential impacts of biological
significance for gray whales at Todos Santos Islands during 1998 and 1999.
The precautionary principle
During growth and development of human settlements, careful comprehensive planning
is necessary to accommodate the needs of developers and of the wildlife (Compeán et
al., 1995). In Mexico, whalewatching is growing mainly in Baja California, Baja
California Sur, Bahía de Banderas (Jalisco-Nayarit), and expanding to other areas along
the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean sea coasts. Every year, more boat owners
wish to offer marine mammal watching tours, and the Mexican government controls
permit issue. Regulation of this activity has been questioned by some tour operators
42
because the actual link between short- and long-term effects on whales has not been
determined yet. The desirability of expanding the whale watching industry for economic
reasons has to be weighed against the need to protect marine mammals from the adverse
effects of such growth on both cetacean populations and the dependent industry (Birnie
and Moscrop, 2000).
The precautionary principle, as articulated in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development (1992) which was adopted by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), requires that "where there are
threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as
a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation"
(U.N. Document A/CONF. 151/26 (Vol.1), 12 Aug 1992). For example, as fishing on a
sardine stock expands, it is not unusual for the government to consider seriously the
need to impose controls, and for the industry to accept (at least in principle) that such
management might be useful well before the scientist can demonstrate clearly that the
stocks are about to collapse, or indeed that they have collapsed. Only recently has the
problem of managing under uncertainty, and the need to manage adaptively and in a way
that helps generate new information, been widely discussed (Gulland, 1989).
The precautionary principle urges to be very cautious when making decisions about
systems that are not fully understood, which describes relationship between the natural
and the human world. If significant doubt exists regarding a choice to be made, the
decision should be made with as much caution as possible, and with long-range
consequences as fully thought out as we are capable of doing. This principle also tells us
not to do something that cannot be reversed later if our decision is wrong (Meffe and
Carroll, 1997). In the case of whalewatching, for example, we cannot wait until the gray
whale's migratory corridor is displaced (as in San Diego) to put regulation into action,
because this long-term effect would be irreversible. Management has to be based on the
best available knowledge (such as the short-term effects identified in the present
investigation) and the precautionary principle. While more research and experience is
accomplished, regulation and management should be adapted collectively (with
43
stakeholders' participation, including tour operators) by loosening or tightening the
limits established on the tourist activity.
Recommendations for regulation of whalewatching in Ensenada, Baja California,
Mexico
The Mexican Official Law NOM-131-ECOL-1998 is explicit with respect to allowed
approach maneuvers to whales, and other relevant rules. The different characteristics of
gray whale behaviour and whalewatching activities in each whalewatching area has
motivated new studies to adapt the regulations to each lagoon and to Todos Santos Bay
(Ollervides et al., 2000; Ollervides and Pérez-Cortés, 2000; this study). The law allows
inclusion of specifications for any whalewatching area in Mexico’s waters and will be
published three months prior to the start of the whalewatching season as an
'announcement' (SEMARNAP, 2000).
According to the results of this investigation two additions to the Mexican
whalewatching law with respect to Todos Santos Bay were proposed. In order to prevent
unintentional head-on approach by whalewatching vessels, boats should depart Todos
Santos Bay north of Todos Santos Islands during the southbound migration (until mid-
February). Inversely, vessels should exit the bay south of the islands during the
northbound migration (after mid-February, see Fig. 2). SEMARNAP accepted this
proposal for publication in the announcement (SEMARNAP, 1999).
Furthermore, the restricted and controlled zones 12 for the Ensenada whalewatching area
are proposed. To define the controlled zone (Fig. 8), two circles with a 3.6km radius (2
nautical miles, the usual distance unit for navigation) were drawn around Todos Santos
islands to encompass all observed whale and boat tracks in this study (Figs. 3a, 3b and
6). One circle was centred at the lighthouse on the northern island (31°48’43”N,
12 According to NOM-131-ECOL-1998, the restricted zone is 'a portion of federal waters delimited by SEMARNAP … where whalewatching may occur … only for scientific purposes’. A controlled zone is ‘a portion of federal waters delimited by SEMARNAP … where whalewatching may occur … only by authorized tour operators’.
44
116°48’26”W, UTM 518246E, 3519608N 13) and the second circle was centred on a hill
(95m high, 31°47'57"N, 116°47'27"W, UTM 519854E, 3518264N; CSDS, 1971) on the
southern island. These landmarks could be useful to skippers as a visual reference for
locating themselves in the whalewatching controlled zone. This zone for Ensenada was
outlined due to its historical importance for the activity (whalewatching has focused on
this area since the early start of the activity), the higher probability of finding whales in
this area and to limit the access of private boats. According to the law, the latter are not
eligible for a permit; however, they would allowed to watch whales outside the
controlled zone, i.e. in any part of Todos Santos Bay except 3.6km around Todos Santos
Islands (according to this proposal).
The area between the coast of the islands and the 20m depth contour line was proposed
as the restricted zone (Fig. 8), based on resting and nursing behaviour observed during
this study. Whales usually carry out these activities in shallow waters along their
migratory route and in the breeding lagoons (Jones and Swartz, 1984; Rugh et al., 1999).
Boats usually do not navigate closer than 800m north of the northern island's shore
(which approximately coincides with the 20m depth contour), probably because the surf
is potentially dangerous in this area in winter, when northwesterly winds prevail and
swell events are frequent.
13 Spheroid Clarke 1866, North American Datum 1927. Exact location obtained on 28 August 1999 from Eagle Explorer GPS (Global Positioning System). US government selective availability not corrected, hence the position’s accuracy is 100m.
45
514000 518000 522000 526000 530000 534000
Easting
3502000
3506000
3510000
3514000
3518000
3522000
3526000
3530000
3534000N
orth
ing
0 km 2 km 4 km
ControlledZone
Restricted Zone
Ensenada
Todos Santos Bay
Lighthouse
Hill
Fig. 8. Controlled and restricted zones proposed for the Ensenada whalewatching area, according to law NOM-131-ECOL-1998.
46
CONCLUSIONS
The investigation on the influence of whalewatching boats on the behaviour of gray
whales in Todos Santos Bay compared sightings with and without whalewatching boats.
There was a significant difference in the angular deviation (a dispersion measure) of
gray whale group swimming direction during the northbound migration in the presence
of whalewatching boats. In contrast, there were no significant differences for this
variable during the southbound migration. With respect to the swimming speed variance,
significant differences with whalewatching vessels were found during both migrations.
In addition, both variables were found to be significantly different during the northbound
migration when boats approached whale groups head-on, compared with approach
towards the rear or flanks.
Furthermore, the effect of other vessels (fishing, cruising or drifting) on whale behaviour
was assessed. Again, swimming direction variability was not significantly different
during the southbound migration, altough it was significantly different during the
northbound migration. Swimming speed variance was not significantly different during
any of the migrations.
Even though short-term effects on gray whale behaviour was confirmed during this
study, they do not imply long-term effects. However, respiration data collected during
this research could be analysed to assess if the energetic expenditure increases in the
presence of whalewatching boats. The International Whaling Commission considers that
energetic expenditure is a parameter of biological significance that should be examined
to prevent long-term effects.
Since there is still no scientific evidence of long-term effects on gray whales, but short-
term effects have been demonstrated in this study, the precautionary principle has to be
practiced. This means that, based on the best available scientific evidence, conservation
and management measures have to be applied on the tourist activity to prevent
irreversible damage on the eastern Pacific stock of the gray whale.
47
Therefore, based on the results of the behavioural investigation in this thesis, two
additions to the Mexican whalewatching law (NOM-131-ECOL-1998) were proposed.
First, to prevent unintentional head-on approach by whalewatching boats, they should
depart Todos Santos Bay north of Todos Santos Islands during the southbound migration
(until mid-February). Inversely, vessels should exit the bay south of the islands during
the northbound migration (after mid-February).
The second addition to the law proposes the restricted and controlled zones in the
Ensenada whalewatching area around Todos Santos Islands, based on precise theodolite
trackings of whales and vessels. The access will be banned for vessels (except research
boats) to the proposed restricted zone, where in shallow waters (less than 20m deep)
whales rest, feed or nurse. In the controlled zone only recreational and educational
whalewatching activities are permitted when carried out by authorised tour operators.
The proposed additions to the regulations are still insufficient for whalewatching to
occur in an ordered manner and for its sustainable development. In the second part of
this thesis the history and economic importance of this ecotourist activity in the port of
Ensenada was investigated, in order to assess its potential for development and to
examine the existing problems among stakeholders (tour operators, government
agencies, and the academic sector). The proposed management plan is an attempt to
integrate the scientific, legal, social, and educational aspects to improve the quality of
this economic activity and to keep the tourist resource, the gray whale, available to
future generations, that is, to achieve the sustainable development of whalewatching in
Ensenada.
48
COASTAL ECOTOURISM MANAGEMENT IN ENSENADA, MEXICO:
WHALEWATCHING PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
The development of ecotourism in the Third World appeals to destination areas, tourism
enterprises, tourists, and governments alike (Cater, 1997; Instituto Nacional de Ecología,
2000). This form of travel has emerged as a popular strategy for protecting biodiversity
in many regions throughout the world (Clark, 1998; Mendelssohn, 1997). In practice,
however, it appears that many ecotourism programs are failing to protect the biodiversity
upon which they depend. Unregulated tourist behaviour frequently causes negative
impacts to local communities and irreparable damage to natural resources (Garen, 2000).
Whalewatching, a special form of ecotourism, has grown and expanded around the
world during the last 10 to 15 years. Therefore, concern about the possible effects of
whalewatching on marine mammals arose (Hoyt, 1995; IWC, 1995). The International
Whaling Commission (IWC) recommended case-specific assessments of whalewatching
effects on cetacean behaviour to propose adequate guidelines for regulation and
management of whalewatching activities (IWC, 1996).
The growing demand for whalewatching in Ensenada has created competition and the
requirement to increase the activity. According to the behavioural investigation in this
work, during 1998 and 1999 whalewatching boats modified the variability of swimming
direction during the northbound migration and speed variance during both southbound
and northbound migrations of gray whales in Todos Santos Bay and surrounding waters.
Therefore, the improvement of whalewatching regulations and the implementation of a
management plan are necessary to correct short-term effects and, according to the
precautionary principle, to prevent long-term effects on these cetaceans, (Gilmore, 1978;
Reilly et al., 1980; Compeán et al., 1995; Meffe and Carroll, 1997).
49
Impact mitigation refers to counter-measures employed to prevent or minimise
environmental damage. Mitigation may take several forms, and minimisation or
reduction of impact is often the simplest approach (Clark, 1996). Regulation and
management plans are often applied for this purpose. Even though whalewatching in
Mexico is regulated by a law (NOM-131-ECOL-1998), management of the activity in
the areas where this tourist activity occurs is still in its infancy.
The design of a management plan that aims to harmonise the regulation, the
administration, and the organisation of stakeholders or users has to comprise both human
and ecological dimensions, integrate and balanced them. To ignore either is to invite
conflict that will result in the degradation of the resource and its habitat (Duffus and
Dearden, 1993).
In most countries a priority goal of coastal management should be to consider the most
extensive participation possible of all involved actors (Clark, 1998). The objectives of
public participation in the planning and management process are to ensure that scientific
knowledge and popular experience are integrated, to better guarantee for the quality of
the solution identified and for its adaptation to a particular condition, and to ensure that
all needs and priorities are taken into account in the formulation of a management
decision. People very often become upset by private and government projects because
they have had limited or no access to the decision-making process. In many parts of the
world, demonstrations, destruction of signs and structures, and opposition to important
governmental decisions have occurred to stop projects, mainly because these projects
were not consulted with the public. Stakeholders who have been involved in the
formulation of policies and rules on resource use in coastal areas are more likely to
support them. Public participation should be encouraged by the entire management
community (resource users, public agencies, non-governmental organisations, social
groups, and local communities) to ensure the quality, the effectiveness, and the equity of
management proposals (Clark, 1996).
