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. michelle.zatwo@noaa.gov

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.