Centro Didáctico de la Judería de Segovia.

When assessing the impact of ecotourism on the Little Penguins, a distinction should be made between commercial, non commercial and unregulated or impromptu tourism (Weaver, 2001). Weaver also suggests that while some operators might claim to have eco-tourism operations,

35 in principle their operations may not meet the eco-tourism criteria. In this case, their operations may have a negative impact on successful breeding and maintenance of the Little Penguins (Weaver, 2001). Weaver reminds us that all forms of tourism have the potential to impact negatively on the Little Penguins, some of which include hiking, camping, boating and fishing (Weaver, 2001). Gales makes mention of a four year study by Anne Hodgson on the Little Penguins in Bruny Island, Tasmania; the area around the colony was declared a game reserve largely from her work, however Gales reminds us of the sad facts emerging from Hodgson‘s study. The first of these is include the high mortality rate of the Bruny island penguins compared to rates recorded in studies at Phillip Island (Reilly & Cullen as cited in Gales, 1987). Hodgson‘s study revealed a mortality rate as high as 43 percent, three times higher than the Victorian study. He put this largely down to the current disturbances and the impacts of humans to the Bruny island colonies (Gales 1991). Gales makes the following statement regarding these figures: it is unfortunately a good illustration of the effect of human interference on little penguin survival (Gales 1991:99).

According to Weaver, visitors to Phillip Island to view the Little Penguins in 1995 were in the vicinity of 500,000 people, with arguably a smaller impact on the Little Penguin colonies than the Tasmanian example. This suggests that the principles of ecotourism are being applied to a greater extent within Phillip Island, resulting in fewer disturbances to the breeding colonies (Weaver 2001).

Peripheral areas where Little Penguins colonise, argues Hall, are largely away from settled areas and tend to lack the effective political and economic control, which the main areas enjoy; this further impacts on their wellbeing. Activities such as providing access to peripheral areas, unless accompanied by improved control can facilitate greater ad hoc visitations, and can have a negative impact on the colonies (Hall et al., 2005).

The desire for coastal settlements and the Tasmanian shack culture has increased the number of developments on the shorelines of the Tasmanian coast, which is taking up valuable nesting sites for the Little Penguins (Lindberg et al., 1997 as cited in Page 2002:177). These coastal settlements according to Lindberg have various effects on the coast line including:

 unregulated recreation;  increased erosion;  loss of habitat cover;

36

 increased wastage and environmental damage;  more uncontrolled dog activities;

 decreased breeding success, more disruption to birds through disturbance, lights and noise;

 loss of habitat by trampling, removal by councils, illegal disturbances;  increased discharges , approved and accidental spills, including oil;

 increased impact of fishing, including loss or decrease in food sources and availability;

 net tangles and loss of life;

 climate change, higher tides destroying eggs and chicks, reducing habitat options;  have unsustainable practices;

 have insufficient regulation;  have commercial exploitation,

 are un-accountable or unmonitored council shore works;

 individuals residing on the coast may initiate permanent or occasionally remodelling and or removal of vegetation;

 impacts from developments of all types; approved and illegal;  vehicle activities on the beach or dunes;

 visitations exceed carrying capacity of locations;  visitors not abiding by rules; and

 inappropriate visitations during the sensitive breeding season.

According to Hobart‘s Derwent Estuary Program Coordinator, the Little Penguins once thrived along the Derwent Estuary near Hobart, but numbers have declined as a result of habitat loss and attacks from roaming cats and dogs. However after three years of collaborative efforts from the government, industry and community, the plight of the Little Penguins in the Derwent has improved dramatically. Monitoring has shown that Little Penguin numbers have increased in the Derwent from 98 breeding pairs in 2005 to more than 190 breeding pairs in 2008: That‟s really encouraging news and steps such as installing new

burrows, improving vegetation and educating dog owners have all made a big difference

(Wells, 2009:22).

Analysis from the Derwent Estuary Program shows that the Little Penguin populations have faced a variety of threats over recent years, both direct and indirect. Urban populations such as those found in the Derwent are exposed to far greater threats than their offshore island counterparts (Lee & Booth, 2006).

37 Threats that appear to be most relevant to Derwent estuary penguins include habitat modification and degradation; this can be from individuals, councils or developers. Human disturbance, predation and gill netting are also significant hazards for the Little Penguins. Additionally, removal of vegetation, even weeds, old logs and refuse, can destroy the burrow habitat and nesting material. Throughout the evening penguins are often active outside their burrows and are especially vulnerable when traversing between the landing zone and the nest site. Removing protective cover or ‗refuges‘ within the colony exposes penguins to greater risk. Also important to note is that the vegetation around the nest site acts as a form of insulation and protects the birds from heat stress throughout the night. Even alteration to the upper canopy can increase temperatures inside the nest, which can have a negative effect on breeding success (Ropert-Coudert et al., 2004, as cited in Pryor & Wells, 2009). The dumping of garden wastes along the foreshore can also block burrow entrances and disturb the breeding cycle (Pryor & Wells, 2009). Lee and Booth (2006:4) observed and studied the threats against the Little Penguin colonies living at Hobart‘s Derwent Estuary; and concluded: The desire of people to live and recreate in coastal locations, improvements in house-building technology (allowing increased access to steep, rocky sites) and the difficulty of planning mechanisms to adapt to new environmental knowledge and trends have resulted in houses and other infrastructure, such as sea walls, impinging on the Little Penguin colonies inhabiting the Derwent Estuary. There are a number of threats to the Little Penguin‘s survival including (Lee and Booth 2006:8);

o direct disturbance to the Little Penguin colonies;

o disturbance and/or removal of habitat vegetation;

o changes to the natural coastal and marine systems;

o increased siltation of adjacent waters;

o disturbance and death from domestic pets;

o increased activity, noise and light disturbance;

o inappropriate penguin-viewing activities;

o increased road kill;

o increased disturbance from boating activity;

o increased recreational fishing, including the use of gill nets; and

o increased stormwater and sewage.

The research by Page measures and documents the effect of a variety of elements on the sustainability of penguin colonies and the decline in number of active burrows (Figure 6). These elements include: tourism, predators, such as rats and seals weather fluctuations and

38 food shortages, including competition for food with other wildlife. A combination of these elements is believed to be responsible for the delays observed in the penguins‘ natural breeding cycle, the slower growth rates of penguin chicks, and the abandonment of the chicks as the adults prepare for their annual moult. A small increase in the impacts of any of these factors on Little Penguins may ultimately be sufficient to progress these Little Penguins subpopulations to extinction (Page et al., 2002; as cited in Higginbottom, 2004:10)

Figure 6 The number of active Little Penguins burrows at Granite Island 2001-2006, (Page et al., 2002, as cited in Higginbottom, 2004:10).