50
In Mexico, public consultation has improved during the last year, especially
SEMARNAP (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca,
SEMARNAP, now SEMARNAT) favoured this activity through consultation councils
and committees (SEMARNAP, 2000)
Since the gray whale is an ecotourism objective, federal government officials of the
SEMARNAP National Institute of Ecology (Instituto Nacional de Ecología, INE) invited
whalewatching stakeholders (tour operators, local government officials and research
institutions) to two meetings in this city in March and December 2000 14. The aim of
these meetings was to constitute a working group for the design of management
strategies that would combine local scientific and empirical knowledge to develop the
activity with a better organization, equity, and compromise.
Based on the scientific evidence that whalewatching affects gray whale behaviour in
Ensenada, the legal, social, and economic aspects of this activity were analysed to
propose a management plan for whalewatching in Ensenada. Further, the plan's
feasibility was discussed with respect to documented key stakeholders' attitudes toward
regulation and management of this ecotourist activity.
14 See Appendix 2 for participants and outcome of public meetings.
51
METHODS
Two techniques for qualitative research were used: participant observation (i.e.
observation of human activities through direct participation, Chadwick et al., 1984) and
open-ended interviews (Taylor and Bogdan, 1990). This kind of interview was intended
to obtain the interviewee's personal perception of the situation under study. The
interview had not a strict format, although it contained preformulated questions and the
interviewer took notes (no tape recording). The conversations started with these
questions and the interviewees were encouraged to speak freely, with few interruptions,
and to remain true to the main theme (the history and current situation of whalewatching
in Ensenada).
Interviews
From 1996 to 2000, ten key stakeholders were interviewed. Questions regarded specific
whalewatching activities (location, history), development, and conservation measures.
The interviewees were two tour operators, two skippers, two guides, and four
government officials who were selected mainly because of their extensive experience in
whalewatching:
Tour operators. Estela Parrilla, Science Museum director, has worked with sport fishing
boat owners since 1978. From 1989 on and until today, the Museum holds the major part
of the whalewatching market in Ensenada together with its partner, Rentas de Pesca
Deportiva (a company that owns five large boats). Mrs. Parrilla, considered a keystone
in this process, was interviewed twice (September 1996 and 1 May 1998). A tour
operator with two small boats, Javier González, was interviewed on 13 November 2000
to learn how less powerful stakeholders view the large companies.
Skippers. Pedro Moreno, skipper on "Ensenada Clipper", owned by Rentas de Pesca
Deportiva, was interviewed on 22 February 1997; Ignacio Mendoza, skipper on "Royal
Pacifico", owned by Baja Fiesta, was interviewed on 15 March 1997. They have a 25-
52
30 years navigation experience in Todos Santos Bay and have been part of
whalewatching history in the area.
Guides. Claudia Leyva (questioned in August 1996) worked for the Science Museum
from 1989 to 1996 and was guide coordinator during the 1995-1996 season. Gustavo
Gascón (interviewed on 17 October 2000) has also been guide at the Science Museum
since 1995 and is the guide coordinator since 1997. Their experience on board
whalewatching trips would give more information about history and special insight into
crew and tourist attitudes toward regulation and management.
Government officials. Since 1994, Esperanza Díaz and Pablo Orozco have worked at the
Environment Coordination of the SEMARNAP Sub-Delegation in Ensenada, and they
were interviewed on 30 April 1998. They are the main contact of tour operators with the
government with respect to regulation and management, i.e. this office is in charge of
public participation meetings and the paperwork for permit issuing by the central
government. Further interviewed officials were Tobías Contreras and Oswaldo Santillán
at the Federal Attorney's Environmental Office (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al
Ambiente, PROFEPA) in December 1997 and 4 May 1998, respectively. Mexican
regulations and difficulties in law enforcement was the aim of the interviews with
government officials.
Participant observation
Participant observation was used to record the attitudes of resource users toward
whalewatching activities and conservation measures (Dedina and Young, 1995).
In order to achieve this, on February 22 and March 15, 1997, I embarked as an "auxiliary
guide" on two whalewatching trips (duration: 4 hours) organised by the Science
Museum. The first boat belonged to the sport fishing company "Rentas de Pesca
Deportiva" and the second boat to "Baja Fiesta". The interactions of crew, guides and
approximately 30 passengers (25% children) on board were observed.
53
In addition, during the 1996-1997 whalewatching season observations were made on
three occasions at the landing pier regarding the whalewatching process, from the
moment that the tour operators' offices were opened, the tourists arrived, tour operators
agreed on which boats the tourists would be embarked, and until the guides were
assigned to the boats.
Four important events occurred between 1998 and 2000 that favoured the progress of
this thesis. SEMARNAP organised two meetings to design the national whalewatching
regulation with the participation of all stakeholders; I attended and took notes
(SEMARNAP, 2000). Two additional meetings took place to encourage the
management of this activity on a local basis. These meetings were an excellent
opportunity to observe and interact with all actors involved (see Results, Fig. 12)
because they were always invited and attended (Appendix 2).
Other data sources
Information was also gathered from the Science Museum and the Ensenada
SEMARNAP delegation office regarding the extent of whalewatching (number of
permits, trips, passengers and ticket prices). The aim was to obtain a rough estimate of
direct income generated through this economic activity.
Documents from libraries in Ensenada and San Diego were consulted, and reprints from
unpublished works (or with a low circulation) regarding world-wide and Mexican
environmental legislation, whalewatching regulation and management were obtained
from the authors.
Analyses
In order to propose a management plan for whalewatching in Ensenada, the conservation
issues and problems had to be identified before counter-measures could be proposed
54
("issue analysis", Clark, 1996). In this kind of analysis, each issue is evaluated for
important aspects, including at least the extent of socio-economic disturbance and
resource loss that it causes; the degree to which it could be resolved by a management-
type approach; and the consequences of not resolving it (Clark, 1996).
To register the background information, the primary whalewatching grounds in Todos
Santos Bay today were identified and the history of this economic activity in Ensenada
was investigated. Qualitative models that this method proposed and are widely used
were designed to define the policy-making process that would be most feasible to apply
(Fischer, 1999). Qualitative models (also known as 'conceptual' or 'descriptive' models)
are abstractions from reality that social scientists use to comprehend the complexity of
processes, and are equivalent to quantitative models in the natural sciences. Decision
makers prefer qualitative models because they are simpler, descriptive and therefore
easier to understand. In addition, qualitative models can be designed with available
information, and this lowers their cost (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). The modelling
process is vital to the analyst, because poorly structured problems are simplified,
essential and non-essential elements are differentiated, and the analyst's deductions are
made explicit in diagrams. Because the analyst assumes an active role in problem
definition, the problems become mental "constructions". While the latter move closer to
reality, a transformation occurs in which the policy problem changes into a policy
model: an artificial reconstruction of the reality, as with quantitative models (Fischer,
1999).
The first qualitative model designed in this study was a "cause-effect diagram" (Cicin-
Sain and Knecht, 1998; Fischer, 1999). The interviews and participant observations
yielded information to identify the apparent causes and the responsible actors for gray
whale behaviour modification during whalewatching. Management issues were
recognised, such as the boat owners' and the Science Museum's interactions, the tour
operators' attitudes towards whalewatching regulation, the government officials'
approach toward tour operators, the severe limitations of law enforcement, as well as the
55
current coastal zone management and conservation policy process. Consequently, the
main identified problem was defined.
In a second qualitative model ("feedback model"; Fischer, 1999), problems and their
possible solutions were classified from the analysis of interviews and meetings. With the
stakeholders' ideas and the analysis, it was possible to propose strategies, objectives, and
actions (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998) that could be integrated into a management plan
for whalewatching management in Ensenada.
Finally, the feasibility of the proposed management plan was analysed. To do this, its
advantages and disadvantages were identified, that is, the positive and negative forces
that could influence the plan's implementation and success (Fischer, 1999). The results
were expressed with respect to the three objectives proposed for the plan. The objectives
were placed in a "force field", i.e. the possible reactions of stakeholders were postulated
and classified as "strong", "medium" or "weak" forces. A strong reaction would be that a
stakeholder would intensely favour or disapprove any action by actively getting
involved. This means that, besides attending meetings, the stakeholder would work
towards the objective's completion or failure. A reaction with a medium strength would
mean that during meetings the actors would proclaim (without being addressed) that
they favour or not the action. Finally, a weak reaction would mean they would not say
nor do anything regarding a certain management action unless asked by other actors.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The historical background of whalewatching in Ensenada was assembled based on the
interviews and participant observation.
During the 1970's, whalewatching in Ensenada began to be a tourist activity when
visitors asked sport fishing boat owners for trips to watch gray whales that passed near
56
Todos Santos Islands (Fig. 2)15. From 1978 on, an elementary school teacher (Estela
Parrilla) organised whalewatching trips for student groups. One medium-sized sport
fishing boat 16 (length 22.5 m) would be hired twice during the winter 17. For the owners
of sport fishing companies and boats this substitute activity was attractive because sport
fishing declined in winter, as elsewhere (Manfredo et al., 1988).
From 1989 on, Mrs. Parrilla was instrumental in the exceptional growth of
whalewatching when she started promoting daily trips (and receiving a commission for
sold tickets) to finance the establishment of Ensenada’s Science Museum (accomplished
in April 1990). The museum has worked since then as a travel agency, promoting
whalewatching annually through mass media (TV, radio and newspapers) and selling
tickets mainly for Saturday and Sunday trips. From 1989 to 1997, the museum placed
tourists on five to six sport fishing boats (alternating boats according to number of
passengers and agreements among the involved parties) represented by one to three sport
fishing companies. Because of disagreements that arose due to the beginning
competition, in 1993 the museum requested governmental intervention to regulate the
activity. However, there was no immediate solution and conflicts continued for several
years.
In February 1997, during this study's observations at the landing pier, it was learned that
the Science Museum had agreed to place tourists on eight boats belonging to three
different companies (Rentas de Pesca Deportiva, Gordo's Sportfishing, and Baja Fiesta).
The Museum booked the tourists' reservations, received them at the landing pier, and
guided them to the boats. Therefore, the Museum decided which boats would depart
based on a previously agreed role with the boat owners, although several boats would
stay at the port. Conflicts arose when boat owners sold tickets directly at their offices (so
no commission was paid to the Museum) and embarked these clients before the
passengers that had booked the trip with the Museum. The latter tourists would have to
15 Javier González, Javier's Sport Fishing, 13 November 2000. 16 Whale-watching law defines "large boats" as those 15 m or more in length, and "small boats" as less than 15 m. 17 Estela Parrilla, Science Museum Director, September 1996.
57
embark on another boat and often wait for several hours for the next trip. In
consequence, the Museum did not respect the "boat role", and later the affected company
would claim it was being damaged.
Despite the signed agreements among boat owners, the museum and the authorities,
there was no legal basis for enforcement because a specific law for whalewatching did
not exist in Mexico. In the next paragraph, the Ensenada whalewatching scene will be
put into the historical perspective with the situation of this ecotourist activity in the
breeding lagoons in Baja California Sur (BCS). The aim is to clarify the critical point in
time for the events and their consequence: Mexican laws that regulate whalewatching
were issued.
At the beginning of the 1990's, the ecotourist activity was growing in Ensenada and
conflicts were arising. During the same time, whalewatching also was growing and
expanding rapidly in the breeding lagoons in BCS. In Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio
lagoons (Fig. 1) whalewatching was controlled because these lagoons were under the
jurisdiction of the El Vizcaíno Biosphere Reserve. However, farther south, in Bahía
Magdalena, tens of small boats took tourists to watch whales. In this enormous lagoon,
the activity was not ordered at all, no permits were issued, and many conflicts existed
among tour operators. This problem was identified by federal government officials and
researchers in BCS, and they proposed that a regulation of the ecotourist activity was
urgent. Since Bahía Magdalena was not a natural protected area, a faster and more
specific legal instrument mechanism was inquired for to accomplish the objective.
