Wildlife tourism: Underwater behavioral responses of South American sea lions to swimmers

Dans, Silvana Laura; Crespo, Enrique A.; Coscarella, Mariano Alberto

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2016.12.010

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Obtaining information on animals targeted by swimmers/snorkelers who are not part of organized groups is logistically challenging (e.g. marine mammals, King & Heinen, 2004; Dans, Crespo & Coscarella, 2017, sea turtles, Griffin et al ., 2017) but social media here provided an opportunity to explore the impact of this phenomenon. The extent of impact is considered to be strongly linked to the habitat and behaviour of the animals using it (Gill et al ., 2001; Williams et al ., 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate

Papafitsoros

Panagopoulou²,

Schofield

2020

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing how wildlife viewing pressure is distributed across individual animals within a population can inform the management of this activity, and ensure targeted individuals or groups are sufficiently protected. Here, we used social media data to quantify whether tourism pressure varies in a loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta population and elucidate the potential implications. Laganas Bay (Zakynthos, Greece) supports both breeding (migratory, and hence transient) and foraging (resident) turtles, with turtle viewing representing a major component of the tourism industry. Social media entries spanning two seasons (April to November, 2018 and 2019) were evaluated, and turtles were identified via photo‐identification. For the 2 years, 1684 and 2105 entries of 139 and 122 unique turtles were obtained from viewings, respectively (boats and underwater combined). However, while residents represented less than one‐third of uniquely identified turtles, they represented 81.9 and 87.9% of all entries. Even when the seasonal breeding population was present (May to July), residents represented more than 60% of entries. Notably, the same small number of residents (<10), mostly males, were consistently viewed in both years; however, different individuals were targeted by boats versus underwater. Thus, turtles appear to remain in the area despite high viewing intensity, possibly indicating low disturbance. However, photo‐identification records revealed a high risk of propeller and boat strike to residents (30%) leading to trauma and mortality. To reduce this threat, we recommend the compulsory use of propeller guards for all boats, compliance with speed regulations and the creation of temporary ‘refuge’ zones for resident animals at viewing hotspots, with these suggestions likely being relevant for other wildlife with similar population dynamics. In conclusion, social media represents a useful tool for monitoring individuals at a population scale, evaluating the pressure under which they are placed, and providing sufficient data to refine wildlife viewing guidelines and/or zoning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate

Papafitsoros

Panagopoulou²,

Schofield

2020

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Obtaining information on animals targeted by swimmers/snorkelers who are not part of organized groups is logistically challenging (e.g. marine mammals, King and Heinen, 2004;Dans et al, 2017, sea turtles, Griffin et al, 2017 but social media here provided an opportunity to explore the impact of this phenomenon. The extent of impact is considered to be strongly linked to the habitat and behavior of the animals using it (Gill et al, 2001;Williams et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate

Papafitsoros

Panagopoulou²,

Schofield

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing how wildlife viewing pressure is distributed across individual animals within a population can inform the management of this activity, and ensure targeted individuals or groups are sufficiently protected. Here, we used social media data to quantify whether tourism pressure varies in a loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) population and elucidate potential implications. Laganas Bay (Zakynthos, Greece) supports both breeding (migratory, and hence transient) and foraging (resident) turtles, with turtle viewing representing a major component of the tourism industry. Social media entries spanning two seasons (April to November, 2018 and 2019) were evaluated, and turtles were identified via photo-identification. For both years, 1684 and 2105 entries of 139 and 122 unique turtles were obtained from viewings, respectively (boats and underwater combined). However, while residents represented less than one-third of uniquely identified turtles, they represented 81.9% and 87.9% of all entries. Even when the seasonal breeding population was present (May to July), residents represented more than 60% entries. Of note, the same small number of resident turtles (<10), mostly males, were consistently viewed in both years; however, different individuals were targeted by boats versus underwater. Thus, turtles appear to use and remain in the area despite high viewing intensity, possibly indicating low disturbance. However, photo-identification records revealed a high risk of propeller and boat strike to residents (30%) leading to trauma and mortality. To reduce this threat and ease viewing pressure, we recommend the compulsory use of propeller guards for all boats and the creation of temporary "refuge" zones for resident animals at viewing hotspots, with these suggestions likely being relevant for other wildlife with similar population dynamics. In conclusion, social media represents a useful tool for monitoring individuals at a population scale, evaluating the pressure under which they are placed, and providing sufficient data to refine wildlife viewing guidelines and/or zoning.

show abstract

“…Some research indicate that certain AVIs (when implemented according to best practice) can be rewarding and a positive source of enrichment for the wild animals involved (e.g., References [20,21]). Yet in contrast, other research indicate that certain AVIs can be a disturbing and negative source of distress for wild animals [22,23]. Brief summaries of research focused on AVI types highlighting the potential positive and negative impacts on animal welfare are summarised below.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, other studies have reported on the potential negative welfare impacts that can be associated with this type of AVI. For example, Dans et al [22] found that direct and close contact with American sea lions resulted in agonistic behaviour towards people such as bites. Similarly, Hogan et al [25] found that this type of AVI lowered reactivity and avoidance of visitors but did not reduce the associated stress response of common wombat ( Vombatus ursinus ); suggesting that these animals entered into a state of “learned hopelessness”.…”

Section: The Potential Impacts Of Avis On Wild Animal Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

A Global Review of Animal–Visitor Interactions in Modern Zoos and Aquariums and Their Implications for Wild Animal Welfare

D’Cruze

Khan

Carder³

et al. 2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provide an initial insight into the occurrence and characteristics of animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) involving captive wild animals within zoos and aquaria. Using information provided online via official public websites of modern zoos and aquaria, we found that AVIs were provided by the majority of facilities. Our study revealed that a variety of AVI types were being offered. Globally, petting captive wild animals was the most prevalent AVI type advertised (n = 1241 observations, 43% (534) of facilities) and Mammalia was the most advertised taxonomic class (n = 5142; 53% (2739)). We found certain AVI types that were more commonly offered than predicted. These were opportunities to: (1) Hand feed captive wild animals in Asia, North America and Oceania; (2) ride wild animals in Europe and North America; (3) walk with or swim through wild animal enclosures in Asia; and (4) walk with wild animals in Asia and Europe. Given the global prevalence of AVIs in modern zoos and aquaria, and an apparent lack of animal welfare focused research, we provide recommendations to help effectively balance and manage captive wild animal welfare with other primary interconnected goals.

show abstract

Wildlife tourism: Underwater behavioral responses of South American sea lions to swimmers

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate

Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate

Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate

A Global Review of Animal–Visitor Interactions in Modern Zoos and Aquariums and Their Implications for Wild Animal Welfare

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About