Human-hark interactions in the Galapagos Islands Cesar Peñaherrera-Palma 1 *, Alex R. Hearn 2, James J. Ketchum 2, Francis Nicolaides 3, Eduardo Espinoza 4, cott Henderson 5, Matthias Wolff 1, A. Peter Klimley 2 1: Charles Darwin Foundation, Galapagos Island, Ecuador 2: University of California, Davis 3: Galapagos National Park 4: Fishing National Institute of Ecuador 5: Conservation International wiss Friends of Galapagos Galapagos Conservation Trust
Outline Background - Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR) - Early human-shark interactions Interactions - Fisheries - Tourism - Research Conclusions - Key points - Needs and recommendations
Galapagos Marine Reserve
Complex environment Rich biodiversity! i
Michael Muller Pete Oxford M/V Octopus German oler
Early human-shark interactions - Galapagos: short colonization history (+/(+/ 1900 s) - Fisheries: harks abundance always recognized (industrial fishing in early 1930) - Healthyy interactions: kids p pulled by y sharks?? Google Earth 2010
Early human-shark interactions - Iconic species for the GMR - No economic value - But, they got it when: - Rise demand of shark fins by international markets. - Rise in dive tourism activities.
Fisheries Juan Carlos Murillo Juan Carlos Murillo
F I H E R I E For food or fins? -hark fishing Two steps: - Western long-line fleet (1970 s) - Arrival of Asian traders - hark fishery and sea cucumbers -Government reaction: - GMR (1986, 1998) Archives GNP - hark fishing prohibition (1989, 2000, 2003) -Inside: - Alternative to sea cucumber -Outside: - Ecuadorian and international fleets - harks by-catch allowed (whole individuals must be landed) - Border effect DPNG 2009
Tourism Michael Muller Manning 2010
T O U R I M Marine park - Around 62 visiting sites - It was a growing industry (but not regulated) -Prior to 2007, double activity allowed -Carrying capacity unknown Visitors data: GNP, 2010 Visits to dive sites: Cubero et al, 2007
T O U R I M Carrying capacity - Cubero et al (2007): - 85-90% of total visitors at 34% of all diving spots. - Around 14000 visits per year at one site - Damage in benthic life (specially corals and barnacles). - Prohibition of double activity: - Reduction of diving operations - Reduction of annual visitors for diving activities - Drop number of diving tour operators Julio Delgado
T O U R I M hark attacks: another cost of growth? - Rise in frequency of shark attacks (IAF, 2009) - Popular belief: sharks do not attack humans at Galápagos Visitors data: GNP, 2010 hark attacks: C Penaherrera (unpublished info)
T O U R I M hark attacks hark s fault? R - Less than 0.003% 003% of probabilities. - 66% of all cases were human error! - Chumming or organic waste disposal - Feeding area of sharks - Overnight use of beaches - Improper human behavior - 53% of cases at evening time (17H00 till 23H00) - 90% hit and run!
T O U R I M But, why are sharks so important? - Dive tourism still important and highly profitable - Interviews to nine diving i tour operators (dive guides) in anta Cruz Island: - Average frequency of tourist t per trip - Percentage of tourist that travel for shark watching - Average cost of daily trips - Daily trips frequency per week - harks observation frequency per week - harks number observed per trip - Interviews to souvenir stores: - Percentage of total yearly income product of sharks related g y y p products (t-shirts, key rings, jars, etc) - Random sampling
T O U R I M But, why are sharks so important? Gross yearly average income (14167 paxs) ~U$ 2,114,060.00 /y. Gross yearly average income from visitors expecting to watch sharks ~U$ 1,967,780.00 780 00 /y. (92.7% of total paxs) Value of every shark per year (average of 5.2 shark/trip) ~U$ 47,100.00 /y. Fisheries ~U$ 50,00 per fin and ~U$ 0,90 each pound Blue shark (350 pounds) ~U$ 715.00/y. C. Peñaherrera (unpublished data)
T O U R I M But, why are sharks so important? - U$ 27.75 in souvenirs (per tourist) (Epler, 2007; Ordoñez,2007) - 25.3% in products related to sharks (t-shirts, key-rings, etc) - Reduction in purchase amount of dive souvenirs (after 2007) 67.5% of souvenir stores at Charles Darwin Av (anta Cruz Island) C. Peñaherrera (unpublished data)
Research Eduardo Espinoza
R E E A R C H Available information before 2006 - Must information from external sources - Data was restricted to fisheries monitoring and ecological monitoring - PIMPP (few reports on spp) ) - Experimental fishing with long-lines - PPPAP (77% shark bycatch) - Confiscations (13000 shark fins to 2007) - teady ypressure on sharks from external markets - Rise awareness on research priorities - Provided d biological i l and ecological l information of sharks to managers and stakeholders in order to improve their management in the entire region
D A T A H A R I N G www.migramar.org Near real-time positions of satellite tags hared online database for censuses Ultrasonic receiver network Various levels of access everal species Leading advisory team for managers and stakeholders in the ETP
R E E A R C H Methods applied Conventional tagging Ultrasonic telemetry atellite telemetry Pelagic census
Juvenile sharks R E E mesh size) A R sites C H Dolma Alonso Gill nets (100x3m x 3 inches - 1 hour of sampling - 8 mangrove and rocky First 6 months (November- 09 - March-10) - 5 Hammerhead sharks (juveniles) - ~ 700 black tip sharks (juveniles and neonates) Yasmania Llerena
Adult sharks : Regional movements
R E E A R C H Trophic modelling (preliminary) 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 R 08 0.8 1 0.6 0.4 Relative biomass change (1998-2010) Boobies, Cormorants ea turtles ea lions and Dolphins perm Killer whales Ballen whales Mantas and Juvenile Benthopelagic Large pelagic Hammerhead Marlins wordfish ailfish Wahoo Dolphinfish Thunnus spp Benthic fish Jacks and mall pelagic combrids Mesopelagic Macrobenthos Cephalopods Gelatinous Pelagic Copepods Microzooplank Benthic Dinoflagelates Diatoms H 0.2 0 Model groups GMR Wolff & Peñaherrera (unpublished)
Discussion & Conclusions From fisheries - Pressure from external markets - Pressure from recently arrived fishermen From tourism - hark s alive value super pass fisheries value - harks drive important section of dive tourism economy - Fishermen do not have full access to tourism benefits From science - Confirmed connectivity of GMR with other MPA s - Lack of connectivity between areas inside GMR for hammerhead sharks
Needs and recommendations - Use of genetic markers for identified GMR shark subpopulations and its contribution to mainland fisheries - Evaluate actual Zoning cheme based on shark s preferred area - Model environmental response of sharks - Track ontogenetic migrations of key species - Push creation of soft laws for management of. lewini - Increase awareness among citizens of the importance of preserving sharks - Reinforcement of control and patrolling capacity of local and National authorities. - Overlay satellite tracking on sharks and VM for identifying sensitive areas and increase surveillance
Thanks