Therefore, an emergency whalewatching law was published in 1996 (NOM-EM-074-
ECOL-1996, SEMARNAP, 1996) that regulated whalewatching, although only in the
lagoons of BCS.
Due to the regulation necessities that became evident during those years in Ensenada
(and that Mrs. Estela Parrilla from the Science Museum had requested), INE-
58
SEMARNAP began to issue whalewatching permits based on that law18. However,
several specifications were unsuitable for Ensenada, where the gray whales' behaviour
varied (migrating vs. breeding), boats were larger than in BCS, and navigation
conditions were different (open seas vs. protected lagoons). Navigation instruments on
board are usually only a compass and a depthmeter (no GPS - Global Positioning
System). However, captains have a chart and are able to give the geographic location of
gray whale sightings 19.
In 1998, INE-SEMARNAP initiated an impact mitigation strategy (Clark, 1996) to
prevent or minimise potential adverse effects of whalewatching on all whale species (i.e.
suborder Mysticeti) that spend at least part of their life cycle in Mexican waters. Public
participation was encouraged by organising meetings in all whalewatching areas; five
occurred in Ensenada (Appendix 2).
Ten invited government agencies and three education and research institutions were
always present, while tour operators increased from four at the first meeting to fifteen at
the last reunion (Appendix 2). The first two meetings' objective was to promote public
participation in the design of Mexican whalewatching regulation. The third meeting was
a two-day training course for tour operators. The two last meetings were aimed at
encouraging situation management (Clark, 1998), i.e., local management of the
whalewatching activity (see Appendix 2 for results of each meeting).
Publication of the law NOM-131-ECOL-1998 (SEMARNAP, 2000) finally gave a legal
basis for law enforcement in all whalewatching areas. The law defines terms like
whalewatching area, a code of conduct so whales are not harassed, controlled and
restricted zones, harassment, boat sizes, the different purposes of whalewatching
(recreational, scientific, educational and publicity), instructions for an official
authorisation, and many others. The regulation also specifies how boats should
maneuver in the vicinity of whale groups (minimum distance: 30 m, approach from
18 Estela Parrilla, Science Museum Director, 1 May 1998. 19 Pedro Moreno and Ignacio Mendoza, skippers, 22 February 1997 and 15 March 1997, respectively.
59
behind or toward the flanks, etc.), and that fishing, swimming, diving, and skiing is
prohibited. This law also mentions that every year an "announcement" will be published,
based on updated information and research results, that will specify controlled and
restricted zones, season duration, number of boats that may receive an authorisation, and
landing piers, among other details. Even though sufficient information is available, the
current "announcement" has not yet been published due to change in government.
Law enforcement, however, is still difficult to achieve because the corresponding
agency, PROFEPA, has insufficient human and financial resources to be effective 20.
GROWTH OF WHALEWATCHING IN ENSENADA AND DIRECT INCOME
Since 1996, permit issuing by INE had promoted whalewatching as an attractive income
possibility for owners of small boats. The number of whalewatching boats increased
from seven to 19, with small boats making up the difference (Fig. 9). None of these
newer boats has ever worked with the Science Museum. During the seasons of 1998-
1999 and 1999-2000, the museum worked only with one (although the largest) boat
company that owns five large boats (total capacity: 190 passengers) 21.
20 Tobías Contreras and Oswaldo Santillán, PROFEPA, December 1997 and 4 May 1998, respectively. 21 Gustavo Gascón, guide coordinator at the Science Museum, 17 October 2000.
60
0
5
10
15
20
89-9
0
90-9
1
91-9
2
92-9
3
93-9
4
94-9
5
95-9
6
96-9
7
97-9
8
98-9
9
99-0
0
W halewatching seasons (Dec.-March)
No.
of
Boa
tsLargeSmallTotal
Boats
Fig. 9. The growth of whalewatching in Ensenada with respect to the number of boats that have received official authorisations for commercial whalewatching. Data sources: SEMARNAP delegate office and Ensenada Science Museum.
The whalewatching effort was estimated according to number of trips and passengers
(Fig. 10). The museum is the tour operator that has reported its activities most accurately
since 1989; therefore, the decline since 1996 is only apparent due to insufficient data
because the museum reduced its partners from that year on. Nevertheless, during 2000
the activity seemed to be recovering. The same constraints have to be considered for the
estimation of minimum direct income (Fig. 11), which was based on number of
passengers and ticket prices. Income summed 534,940 USD from 1989 to 2000.
61
0
50
100
150
200
250
1989
-90
1990
-91
1991
-92
1992
-93
1993
-94
1994
-95
1995
-96
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
Whalewatching seasons (December-March)
No.
of
Tri
ps
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
No.
of
Pas
seng
ers
Trips Passengers
Fig. 10. Effort of whalewatching in Ensenada in number of trips and passengers. Data sources: Science Museum (1989-2000) and SEMARNAP delegation (1998-2000).
62
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000U
S $
1989
-90
1990
-91
1991
-92
1992
-93
1993
-94
1994
-95
1995
-96
1996
-97
1997
-98
1998
-99
1999
-00
Whalewatching seasons (December-March)
Data sources: Science Museum (1989-2000), SEMARNAT (1998-2000)
Fig. 11. Minimum direct income generated by whalewatching in Ensenada. Data sources: Science Museum (1989-2000), SEMARNAP delegate office (1998-2000). There are no data for 1997-98, when the museum decided not to participate in whalewatching due to bad weather forecast. "El Niño" conditions in the Pacific Ocean would cause severe storms along the entire coast of North America (Pavia, in press). SEMARNAP did not receive any reports from other tour operators, even though they worked during that season.
The estimated total direct income for the period 1989 to 2000 (534,940 USD) is
relatively low when compared to whalewatching in the breeding lagoons. Direct income
in Baja California Sur (Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio lagoons, and Magdalena Bay) was
125,000 USD in 1995, 321,590 USD in 1996 and 453,300 USD in 1997 (Ávila and
Saad, 1998). These figures do not account for indirect income in any Mexican
whalewatching area, i.e. tourists' expenses for transportation, lodging, and shopping.
63
More important is the total economic value estimation of this resource that should
include intrinsic and ecological values, natural functions and goods (Costanza et al.,
1998). Chien (1994) estimated the values that California citizens placed on migrating
gray whales off the California coast with increases of 50% and 100% in the gray whale
population, defined as expected whale sightings for whalewatchers. Using the travel cost
method and contingency valuation, the estimate for a 50% increase in the population of
gray whales was about 28 million USD annually. For a 100% increase in gray whale
population, the estimate of total value was 43 million USD (Chien, 1994).
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
Since the Science Museum started organising trips, they recognised the educational
value of whalewatching (IFAW et al., 1997) and naturalist guides have been trained
every year since 1989. During this study, the guides were observed to give accurate
information about the history of Ensenada and the wildlife that was encountered during
the trip (birds, sea lions, harbour seals, and of course gray whales). The guides interacted
with the public by posing questions and offering "prizes" for correct answers. The crew
was kind when addressed by people. However, some tourists complained about
unhygienic restrooms, and lack of refreshments on board. A few people became seasick,
and were assisted by the guide.
Moreover, some guides trained by the museum offer their services to other boats in their
search for higher personal income (they are paid by trip and the museum guide list
changes slowly) 15. Small boats usually do not carry a guide because they occupy one
tourist's place, and the boats' owners (who are usually the skippers) consider the guide's
service too expensive and worthless 12. Instead, they demand to receive naturalist
training in order to save guides’ expenses. The Science Museum, however, was not
willing to provide this training because it was for their guides who constitute an
additional value to the tours the museum offers and therefore attracts more clients. In
64
December 1999, the Ensenada SEMARNAP delegate office organised a training course
for all tour operators 22.
ANALYSIS OF ACTORS
The actors involved in Ensenada's whalewatching, their power and support for
regulation and management, were identified (Fig. 12). Some tour operators show low
support because they consider that official whalewatching publicity (from the Baja
California Tourism Department) favours only one tour operator (the Science Museum
and its partner, the largest tour operator). Unequal competition also stems from the fact
that whalewatching boats offer diverse qualities of the tourist product (naturalist guide,
cabin to hide from wind and rain, comfortable seats, toilet facilities, clean deck) 23.
When the Navy was asked for support on law enforcement they denied it because they
say such belongs to PROFEPA alone. The harbour master is responsible for security
measures on board, although they inspect boats infrequently. Commercial and sport
fishing boats, as well as recreational boats, usually do not maneuver carefully in the
whalewatching area. This was observed during the behavioural study of this thesis, and
has also been commented constantly by tour operators, guides, and researchers in other
parts of Mexico and the United States24. The local university (Universidad Autónoma de
Baja California, UABC) has supported some research on this problem (Heckel et al., in
prep) and the local research station of the National Institute of Fisheries has provided
qualified opinions during law discussion meetings. However, more interdisciplinary
research is necessary to obtain and combine the results of investigations in the natural
and the social sciences, in order to improve regulation and management of
whalewatching.
22 Esperanza Díaz and Pablo Orozco, SEMARNAP delegation office in Ensenada, 30 April 1998. 23 In a broader sense, the tourist product should be defined not only by the whalewatching trip, but also by infrastructure, transportation, other amenities and a hospitality culture. A low product price may be attractive, but its quality may be compromised (SEMARNAP-SECTUR, 1997). 24 Dr. James Sumich, Grossmont College, San Diego, California.
65
Some tour operators with one large boatCommercial and sport fishing boatsPrivate recreational boats
Some tour operators with more than onelarge boatMexican Navy
Local newspapers, TV, radio, local social andscientific research institutions
(Legislators, regulators)Harbor master
Science MuseumWhalewatching skippers and crewMost tour operatorsTouristsLocal scientific research institutions
INE-SEMARNAT1
PROFEPA2
State Tourism Dept.SEMARNAT Delegation in Ensenada
1 National Institute of Ecology - Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources 2 Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection
SUPP
OR
T
POWER
-
-
+
+
Fig. 12. Actors involved in whalewatching in Ensenada, classified according to their relative power and the support they have shown to regulation of the activity. Plus and minus signs indicate greater or lower power and/or support.
66
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Problem definition
Based on scientific research results (Heckel et al., in prep.) and the information analysed
so far, the conservation problem was defined. This was the first step in the development
of a management plan to be proposed to authorities and users involved in this ecotourist
activity.
Whalewatching boats in Ensenada influence the behaviour of migrating gray whales.
The investigation from January to March of 1998 and 1999 revealed that the migrating
gray whales' swimming direction angular deviation and speed variance was modified
significantly in the presence of whalewatching boats. Other fishing, cruising or drifting
boats also influenced their behaviour, although less conspicuously. This is the main
problem and is the starting point in the middle of the cause-effect diagram (Fig. 13)
One cause for this finding is insufficient compliance with the Mexican whalewatching
law (NOM-131-ECOL-1998) regarding maneuvers during whale encounters (Fig. 13).
Another reason is the lack of specific regulations for the Ensenada whalewatching area
that will be published by SEMARNAP in the "announcement". Some tour operators
maneuver inappropriately during whale encounters (cutting into the whales' paths,
speeding around them and approaching them head-on) because they feel under pressure
to satisfy the tourists' expectations. There also is competition with other boats and law
enforcement is insufficient. Private whalewatching vessels are used erroneously around
whales, probably because they are not aware of regulations and correct maneuvers.
In addition, many tour operators offer low quality service on board since poor or no
naturalist education is given to tourists, and boats are often uncomfortable (crowded,
insufficient seating, stained deck, unsanitary toilet facilities if available, no food and
drinks on board). The low quality may be the result of reducing expenses or because tour
operators do not value offering a better service that would attract many more clients.
67
While the whales' behaviour is affected, in the long term their migration corridor might
be displaced to further offshore (Reilly et al., 1980; Compeán et al., 1995), and this shift
may reduce the number of sightings in today's prime whalewatching area around Todos
Santos Islands (see boxes to the right of "effects on gray whale behaviour", Fig. 13).
Therefore, the tourists' expectations would be less fulfilled, and they might not come
back nor recommend whalewatching in Ensenada with tour operators suffering financial
losses. Before this occurs, the precautionary principle should be applied. This means that
regulation has to be applied before the gray whale's migratory corridor is displaced in
Ensenada (as in San Diego), because a long-term effect is irreversible. Management has
to be based on the best available knowledge (such as the short-term effects identified in
this study) and the precautionary principle. While more research is carried out and
experience accumulates, regulation and management has to be applied by closing or
opening the established limits for the tourist activity. SEMARNAP (INE and
PROFEPA), the Baja California Tourism Department, tour operators, and research
institutions have suggested planning strategies to prevent impacts on this natural
resource, to improve tourist services and in consequence, to increase the income of tour
operators.
68
Announcementnot published yet
No research aboutmin. dist., carryingcapacity, noise,abundance and distr.
INE-SEMARNAT
UABC, CICESE,INP-CRIP Ens.Science Museum
Insufficient training coursesfor tour operators
SEMARNATDelg. in BC
Not publicized forprivate and comm.fishing boats
BC Tourism Dept.Harbor Master
Few inspectors
Lack ofresources
PROFEPAHarbor master
Citizenparticipation
Touroperators,Tourists
Effects ongray whalebehavior
Wrongmaneuvers
Too many boats inwhalewatching
area
Insufficiently knownregulation
Insufficientenforcement
Regulation notadapted toEnsenada
Not authorized boats
Official publicityfavors only some
tour operators
Boats have differentservice quality
on board (guide, comfort)
BC Tourism Dept.Tour operators
Unequal competition
Some boatoperators do notagree with regulationand management ofwhalewatchingSEMARNAT-
Delg. in BC
Law Enforcement(PROFEPA,Citizens)
Too muchpaperwork
Tour operators
Fig. 13. Cause-effect diagram for whalewatching in Ensenada. This representation ha("effects on gray whale behaviour”) to the left, to understand the chain of evresponsible actors. On the right side of the main problem are the probable clead to the final total loss of the resource.
Fewersightings
Lesstourists
Whalewatchingunfeasible
Migration corridordisplaced
s to be read first from the main problem ents and attitudes that cause it, as well as onsequences in the long term that would
68
69
Feedback model: The possible solutions
A conceptual model (Fischer, 1999) to understand the different dimensions of the
whalewatching issue in Ensenada was designed to determine what actions could
contribute to its solution (Fig. 14). Adverse effects on gray whale behaviour are caused
by the absence of a specific regulation for Ensenada, insufficient knowledge of
regulations and law enforcement, and low tourist product quality. Before total losses
occur (infeasibility of whalewatching) and even if there is lack of scientific certainty
about that, the precautionary principle has to be applied. The experiences of tour
operators, researchers, and regulators (that could implement a monitoring program)
could be brought together during annual consultation meetings and used to adapt
regulations for Ensenada. Insufficient regulation may be compensated for by having
courses for tour operators and publicity for vessel owners that navigate in the area
(private and fishing boats). PROFEPA should concede more resources to whalewatching
law enforcement so more inspectors would be able to supervise the area by boat.
PROFEPA also should organise "citizen participation committees" where resource users
(tour operators) are entitled to report law violations. These committees already have
been effective in Baja California's fisheries management17. Education and law
enforcement would promote adherence to regulation and, with improvement of the
tourist product quality, whalewatching could remain feasible and sustainable.
70
Training courses for tour operators, regulation publicity for allboats (private, commercial and sport fishing) and tourists
More financial and human resources for PROFEPA, training forenforcement officials, creation of “citizen participation committees”
Adherence to regulation due to education and enforcement
Improvement of tourist product
ADVERSE
EVENTS
Research o•Minimum•Carrying •Noise lev•Abundan and distri•Energetic
Non-specific regulation for Ensenada
Insufficient law enforcement
Effects on whale behavior and displacement of migratory corridor
Renew regulation annually at consultation meetings to combineexperience of tour operators, research and monitoring results
Insufficiently known regulation
Fig. 14. Feedback model that shows adverse events (between arrows, in itwhalewatching. Actions to remedy these events and prevent total losses are
WHALEWATCHING
INFEASIBLE
n: distancecapacityelsce bution expenditure
Experience of tour operatorsand regulators(monitoring program)
70
alics) that may lead to infeasibility of in boxes.
71
Management plan proposal
From this feedback model objectives, strategies, and actions were proposed to
accomplish the aim of a management plan: to promote the sustainable development of
whalewatching in Ensenada (Fig. 15). The actors (from Fig. 12) that are suggested to be
responsible for each action are also mentioned.
Whalewatching management has had different approaches in many parts of the world,
depending on target species for conservation or management, the size of the
whalewatching area, the number of tour operators involved, the law enforcement
capabilities, and the involvement of all stakeholders in management meetings. The long-
term effects of whalewatching have been proven to be detrimental to a cetacean
population at only one site (Monke Mia, Australia). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) were hand-fed by tourists on the beach and survival of calves of provisioned
dolphins was significantly less than that of surrounding, unprovisioned dolphins
(Wilson, 1994). Feeding was not prohibited because many human livelihoods depended
on the meet-the-dolphin phenomenon (Corkeron, 1998), although strict regulations were
implemented that have not been evaluated yet.
Even though long-term effects have been determined only at Monke Mia, the
precautionary principle has led at least 16 countries to design and implement
whalewatching regulations and guidelines (Carlson, 2000). Enforcement in all locations
is difficult to achieve due to the high costs involved. Self-regulation on a voluntary
basis, coupled with education of operators and the public, is thus regarded by many as
being the most effective means of ensuring compliance with all forms of measures in the
long term (Birnie and Moscrop, 1997). This seems to be the best approach to comply
with laws and management plans in such remote areas as Alaska and Abrolhos
Archipelago in Brazil (Morete et al., 2000), or where hundreds of tour operators are
spread over a large area, as in northwestern Canada (Lochbaum, 2001). In British
Columbia, where orcas (Orcinus orca) constitute a major whalewatching industry,
between 1987 and 1989 violations of guidelines fell 71% in spite of a 35% use increase.
72
The reason for this was that, while the lack of institutional regulation leaves a vacuum, it
is filled by a peer-pressure mechanism that works through the presence of locally-based
charter operators and researchers (Duffus and Dearden, 1993).
Nonetheless, the "command and control" approach still retains value and the
combination of both approaches is probably the preferred option (Birnie and Moscrop,
2000). The management plan proposed here aims at promoting sustainable tourism in
Ensenada through a combined approach of regulation and education, as occurs in the
Canary Islands, Spain (Montero et al., 1997). The support of scientifc evaluation is an
important tool for all management schemes, as in Australia (Pirzl, 1998).
AIM OFMANAGEMENT
To promotesustainabledevelopmentof whale-watching byminimizing theeffects of boatson gray whalesand byimprovingtourist service
STRATEGIES
Annual revision ofwhalewatching law(NOM 131)“Announcement”
To inform resourceusers about NOM andeducational values ofwhale-watching
To improve lawenforcement
A
Researchdistance,noise, abdistributi
Annual mexperiennew kno
Trainingoperators
Publicitythrough other me
IncreasefinancialPROFEP
Citizen pcommitte
1.To adapt regulationto Ensenada and tokeep it updated
2. To promoteadherence toregulation
3. To improve tourist product quality
OBJECTIVES
Definitioproduct”
Publicityand tour
Environmboard byboat crew
To reduce unequalcompetition
Fig. 15. Management plan proposal for whalewatching in Ensenada. Actors thatalso presented. SEMARNAP Delg. = Environmental ministry delegaFederal Attorney's Environmental Office.
CTIONS
on minimum carrying capacity,undance andon
ACTORS
Local universityScience MuseumResearchinstitutions
eeting to meldce andwledge
SEMARNAT Delg.Tour operatorsPROFEPAResearchers
course for tour
about regulationsprinted matter anddia
SEMARNAT Delg.Local universityTour operators
SEMARNAT Delg.Harbor MasterMedia
human and resources forA
articipationes
SEMARNATPROFEPA
PROFEPATour operators
n of “touristState Tourism Dept.Tour operatorsLocal universityScience Museum
of tourist productoperators
State Tourism Dept.Tour operatorsMedia
ental education on trained guides or Tour operators
should get involved in specific actions are te office in Baja California. PROFEPA = 73
74
IS THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN FEASIBLE?
Based on this study's information, the proposed management plan was analysed with
respect to the positive and negative forces that might influence the feasibility of meeting
its three main objectives (Fischer, 1999).
Objective 1: To adapt the regulation to Ensenada and keep it updated
Experience of touroperators
Apathy to participate(How do I benefit ?)
Regulation exists Few adaptations toEnsenada
Communication betweenfederal government andlocal actors
Interruption of federalprojects due to
change in government
Research opportunitiesat local research centers,Science Museum
Insufficienthuman or financial
resources
POSITIVE FORCES NEGATIVE FORCESCurrent
stateDesired
state
The experiences of tour operators, the existing general whalewatching regulation, and
the many research opportunities for regional institutions are strong forces that favour
this objective (Fig. 16).
Fig. 16. Analysis of management plan objectives in view of the positive and negative
forces that might influence their feasibility. Their relative strength is represented by the size of the arrow. Forces meet at the centre (current state). Positive forces should become stronger in order to overcome the negative ones. This would lead to the desired state, objective 1: "To adapt the regulation to Ensenada and keep it updated".
75
SEMARNAP has promoted communication with local actors and among the actors
themselves by organising consultation meetings (Appendix 2). The change in the
Mexican federal government on 1 December 2000, however, has interrupted this
communication (a strong, though temporary negative force). Public participation has
been implemented in other parts of the world to deal with management issues.
Whalewatching guidelines in the Gulf of Maine, northeastern USA (Beach, 1989) and in
Norway (DeNardo, 1998) were developed in cooperation with commercial operators,
biologists and conservationists. In the United Kingdom, it has been recognised that any
guidelines issued need to be sensitive to local circumstances and tour operators (Tasker
et al., 1997). In Hawaii, workshops are held each year before the whalewatching season
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and researchers to inform tour
operators and the interested public about laws and whale behaviour. At the end of the
season, a follow-up event occurs to exchange ideas (Johnston, 1989).
A strong positive force is the existence of Mexican regulation with many specifications,
as in other whalewatching areas around the world, e.g. New Zealand (Constantine,
1998), Canary Islands, Spain (Montero et al., 1997); Hawaiian Islands and
Massachusetts, USA, and Australia (Birnie and Moscrop, 2000; Carlson, 2000). In
contrast, in California, USA, law enforcement is based on the general statement of "no
harassment", according to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (NMFS, 1980); therefore,
compliance with existing guidelines relies on self-regulation by tour operators and the
informed public (Birnie and Moscrop, 2000; Carlson, 2000). In Ensenada, some
regulating details still have to be adapted to specific whalewatching conditions in the
area (see "Historical Background"). The IWC has emphasised for many years the
necessity to adapt regulations to the species and area where whalewatching occurs
(IWC, 1993; IWC, 1996). Australia, however, has identified the necessity to build a
cohesive national approach while taking account of existing jurisdictional arrangements
in its eight government departments (Pirzl, 1998).
76
Insufficient human and financial resources at research institutions hinder investigations
on the ecological and human aspects of whalewatching. Funding for research is always a
necessity. Collaboration of whalewatching vessels to collect data during trips is a good
opportunity for the assessment of gray whale distribution in the area, and this has been
accomplished by Ensenada Science Museum researchers (Gascón, 2000). Investigations
in conjunction with tour operators has taken place in the United States (Atkins and
Swartz, 1989; Chu et al., 1985), Ireland (Berrow and Holmes, 1999), New Zealand
(Constantine and Baker, 1996; Lusseau, 2000), and Australia (Arnold and Birtles, 1998).
Objective 2: To promote the adherence to whalewatching regulations
Strong negative forces prevail over positive forces (Fig. 17). The regulation is poorly
known by the general public, including private and fishing boat owners and some tour
operators. Private recreational boaters may be the greatest offenders in terms of
harassing whales in most whalewatching areas, such as in Alaska (Zimmerman, 1989).
Insufficient PROFEPA inspectors (only six to carry out all enforcement activities in
Baja California) 17 are also a strong negative force. This was also the case in Alaska in
1988, when only ten agents had to carry out all of their enforcement activities
throughout the state (Zimmerman, 1989). San Diego, California, had only one agent for
fisheries law enforcement in that county in 1999 (Zatwo, pers. comm.)25.
In Ensenada, citizen participation committees have a great potential as "watching"
organisations for PROFEPA, and tourists also could report law violations. In San Diego,
California, at least one case of gray whale harassment was prosecuted when witnessed
by a tour operator in 1988 (Atkins and Swartz, 1989). The Alaska authority also receives
reports from concerned citizens (Zimmerman, 1989).
The training course for operators organised once in 1999 by SEMARNAP should
continue despite a change in government in December 2000. In Hawaii, earlier
77
Regulation is knownto most tour operators
Regulation is poorly knownby general public
(private and fishing boats)Law allows citizensto report violations
Unknown to most citizens,mostly American
tourists give noticeTraining course organizedonly once by SEMARNAT
Government changesusually interrupt this
kind of effortsEnforcementthrough PROFEPA
Insufficient inspectors
Regulation allowscitizen participationcommittees (CPC)
CPC not organized forwhalewatching (successful
in fisheries management)
POSITIVE FORCES NEGATIVE FORCESCurrent
state
Desiredstate
reluctance of industry to accept guidelines or regulations changed when NMFS met with
tour operators and private boaters to increase awareness of possible effects of boats on
whales (Nitta, 1989). In general, increased education, monitoring, and enforcement are
claimed to be necessary by agencies involved in whalewatching management, such as
NOAA Fisheries (Karnella, 1989). To reach the private boating public, agencies were
encouraged to distribute colourful brochures concerning the responsibilities of
whalewatching, take part in boat shows, place posters at marinas, give public service
announcements, and make presentations at local schools (Atkins and Swartz, 1989). In
the St. Lawrence river, Canada, stronger law enforcement and education was
recommended by Blane and Jaakson (1994) after they found that belugas
(Delphinapterus leucas) were disturbed by boats.
Fig. 17. Analysis of management plan objective 2: "To promote the adherence to
whalewatching regulations".
25 Michelle Zatwo, Fisheries Enforcement, San Diego. (619) 557 54 94. [email protected]
78
Objective 3: To improve tourist product quality
Science Museumtrains guides
Tour operators trainedonly once by SEMARNAT
Guides too expensive forsmall boats (not feasible)
Uncertainty about continuoustraining of tour operators.
Environmental education maybe included in regulation
Environmental educationis not compulsory
Science Museum has its owntourist product definition
Some tour operators maynot agree with museum
Free official advertisementby State Tourism Dept.
Not equal forall tour operators
Museum has successfulpublicity
Most tour operators do notvalue investment in publicity
POSITIVE FORCES NEGATIVE FORCESCurrent
state
Desiredstate
Environmental education is an important component of whalewatching (Fig. 18). The
Science Museum has always used a naturalist guide on board, trained by the museum.
The American Cetacean Society has also trained hundreds of naturalists to work on
whalewatching boats in Los Angeles (Lewis, 1989). NOAA Fisheries has encouraged
the development of an educational program with a national and regional focus, where
industry, the conservation community, scientists, and resource managers should
participate (Atkins and Swartz, 1989).
Fig. 18. Analysis of management plan objective 3: "To improve tourist product quality".
The training of skippers as naturalist guides is necessary because the Ensenada Science
Museum shares the guides only with boat owners that agree to sell tickets through the
museum and pay for the guide's services (reported to be not feasible for small tour
operators). A guide is not required by Mexican regulation, although this strong negative
force (Fig. 18) would be compensated by including mandatory environmental education
of the regulation itself for a license to operate. In the Canary Islands, the decree that
79
regulates pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) observation requires the presence
of a monitor-guide on board (Montero et al., 1997).
The Science Museum has its own tourist product definition (i.e. guides, comfortable and
clean boats, security measures provided). Nevertheless, some tour operators do not agree
with the museum's services because they have not realised that a better service would
attract more clients, and hence improve their income. They argue that the lack of
financial resources prevent them from having boats in the best condition. According to
Duffus and Dearden (1993), commercial whalewatching companies should be aware that
many adjuncts to the whale contact influence the value of the experience - scenery,
education programmes, and other wildlife species. They are consistent components of
success that may be managed to provide higher benefits than merely viewing whales.
Tour operators would capture return customers and develop a positive reputation, as in
the Canadian killer whale (Orcinus orca) viewing area near Vancouver (Duffus and
Dearden, 1993).
In many areas of the world, the tourism industry constitutes a broad sector of travel
services which group together in associations to market regional destinations more
effectively. These efforts often receive government subsidies (IFAW, 1998). The Baja
California Tourism Department offers free advertisement (posters and a telephone
number) to provide information to the interested public. However, inefficient Tourism
office personnel often biases recommendations towards only a few of the tour operators
(the largest and best known). The museum's successful operation is probably the result
of its own publicity investment. However, most tour operators do not value the
investment in publicity or lack the resources to make the effort. A complete marketing
strategy would aid the development of the industry, as has also been described for
humpback whale viewing (Megaptera novaeangliae) in southeastern Brazil (Morete et
al., 2000).
80
CONCLUSIONS
The growth of whalewatching in Ensenada during the 1990's is an example of tourist
development. During this same period, many fishing towns have embraced this
economic alternative in other parts of Mexico, such as in Magdalena Bay, the
southernmost breeding lagoon for gray whales, and Puerto Vallarta, a breeding area for
humpback whales on the Mexican Pacific coast (Ávila and Saad, 1998; Sánchez, 1998).
Mexican whalewatching regulation and management started in BCS many years ago.
With the experience of tour operators, researchers, and regulators, regulations and
management actions have been "tailored" to each whalewatching area in the breeding
lagoons. The regulation still has to be adapted continuously to each particular area where
this economic activity has grown very fast during the last ten years: Ensenada and BCS
(gray whales) and Jalisco-Nayarit (humpback whales). Many other locations in Mexico
have great potential for whalewatching (Hoyt, 1995). In the process of regulation design,
all stakeholders (tour operators, government agencies, research institutions) should be
included to minimise more narrow self-interest decisions and reduce mistrust (Clark,
1998). A good example of this procedure was the public consultation that resulted in the
new general Mexican whalewatching law (SEMARNAP, 2000).
The management of natural resources is an ongoing process that should constantly adapt
to changes in the ecological and the human context (Meffe and Carroll, 1997). The
cooperation of all stakeholders will grant the basis for sustainable development of
whalewatching not only in Ensenada, but in other areas around the world.
81
FINAL REMARKS: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE TOURISM26 IN ENSENADA,
BAJA CALIFORNIA
For someone educated in the natural sciences, the evaluation of the impacts of
whalewatching on cetaceans would seem to have a straightforward approach: apply the
scientific method (observe human-whale interactions, propose a hypothesis, plan an
appropriate method, obtain data, and conclude). In the end, some management
recommendations would be produced directly related to the human-whale interaction
(whether humans are on a boat, swim with the dolphins, watch them from land, or feed
them). It would be expected that government would embrace these recommendations
and integrate them into regulation and law enforcement. Straightforward, relatively
simple, but unrealistic.
When natural resources are used by humans, the economic and social aspects of a
particular activity cannot be set aside to find appropriate management regimes.
Managers (usually in the government) have to make decisions on the conservation of
species and ecosystems, but also have to understand the users' needs and problems to
design successful regulations and management measures. This work aimed at having a
holistic approach of the whalewatching issue in Ensenada. Although a bias toward the
ecological dimension is quite obvious, the human dimension was also taken into
consideration in an attempt to propose practical regulation and management actions.
During two whalewatching seasons (winters of 1998 and 1999) the influence of
whalewatching boats on the behaviour of migrating gray whales was evaluated by
collecting and analysing the swimming direction and speed of these cetaceans in the
26 Sustainable tourism is defined as tourism development that minimises its negative impacts and maximises its positive impacts on the sociocultural and ecological environment through planning and management. The premise that underlies sustainable tourism is that the enjoyment of future generations should not be affected negatively by visitors today. Ecotourism is a niche market within sustainable tourism (NACEC, 1999). It is environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socioeconomic involvement of local populations (Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996).
82
presence and absence of whalewatching boats. Significant effects on swimming speed
variance were determined during both the southbound and northbound migration.
Swimming direction variability (angular deviation), however, seemed to be influenced
only during the northbound migration. Sample size was probably too small during the
southbound migration (only 11 sightings with whalewatching boats) to detect effects
with this variable. Therefore, future research has to reassess these short-term effects of
the tourist activity during the southbound migration, when usually fewer trips occur than
during the northbound migration.
In addition, there are other topics that require investigation urgently. The minimum
distance of 30m specified in the Mexican whalewatching regulation has not been tested
in the Ensenada area, and its validity is still questioned. This distance was established
for whalewatching from small boats (less than 15m long) in the breeding lagoons,
whereas in Ensenada many large boats (20 to 40m long) are used. Moreover, it is
unknown how the noise of these larger boats (many are equipped with diesel engines)
affects gray whale behaviour. Bioacustics is another research opportunity that could be
applied in Todos Santos Bay. Energetic expenditure, a potential and important effect on
the biology of cetaceans, has to be evaluated. Further, the number of permits issued by
INE has increased steadily (see Fig. 9), although the number of boats is limited by the
regulation in a 30-80m radius around whale groups. However, the number of boats that
may be allowed at any one time in the controlled zone (in this study, a proposed area of
approximately 60km2) has to be determined. The distribution and relative abundance of
gray whales should continued to be monitored (by Science Museum researchers or other
institutions that continue this effort) in order to detect shifts in the migration corridor, a
potential long-term effect that can be prevented.
Research results are important for management, although not the only tool. A key factor
to successful management is public participation in the design and implementation of
control measures. One of this study's recommendation (navigation guidelines around the
islands to prevent inadvertent head-on approach) was presented at a training course for
tour operators. Skippers agreed with the recommendation because it is reasonable and
83
does not interfere with normal maneuvers. Thus it is expected to be followed. In
addition, boat owners welcomed the definition of a controlled zone because it limits
access to the best whalewatching area, i.e. only permit holders (identified with visible
flags) are allowed to enter the controlled zone and may report violators to PROFEPA.
During many meetings (see Appendix 1), INE consulted the Mexican whalewatching
regulation with stakeholders in the most important areas in Mexico, including Ensenada.
Besides binding regulations, it has been emphasised throughout this work that education
is a major tool to develop a successful management process in Ensenada. More and
better courses for tour operators will not only incorporate regulation awareness but also
train them as naturalist guides, so the tourists also learn more about the natural and
cultural heritage in Ensenada and Todos Santos Bay. Other boat operators that usually
encounter gray whales on their migratory route (private, commercial and sport fishing
boats) should also be educated with respect to correct maneuvers around cetacean
groups to minimise their influence (also found to be significant in swimming direction
variability during the northbound migration).
A management process towards sustainable tourism has to evolve from issue definition
to planning, institutional formalisation, implementation, and evaluation (Olsen and
Christie, 2000). This study's objective was to contribute to the first two phases (issue
definition and planning). Institutional formalisation would be the next step and could be
accomplished in the form of a working group integrated by all stakeholders (see Fig.
12). Implementation and evaluation of the management process would be the ultimate
steps to turn whalewatching in Ensenada into a sustainable ecotourist activity.
84
REFERENCES
Arnold, P.W. and Birtles, R.A. 1998. Towards sustainable management of the developing dwarf minke whale tourism industry in Northern Queensland. Paper SC/50/WW1 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 25 pp.
Atkins, N. and Swartz, S.L. (eds.) 1989. Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
Ávila F., S., and Saad A., L. 1998. Valuación de la ballena gris (Eschrichtius robustus) y la ballena jorobada (Megaptera novaengliae) en México. pp. 309-373. In: H. Benítez D., E. Vega L., A. Peña J. and S. Ávila F. (eds.) Aspectos Económicos sobre la Biodiversidad de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Instituto Nacional de Ecología. Mexico-City, Mexico.
Baillie, J. and Groombridge, B. (eds.) 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. ca. 450 pp.
Baldridge, A. 1972. Killer whales attack and eat a gray whale. J. Mammal. 53(4):898-900.
Barr, K. and Slooten, L. 1998. Effects of tourism on dusky dolphins at Kaikoura. Paper SC/50/WW10 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. 29 pp.
Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular Statistics in Biology. Academic Press, New York, USA. 371 pp.
Beach, D. 1989. Northeast region. pp. 5. In: N. Atkins and S.L. Swartz (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
Bejder, L. and Dawson, S.M. 1999. Responses by Hector's dolphins to boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Mar. Mammal Sci. 15(3):738-750.
Berrow, S.D. and Holmes, B. 1999. Tour boats and dolphins: A note on quantifying the activities of whalewatching boats in the Shannon estuary, Ireland. J. Cetaceans Res. Manage. 1(2):199-204.
85
Bird, J.E. 1983. The California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus): A review of the literature on migratory and behavioral characteristics. pp. A-0 to A-90. In: C.I. Malme, P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. (eds.) Investigation of the Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray Whale Behavior: Phase I, January 1983 Migration. Report No. MMS/AK/ESU-83-020 presented to the Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska. ca. 250 pp.
Birnie, P. and Moscrop, A. 2000. Report of the Workshop on the Legal Aspects of Whale Watching. Punta Arenas, Chile. IFAW, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA. 48 pp.
Blane, J.M. and Jaakson, R. 1994. The impact of ecotourism boats on the St. Lawrence beluga whales. Environ. Conserv. 21(3):267-269.
Brown, M.R., Corkeron, P.J., Hale, P.T., Schultz, K.W., and Bryden, M.M. 1994. Behavioral responses of East Australian humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae to biopsy sampling. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 10(4):391-400.
Bryant, L. 1994. Report to congress on results of feeding wild dolphins: 1989-1994. US National Marine Fisheries Service. Office of Protected Resources. 23 pp. + attachments.
Carlson, C.A. 2000. A review of whale watching guidelines and regulations around the world, version 2000. Paper SC/52/WW5 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 85 pp.
Cater, E. 1997. Ecotourism in the Third World - problems and prospects for sustainability. pp. 68-81. In: L. France (ed.) Sustainable Tourism. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 259 pp.
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. 1996. Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: the state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.
Chadwick, B.A., Bahr, H.M., and Albrecht, S.L. 1984. Social Science Research Methods. Prentice Hall, New York, USA. 454 pp.
Chu, K., Mayo, C., and Weinrich, M. 1985. The effect of whale watching in the southern Gulf of Maine on distribution and reproductive rates of humpback whales. Abstracts of the Sixth Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, November 22-26, 1985. Vancouver, Canada.
Chien, Y-L. 1994. Valuing environmental amenities with revealed and stated preference information: an application to gray whales in California. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis, USA. 139 pp.
Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R.W. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 517 pp.
86
Cipriano, F. 1990. User’s Manual T-TRAK Version 1.0. Theodolite-Tracking Data Analysis (for IBM-compatible computers). University of Arizona (unpublished). 38pp.
Cipriano, F. 1993. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of occurrence, behavior, movements, travel speed and activity levels of dusky dolphins off Kaikoura, New Zealand. 10th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Galveston, Texas, U.S.A.
Clapham, P.J., Young S.B., and Brownell, Jr., R.L. 1999. Baleen whales: Conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Review. 29:35-60.
Clark, J.R. 1996. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 694 pp.
Clark, J.R. 1998. Coastal Seas: The Conservation Challenge. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, Great Britain. 134 pp.
Compeán J., G., Mate, B., Pérez-Cortés M., H., Swartz, S., and Ulloa R., P. 1995. Further thoughts on tourism and other developments in gray whale critical habitats. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:160-161.
Constantine, R. 1998. The whale and dolphin tourism industry in New Zealand: A review of management and research. Paper SC/50/WW6 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 13 pp.
Constantine, R. and Baker, C.S. 1996. Monitoring the commercial swim-with-dolphin operations in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand. Final Report for Department of Conservation Project “Impact of marine mammal watching”. Auckland, New Zealand. 54 pp.
Corkeron, P. 1998. Whalewatching - management and research in Australia. Paper SC/50/WW5 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 8 pp.
Corkeron, P.J., Brown, M., Slade, R.W., and Bryden, M.M. 1994. Humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae (Cetacea: Balaenopteridae) in Hervey Bay, Queensland. Wildl. Res. 21(3):293-305.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and van den Belt, M. 1998. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics 25:3-15.
Cruz-Colín, M.E. and Cupul-Magaña, L.A. 1987. Erosión y aporte sedimentario de los cantiles marinos de la Bahía de Todos Santos, Baja California, en el período de 1970 a 1991. Ciencias Marinas 23(3):303-315.
CSDS (Continental Shelf Data Systems). 1971. Todos Santos South. Bathymetric Map. Denver, Colorado, USA.
87
Dahlheim, M.E., Schempp, J.D., Swartz, S.L., and Jones, M.L. 1981. Attraction of gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, to underwater outboard engine noise in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70 (Suppl. 1):S83-S84.
Dedina, S. and E. Young. 1995. Conservation and Development in the Gray Whale Lagoons of Baja California Sur, Mexico. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Washington, D.C. 70 pp.
DeNardo, C. 1997. Whalewatch management in Tysfjord, northern Norway. Paper SC/50/WW8 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 2 pp.
Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1992. Decreto promulgatorio de la convención sobre el comercio internacional de especies amenazadas de fauna y flora silvestre. 6 de marzo de 1992, págs. 23-42.
Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. 1993. Recreational use, valuation, and management, of killer whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada's Pacific coast. Environmental Conservation 20(2):149-156.
Durazo, R. and Baumgartner, T.R. In press. Evolution of oeceanographic conditions off Baja California: 1997-1999. Progress in Oceanography.
Espejel, I., Arámburo, G., Leyva, C., Cruz, Y., Bravo, L.C., Flores, J.D., and Zúñiga, W. 2001. La Vegetación Costera del Noroeste de Baja California: Sus Posibilidades de Conservación. Final Report to Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Project No. A98/051. 74 pp.
Fischer, D.W. 1999. Técnicas para la Formulación de Políticas en Zonas Costeras. Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Mexicali, Baja California, México. 243pp.
Fleischer, L.A. 1991. La ballena gris. Panorama Pesq. 1(2):24-27.
Gambell, R. 1999. The International Whaling Commission and the contemporary whaling debate. Pp. 179-198. In: J.R. Twiss, Jr. y R.R. Reeves (eds.) Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C., USA. 471 pp.
Gard, R. 1974. Aerial census of gray whales in Baja California lagoons, 1970 and 1973, with notes on behavior, mortality and conservation. Calif. Fish and Game. 60(3):132-134.
Garen, E. 2000. Appraising ecotourism in conserving biodiversity. pp. 221-251. In: T.W. Clark, A.R. Willard, and C.M. Cromley. Foundations of Natural Resources Policy and Management. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA. 372 pp.
88
Gascón, G. 2000. Viajes ecoturísticos de avistamiento de ballenas en Bahía de Todos Santos, Baja California, México: una opción de monitoreo de ballenas y control de embarcaciones. Pp. 61. In: Proceedings of the XXV Reunión Internacional para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Marinos, La Paz, B.C.S., México, May 7-11, 2000. 74pp.
Gerber, L.R., DeMaster, D.P., and Kareiva, P.M. 1999. Gray whales and the value of monitoring data in implementing the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 13(5):1215-1219.
Giard, J., Michaud, R. y Barrette, C.. 1993. Observable surface behavior and ventilation of blue whales in the St. Lawrence estuary. 10th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Galveston, Texas, U.S.A.
Gilmore, R.M. 1955. The return of the gray whale. Sci. Amer. 192(1):62-67.
Gilmore, R.M. 1960. Census and migration of the California gray whale. Norsk Hvalfangsttid. 9:409-431.
Gilmore, R.M. 1978. Some news and views of the gray whale. Part 2. Migration south and north along and between the islands of southern California. Whale Watcher. 12(2):9-13.
Goley, P.D. and Straley, J.M. 1994. Attack on gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in Monterey Bay, California, by killer whales (Orcinus orca) previously identified in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 72(8):1528-1530.
Gordon, J., Leaper, R., Hartley, F.G., and Chappel, O. 1992. Effects of whale-watching vessels on the surface and underwater acoustic behaviour of sperm whales off Kaikoura, New Zealand. Report Science & Research Series No. 52. Department of Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand. 64 pp.
Green, G.A., Brueggeman, J.J., Grotefendt, R.A. and Bowlby, C.E.. 1995. Offshore distances of gray whales migrating along the Oregon and Washington coasts, 1990. Nortwest Sci. 69(3):223-227.
Greenhood, D. 1964. Mapping. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois, USA. 289 pp.
Gulland, J.A. 1989. Fishery Management: How can we do better? pp. 255-272. In: E.L. Miles (ed.) Management of World Fisheries: Implications of Extended Coastal State Jurisdiction. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA, USA, 318 pp.
Harvey, J.T. and Mate, B.R. 1984. Dive characteristics and movements of radio-tagged gray whales in San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Pp. 561-589. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz y S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
89
Heckel, G., Reilly, S.B., Sumich, J.L., and Espejel, I. In preparation. The influence of whalewatching on the behaviour of migrating gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in Todos Santos Bay and surrounding waters, Baja California, Mexico.
Henderson, D.A. 1984. Nineteenth century gray whaling: grounds, catches and kills, practices and depletion of the whale population. pp. 159-186. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
Herzing, D.L. and Mate, B.R. 1984. Gray whale migrations along the Oregon coast, 1978-1981. pp. 289-307. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
Howell, K.K. (ed.) 1983. The Oceanic Society Field Guide to the Gray Whale. Legacy Publishing Company. San Francisco, California, USA. 50 pp.
Hoyt, E. 1994. The Potential of Whale Watching in Latin America and the Caribbean. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Bath, UK. 48 pp.
Hoyt, E. 1995. The Worldwide Value and Extent of Whale-watching: 1995. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Bath, UK. 36 pp.
Hoyt, E. 2000. Whale Watching 2000: Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures, and Expanding Socioeconomic Benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Crowborough, UK. 157 pp.
IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare). 1996. Report of the Workshop on the Special Aspects of Watching Sperm Whales. Rosseau, Commonwealth of Dominica. IFAW, East Sussex, UK. 36 pp.
IFAW. 1998. Report of the Workshop on the Socioeconomic Aspects of Whale Watching. Kaikoura, New Zealand. IFAW, East Sussex, UK. 91 pp.
IFAW, Tethys Research Institute and Europe Conservation. 1995. Report of the Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Managing Whale Watching. Montecastello di Vibio, Italy. IFAW, East Sussex, UK. 40 pp.
IFAW, WWF (World Wildlife Fund) and WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society). 1997. Report of the International Workshop on the Educational Values of Whale Watching, Provincetown, Massachusetts, USA. IFAW, East Sussex, UK. 40 pp.
IFAW. 1998. Report of the Workshop on the Socioeconomic Aspects of Whale Watching, Kaikoura, New Zealand. IFAW, East Sussex, UK. 91 pp.
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática). 1982. Carta H11-2, Ensenada, Baja California. INEGI, México, D.F. México.
INEGI. 1996. Ensenada, Estado de Baja California. Cuaderno Estadístico Municipal. Aguascalientes, México: INEGI. 133 pp.
90
INEGI. 2000. Resultados preliminares del XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda. http://www.inegi.gob.mx/difusion/espanol/bvinegi/cpyv/indice.html
Instituto Nacional de Ecología. 2000. Medio Ambiente y Turismo. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca. México, D.F. 55 pp.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2000. Transfer of the Eastern Pacific stock of Gray Whales Eschrichtius robustus from Appendix I to Appendix II. Doc.10.89 No.10.19. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/programs/10891.htm#10.19
IWC (International Whaling Commission). 1986. Report of the Workshop on the Behaviour of Whales in Relation to Management. Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue 8):27-29.
IWC. 1993. Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on the Assessment of Gray Whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:241-259.
IWC. 1994. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Fifth Meeting. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44:25.
IWC. 1995. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Sixth Meeting. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:32.
IWC. 1996. Report of the Scientific Committee: Whale-watching. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46:93-94.
IWC. 1997. Report of the Whalewatching Working Group. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47:250-256.
IWC. 1998. Report of the Working Group on Whalewatching. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48:249-253.
IWC. 1999. Chairman’s Report of the Fifty-First Meeting. Annual Rep. int. Whal. Commn:8-10
IWC. 2000a. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. Schedule as amended by the Commission at the 51st Annual Meeting 1999, and replacing that dated September 1998. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK.
IWC. 2000b. Report of the Scientific Committee (unpublished). 5 pp.
Janik, V.M. and Thompson, P.M. 1996. Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response to boat traffic. Mar. Mammal Sci. 12(4):597-602.
Jiménez Z., E.A., Gómez P., M.G., and Salinas Z., M. 1993. Description of the behavioral patterns of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cow-calf pairs in Bahía de Banderas, Mexico. 10th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Galveston, Texas, U.S.A.
91
Johnston, G. 1989. An overview of whalewatching in Hawaii. pp. 12. In: N. Atkins and S.L. Swartz (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
Jones, M.L. and Swartz, S.L. 1984. Demography and phenology of gray whales and evaluation of whale-watching activities in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, México. pp. 309-373. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.) The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, New York, USA. 600 pp.
Jones, M.L. and Swartz, S.L. 1987. Distribution, numbers, and behavior of gray whales in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary during the southward migration, January 1987. Report presented to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sanctuary Programs Div. Washington, D.C. (unpublished) 30 pp.
Jones, M.L., Swartz, S.L. and Leatherwood, S. (eds.) 1984. The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, New York, USA. 600 pp.
Karnella, C. 1989. The view of the National Marine Fisheries Service: Purpose and objectives of the workshop. pp. 3-4. In: N. Atkins and S.L. Swartz (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
Kim, S.L. and Oliver, J.S. 1989. Swarming benthic crustaceans in the Bering and Chukchi seas and their relation to geographic patterns in gray whale feeding. Can. J. Zool. 67:1531-1542.
Leatherwood, S. 1974. Aerial observations of migrating gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, off southern California. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36(4):45-49.
Leatherwood, S. and Reeves, R.R.. 1983. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins. Sierra Club. San Francisco, California, USA. 302 pp.
Lewis, T. 1989. Whale watching programs and concerns: American Cetacean Society. pp. 8. In: N. Atkins and S.L. Swartz (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
Lochbaum, E.J. 2001. Marine mammal management in Canada. Presentation at the "Workshop on Sustainable Tourism and Whale Watching in North America: A Baja to Bering Case Study". La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, March 22-23, 2001.
92
Lusseau, D. 2000. The effects of tourism activities on bottlenose dolphins in Fiordland, New Zealand. Paper SC/52/WW15 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 3 pp.
Lynn, R.J. and Simpson, J.J. 1987. The California current system: the seasonal variability of its physical characteristics. Journal of Geophysical Research. 92(C12):12947-12966.
Malme, C.I., Miles, P.R., Clark, C.W., Tyack, P. and Bird. J.E. 1983. Investigations of the Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray Whale Behaviour: Phase I, January 1983 Migration. Report No. NTIS PB86-174174 presented to the US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska (unpublished). ca. 250 pp.
Malme, C.I., Miles, P.R., Clark, C.W., Tyack, P. and Bird. J.E. 1984. Investigations of the Potential Effects of Underwater Noise from Petroleum Industry Activities on Migrating Gray Whale Behaviour: Phase II, January 1984 Migration. Report No. NTIS PB86-218377 presented to the US Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, Alaska (unpublished). Var. pag.
Manfredo, M.J., Lee, M., and Ford, K. 1988. Alternative markets for charterboat operators affected by declining salmon allocations in Oregon. Coast. Manage. 16(3):215-227.
Marquette, W.M. and Braham, H.W. 1982. Gray whale distribution and catch by Alaskan Eskimos: A replacement for the bowhead whale? Arctic. 35(3):386-394.
Mate, B.R. and Harvey, J.T. 1984. Ocean movements of radio-tagged gray whales. pp. 577-598. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. 1989. Gray Whale Monitoring Study. Final report to US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. Costa Mesa, CA. (unpublished) 99 pp.
Meffe, G.K. and C.R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology. 2nd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachussets, USA. 729 pp.
Mendelssohn, R. 1997. The role of ecotourism in sustainable development. pp. 617-622. In: G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll. Principles of Conservation Biology. 2nd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachussets, USA. 729 pp.
Moore, S.E. and Clarke J.T. In press. Potential impact of offshore human activities on gray whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (special issue 2)
Montero, R., Arechavaleta, M., Lens, S. and Rodríguez, J.L.. 1997. Whalewatching in the Canary Islands (Spain): Development and management. Paper SC/49/O 26 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 14 pp.
Morejohn, G.V. 1968. A killer whale-gray whale encounter. J. Mammal. 49(2):327-328.
93
Morete, M.E., Freitas, A.C., Engel, M.H., and Glock, L. 2000. Tourism characterization and preliminary analyses of whale watching on humpback whales (Megaptera novaeanglieae) around Abrolhos Archipelago, southeastern Bahia, Brazil. Paper SC/52/WW6 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. 10 pp.
NACEC (North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 1999. The Development of Sustainable Tourism in Natural Areas in North America: Background, Issues and Opportunities. Discussion paper prepared for a dialogue on sustainable tourism in natural areas in North America, 27-28 May 1999, Playa del Carmen, Mexico. NACEC. Montreal, Canada. 144 pp.
Neave, H.R. and P.L.B. Worthington. 1988. Distribution-free tests. Unwin Hyman Ltd., London, UK. 430 pp.
Nerini, M. 1984. A review of gray whale feeding ecology. pp. 423-448. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.) The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, New York, USA. 600 pp.
Nitta, E.T. Pacific area office. pp. 5-6. In: N. Atkins and S.L. Swartz (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
NMFS (US National Marine Fisheries Service). 1980. The California Gray Whale. Guidelines for Whale Watching. Informative Brochure.
NMFS. 1999. NMFS completes status review of eastern north Pacific gray whales. MMPA Bulletin. 16:7.
NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999. Observed and verified water levels at San Diego CA station. US National Ocean Service – Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services. http://www. opsd.nos.noaa.gov/data_res.htm
Oliver, J.S., Slattery, P.N., Silberstein, M.A., and O’Connor, E.F. 1983. A comparison of gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, feeding in the Bering Sea and Baja California. Fish. Bull. 81(3):513-522.
Ollervides, F., Pettis, J., and Richlen, M. 2000. Effects of boat traffic on gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) off San Carlos, Baja California Sur, Mexico: a preliminary report. Paper presented at the XXV Reunión Internacional para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Marinos, La Paz, Mexico, May 2000.
Ollervides, F. and Pérez-Cortés, H. 2000. A summary of investigations of whalewatching impacts on gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) at Bahía Magdalena, México. Paper SC/52/WW10 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 9 pp.
94
Olsen, S. and Christie, P. 2000. What are we learning from tropical coastal management experiences? Coastal Management 28:5-18.
Omura, H. 1984. History of gray whales in Japan. pp. 57-77. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
Oshumi, S. 1976. Population assessment of the California gray whale. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 25:350-359.
Palacios, E., Mellink, E. and Alfaro, L. 1994. Registro del comportamiento alimenticio de una ballena gris en la costa de San Quintín, Baja California, en mayo de 1990. Rev. Inv. Cient. 2(1):82-83.
Pavía, E.G. In press. Secondary forecast models. The ENSO example. Journal of Applied Meteorology.
Perryman, W.L., Donahue, M.A., Laake, J.L., and Martin, T.E. 1999. Diel variation in migration rates of eastern Pacific gray whales measured with thermal imaging sensors. Mar. Mammal Sci. 15(2):426-445.
Pike, G.C. 1962. Migration and feeding of the gray whale (Eschrichtius gibbosus). J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 19(5): 815-838.
Pirzl, R. 1998. Australian management of cetacean observation activities - a Commonwealth perspective. Paper SC/50/WW2 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. 6 pp.
Poole, M.M. 1984. Migration corridors of gray whales along the central California coast, 1980-1982. pp. 389-407. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
Quan, J. 1999. Records of harvested gray whales. pp. 93-95. In: D.J. Rugh, M.M. Muto, S.E. Moore, and D.P. DeMaster (eds.). Status Review of the Eastern North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales. US Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-103, 96 pp.
Reeves, R.R. 1977. The problem of gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) harassment: At the breeding lagoons and during migration. Report No. NTIS PB-272 506 presented to the US Marine Mammal Commission (unpublished). 60 pp.
Reeves, R.R. 1984. Modern commercial pelagic whaling for gray whales. pp. 187-200. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
Reilly, S.B. 1992. Population biology and status of eastern Pacific gray whales: recent developments. pp. 1062-1074. In: D.R. McCoullough and R.H. Barrett (eds.). Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK.
95
Reilly, S.B., Rice, D.W., and Wolman, A.A. 1980. Preliminary population estimate for the California gray whale based upon Monterey shore censuses, 1967/68 to 1978/79. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 30:359-368.
Reilly, S.B., Rice, D.W., and Wolman, A.A. 1983. Population assessment of the gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, from California shore censuses, 1967-80. Fish. Bull. 81(2):267-281.
Reyna M., M.I. and Alcántara O., S. 2000. A global perspective of whalewatching activities in Mexico, 1999. Paper presented at the XXV Reunión Internacional para el Estudio de los Mamíferos Marinos, May 2000 (unpublished).
Rice, D.W. 1965. Offshore southward migration of gray whales off southern California. J. Mammal. 46(3):504-505.
Rice, D.W. and Wolman, A.A. 1971. The life history and ecology of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Special Publication No. 3. The American Society of Mammalogists. USA. 142 pp.
Rugh, D.J., Muto, M.M., Moore, S.E., and DeMaster, D.P. 1999. Status Review of the Eastern North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales. US Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-103, 96 pp.
Sánchez P., J.A. 1997a. Descripción y desarrollo de las actividades turísticas de observación de ballena gris en las Lagunas de la Reserva de la Biósfera “El Vizcaíno” y Bahía Magdalena, Baja California Sur, México, temporadas 1996 y 1997. Panorama Pesq. (7):8-18.
Sánchez P., J.A. 1997b. Determinación de la capacidad de carga en términos del número máximo simultáneo de embarcaciones en Laguna Ojo de Liebre y Laguna San Ignacio, áreas de observación de ballena gris en Baja California Sur, México. Panorama Pesq. (7):19-25.
Sánchez P., J.A. 1998. La observación turística de ballena gris en Baja California Sur. Descripción y valor económico. Gaceta Ecológica. 44:45-50.
Sayers, H. 1984. Shore whaling for gray whales along the coast of the Californias. pp. 121-157. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press. New York, USA. 600 pp.
Scammon, C.M. 1874. The Marine Mammals of the Northwestern Coast of North America. John H. Carmany & Co., San Francisco, California, USA (Dover Edition, New York, 1968). 319 pp.
Schulman-Janiger, A. 1999. Southbound and northbound gray whale calf sightings off Los Angeles, 1984-99. pp. 68-69. In: D.J. Rugh, M.M. Muto, S.E. Moore, and D.P. DeMaster (eds.). Status Review of the Eastern North Pacific Stock of Gray Whales. US Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-103, 96 pp.
96
SEMARNAP (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca). 1996. Norma Oficial Mexicana de Emergencia NOM-EM-074-ECOL-1996 por la que se establecen los lineamientos y especificaciones para la regulación de actividades de avistamiento en torno a la ballena gris y su hábitat, así como las relativas a su protección y conservación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 4 de diciembre de 1996. pp. 39-49.
SEMARNAP. 1999. Respuestas a los comentarios y modificaciones efectuados al proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROY-NOM-131-ECOL-1999. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 22 de noviembre de 1999. pp. 6-20.
SEMARNAP. 2000. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-131-ECOL-1998, que establece lineamientos y especificaciones para el desarrollo de actividades de observación de ballenas, relativas a su protección y la conservación de su hábitat. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 10 de enero de 2000. pp. 11-17.
SEMARNAP and SECTUR (Secretaría de Turismo). 1997. Programa de Ecoturismo en Áreas Naturales Protegidas de México. SEMARNAP-SECTUR. Mexico-City.
Silber, G.K., Newcomer, M.W., Silber, P.C., Pérez-Cortés M, H., and Ellis, G.M. 1994. Cetaceans of the northern Gulf of California: Distribution, occurrence, and relative abundance. Mar. Mammal Sci. 10(3):283-298.
Spalding, M.J. 1998. Workshop on legal aspects of whale watching, Punta Arenas, Chile. Journal of Environment & Development. 7(2)184-188.
Sumich, J.L. 1983. Swimming velocities, breathing patterns and estimated costs of locomotion in migrating gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Can. J. Zool. 61:647-652.
Sumich, J.L. 1986. Latitudinal distribution, calf growth and metabolism, and reproductive energetics of gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus. Doctoral thesis. Oregon State University, USA. 216 pp.
Sund, P.N. 1975. Evidence of feeding during migration and of an early birth of the California gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. J. Mammal. 56(1):265-266.
Swartz, S.L. and Jones, M.L. 1978. The evaluation of human activities on gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Report No. NTIS PB82-123373 presented to the US Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, DC, USA (unpublished). 34 pp.
Tasker, M., Holt, N., and Salmon, T. 1997. Basic principles for cetacean watching (submitted by the United Kingdom). Paper IWC/49/WW1 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee (unpublished). 5 pp.
Taylor, S.J. and Bogdan, R. 1990. Introducción a los Métodos Cualitativos de Investigación. Paidós Mexicana. México. 343 pp.
97
Urbán R., J., Gómez-Gallardo U., A., Flores de Sahagún, V., Cifuentes L., J., Ludwig, S., and Palmeros R., M. 1997. Gray whale studies at Laguna San Ignacio, B.C.S., México, winter 1996. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 47:625-633.
Urbán R., J., Gómez-Gallardo U., A., and Palmeros R., M. 1998. A note on the 1997 gray whale studies at Laguna San Ignacio, B.C.S., México. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 48:513-516.
Villa-Ramírez, B. 1975. Las ballenas grises de Baja California. Bioconservación y Supervivencia. 1(1):8-12.
Wellington, G.M. and Anderson, S. 1978. Surface feeding by a juvenile gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Fish. Bull. 76(1):290-293.
Wilke, F. and Fiscus, C.H. 1961. Gray whale observations. J. Mammal. 42(1):108-109.
Wilson, B. 1994. Review of dolphin management at Monkey Mia. Report to the Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. 37 pp.
Würsig, B., Cipriano, F., and Würsig, M. 1991. Information from radio and theodolite tracking studies. pp 79-111. In: K. Pryor, and K.S. Norris (eds.) Dolphin Societies. Discoveries and Puzzles. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 397 pp.
Wyrick, R.F. 1954. Observations on the movements of the Pacific gray whale Eschrichtius glaucus (Cope). J. Mammal. 35(4):593-598.
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th Edn. Prentice Hall. New Jersey, USA. 663 pp.
Zimmerman, S. 1989. Alaska region. pp. 6-7. In: N. Atkins and S.L. Swartz (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and Management Needs. Monterey, CA, November 14-16, 1988. Center for Marine Conservation and Office of Protected Resources, NMFS-NOAA. Monterey, CA. 48 pp.
98
APPENDIX 1: GRAY WHALE BEHAVIOUR CATEGORIES RECORDED
DURING THIS INVESTIGATION
The recorded behaviour categories were the following (based on Reeves, 1977; Harvey
and Mate, 1984; Jones and Swartz, 1984; MBC, 1989; Cipriano, 1993; Giard et al.,
1993; Jiménez et al., 1993, Brown et al., 1994; Corkeron et al., 1994; IFAW et al.,
1995). This is not a complete ethogram, but only the observed categories during the field
work of this study. The data were not analysed because this work's objective were
accomplished with the analysis of only two variables (swimming direction and speed),
and in addition there were few observations for each category. Nevertheless, a great
amount of data were recorded with respect to the respiration pattern, and these could be
used in future research on energetic expenditure of gray whales in Todos Santos Bay
during winters of 1998 and 1999.
1. Respiration pattern:
a) Blow: Exhalation from the blow hole characterized by a spout of water/air
observed from an individual.
b) Surface: When a whale emerges from a dive, but no blow is observed
(blow may be long and quiet; blowholes are open). This behavior is
associated with evasive behavior (change in direction). Also called
“snorkeling”.
2. Fluke-up: The raising of the entire tail above the water’s surface.
3. Aerial behavior
a) Breaching: when a whale leaps out of the water
b) Lob tail: The whale raises its fluke together with a portion of the tail stock
above the water and slaps it down on the surface.
99
4. Surface-active behaviors:
a) Rostrum lift: The anterior portion of the rostrum is seen above the water
but not as far back as the eyes.
b) Head lunge: The head of a whale comes out of the water at a 45 degree
angle to the water’s surface.
c) Underwater bubble blast: Underwater exhalations causing a mass of
bubbles to disturb the water’s surface, usually in an area of several meters
diameter.
d) Rolling: A whale rotates on the long axis of its body, so that either the
sides or belly of the animal are facing up.
e) Vertical flukes/pectorals extension: A whale rolls onto its side and a fluke
tip is seen above the water’s surface; this behavior may also be
accompanied by an extended pectoral fin.
f) Milling: One or more whales are in a small area (they do not move
forward) and swim in different directions.
g) Rubbing: Two or more whales touch each other slightly with their bodies.
h) Two flukes: Two flukes are observed above the water surface, very close,
facing their ventral parts, and spin while they submerge.
5. Sexual activity
a) Copulation: Behaviors associated with mating including rolling, penis
extension, vertical flukes and pectorals, head lifts and head lunges, and
tail lashes within 2 or more individuals in a group. Two whales rise out of
the water in belly-to-belly position. Intromission may be observed.
b) Courtship: The sum set of surface-active behaviors that are associated
with copulation, with the exception of whales in belly-to-belly position
and observable intercourse.
100
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF MEETINGS ORGANISED IN ENSENADA BY
SEMARNAP TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN REGULATION
AND MANAGEMENT OF WHALEWATCHING
The list of persons and institutions varied during each meeting. However, some
consistency was noted:
• Federal, state, and local environmental government agencies (INE, SEMARNAP
delegate office, Protected Natural Areas Department, State and Municipal Fisheries
and Ecology Departments).
• Environmental protection agency (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente)
• Harbor master
• Mexican Navy
• State tourism department
• Tour operators: Science Museum, Rentas de Pesca Deportiva, Gordo's Sportfishing,
Cooperativa Emilio Barragán, Samy's Sport Fishing, Javier's Sport Fishing, Baja
Fiesta.
• Education and research institutions: Universidad Autónoma de Baja California
(Facultad de Ciencias Marinas and Facultad de Ciencias), Centro Regional de
Investigación Pesquera Ensenada - Instituto Nacional de la Pesca.
The first meeting was held on 14 January 1998 to officially establish a committee
composed by all stakeholders involved in whalewatching (government agencies, tour
operators, and research institutions). Based on a regulation for whalewatching in the
gray whale breeding lagoons (NOM-EM-074-ECOL-1996), several rules were
established concerning navigation, security, departure hours, and other management
101
measures. Permits were issued by the local SEMARNAP delegation. Four tour operators
were at the meeting and all of them discussed the rules with officials and researchers. As
a result, minimum distance between boats and gray whales was established at 30 m.
Naturalistic guides, originally proposed to be compulsory, were not accepted by tour
operators because of the high costs involved. Instead, training courses were demanded
by the tour operators which would be organised by the authority and the education
institutions.
Later that year, INE-SEMARNAP officials visited the main whalewatching areas
operating in Mexico: Ensenada, Baja California; La Paz, Baja California Sur (both
engaged in gray whale ecotourism); and Bahía de Banderas, Jalisco-Nayarit (the winter
distribution of a humpback whale population). The objective was to present the
regulation project to local stakeholders and to ask for their opinion. In Ensenada, the
consultation meeting was held on 24 September 1998. The regulation project was
reviewed in detail and stakeholders were invited to express their opinion. Some rules
were discussed: minimum approach distance, number of boats in the whalewatching
area, whether a guide was compulsory or not. The need for training courses and specific
control measures (fines) was mentioned again by tour operators. Permits would be
issued by INE-SEMARNAP, based in Mexico-City.
The following year, on 27 July 1999, a new consultation meeting was organised by INE-
SEMARNAP in Ensenada. The regulation project that now contained opinions from all
whalewatching areas was discussed. New opinions were collected by INE officials in the
form of letters written during the meeting by the harbor master, the Faculty of Marine
Sciences [this study], the Ecology State Department, the Oceanology Research Institute,
the Mexican Navy, Natural Protected Areas Department, Ensenada County Ecology
Department, CRIP-INP, and the State Tourism Department. All tour operators expressed
their opinions, although they did not write them down. The proposals and those from
other whalewatching areas were published in the federal register (Diario Oficial de la
Federación) on 22 November 1999 (SEMARNAP, 1999). Finally, the regulation was
published on 10 January 2000 (SEMARNAP, 2000).
102
On December 13 and 14, a training course was organised by the local SEMARNAP
delegate office. Whalewatching tour operators and boat skippers were invited. The main
themes were the regulation, improvement of tourist service, and biology of gray whales.
Permits were handed out at the end of the course. Preliminary results of this study
regarding the effects of whalewatching boats on gray whale behaviour were presented.
Possible additions to the regulation were discussed with the boat skippers to perceive
their acceptance toward proposed navigation rules (see "Recommendations for
regulation of whalewatching in Ensenada"). Reactions were positive.
On 24 March 2000, INE officials again visited Ensenada. The meeting was aimed at
constituting a "Regional Consultation and Working Group for the Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Whales in Mexico". The objective of this group would be to describe
the importance and problems of whalewatching in Baja California, and consequently to
propose conservation policies. The official constitution warrant was discussed but not
signed because participants considered that this document needed to be revised. The
SEMARNAP delegate office would issue the new version with all comments. This has
not occurred yet (April 2001).
The last meeting occurred in December 2000. Although announced as a "training
course", during the two-hour meeting only an INE official gave a presentation about the
whalewatching regulation and the penalties if not observed. Permits were handed out for
the 2000-2001 season.