Slashdot Mirror


Whale Shark Tourism Harms Coral Reefs (asianscientist.com)

Scientists in Hong Kong, the Philippines and Guam have found that whale shark tourism in Tan-awan, Oslob, the Philippines, has led to degradation of the local coral reef ecosystem. They reported their findings in Environmental Management. From a report: Oslob, a small municipality on the south coast of Cebu, the Philippines, has become a domestic and international tourism hotspot since 2011, attracting over 300,000 visitors to the village of Tan-awan in 2015. The mass tourism phenomenon is fueled by the year-round presence of whale sharks along the local shallow reef. This unusual aggregation is maintained by the local tourism association feeding the whale sharks with up to 50 tons of shrimps annually.

In this study, scientists from the University of Hong Kong (HKU), the University of Guam, and the Large Marine Vertebrates Research Institute Philippines (LAMAVE) have demonstrated that whale shark tourism has had a detrimental effect on the local reef ecosystem off the coast of Tan-awan. They found that Tan-awan had higher macroalgae and lower coral density, as well as a less diverse coral community dominated by weedy corals and stress-tolerant corals, in comparison to a reference site further south of the coast.

[...] The researchers added that reef degradation in Tan-awan requires immediate attention, given that reef health underpins the ecosystem services afforded to the local communities, including the important tourism sector. As whale shark tourism is projected to grow continuously in the foreseeable future, the research team urges the need for local authorities to implement proper management strategies to mitigate the problems and risks associated with the rapid tourism development.

62 comments

  1. Solution by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Kill all the whale sharks?

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the baseline is a reef elsewhere with some minor geographical relationship and the only comparison is as listed in tfa, (no before and after, no local cause and effect, no long term monitoring of current and temperature just for a start, let alone freshwater and nutrient loads), it is junk science.

  2. GOP Policies Hurt Coral Reefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Led by a stable genius. Very stable.

    1. Re:GOP Policies Hurt Coral Reefs by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      In the 1700s, you will have so much fun dying of smallpox and overwork.

  3. "Tourism"? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1
    I'm not sure, others will have a more informed opinion surely, but it seems from what I read that the problem isn't tourism, it is:

    This unusual aggregation [of whale sharks] is maintained by the local tourism association feeding the whale sharks with up to 50 tons of shrimps annually.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is actually poverty. The locals are incredibly poor, and found that having a few whale sharks nearby meant that wealthy Westerners would come and give them lots of money to swim with the whale sharks. So when the choice was to live with a pristine coral reef in abject poverty, or let some damage happen to it but actually earn enough money to send your kids to school and buy some modern conveniences, the locals chose the heartless approach of putting their own lives ahead of the corals.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:"Tourism"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      So they should sell the whale sharks to get money?

    3. Re:"Tourism"? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      This choice was never made because it doesn't work that way.

      No one is in the position to decide whether damage from tourism is allowable prior to it occurring. The sequence is: (1) people notice the appeal of the area, (2) business develop to support demand, and (3) consequences of the business are felt.

      Odds are, very little benefit to the locals is realized.

    4. Re:"Tourism"? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is a whale shark equivalent to "feeding stations" which are well known to be unsustainable and are frequently made illegal for just this kind of reason.

    5. Re: "Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except there were plenty of coral tourists so I doubt the locals were so impoverished

    6. Re:"Tourism"? by ugen · · Score: 2

      I've been there. It's a mass tourism at its worst. Thousands of tourists shuttled by small boats into a semi circle near shore. A small powerboat drags a chum bag behind it, stopping briefly next to each of the parked boats. A few chummed whale sharks obediently follow.
      There is everything there from in-water fist fights for best location, to the usual tourist scams on shore, and of course dumping enormous amounts of trash of all kinds all over the site.
      I did not expect it to be particularly good, but what happens there was beyond my worst expectations. Should really be shut down, but they can't do that as it's a poor country and locals have no other means to make a living.

    7. Re:"Tourism"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      All the locals have to live off of whale sharks?

    8. Re: "Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Corals are all over the Philippines - whale sharks, not so much... Tourists will pay a lot more to swim with whale sharks; you can go to nearly any beach in the Philippines and find corals.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:"Tourism"? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      The locals are incredibly poor

      Citation needed. Of course, "incredibly" is subjective anyway. But apparently wealthy enough to start feeding whale sharks 50 tons of shrimps annually. Similar things happen in other places, regardless of the relative poverty of the local residents. But my point was, the paper doesn't specify whether the damage is due to direct human output like trash or boat exhaust, or just the perpetual presence of the whale sharks, it seems to be the latter.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    10. Re: "Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    11. Re:"Tourism"? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It is still tourism that is the problem. It just isn't the Tourist who are the problem.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:"Tourism"? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The thing is you can use this excuse to explain anything bad people do, especially it is correlated with poverty. Gang Violence, Drugs, Environmental Damage...

      Very few people wake up in the morning and go, I think I will be a negative overall impact on society. However society will often get in the way and force us to make choices for our benefit, because of lack of other good options.

      The biggest problem is the Justice Systems will more likely punish people for breaking laws, vs trying to get them out of the catch 22 situations.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely false, if you know anything about criminal psychology. Which you obviously do not.

    14. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should kill the locals so they stop exploiting the whale sharks

      Sounds Good. Glad we solved this problem.

      Lets meet here next week same time same place.

    15. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dang, you beat me to the punch. This is 100% spot-on.

      Having visited the Philippines, I came away with many observations. One of them, after observing local villagers "fishing" with explosives and using nets to scoop up all the floating fish - no minimum size, was this: environmentalism is a luxury of the rich. Struggling people who are trying to feed their family will do whatever it takes, regardless of long-term consequences.

    16. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem IS tourism.

      Tourists and scientists travel the globe, exponentially higher footprint than anyone else living, than exclaim "global warming! the pretty reef I wanted to look at is messed up!"

      Stay home, grow some lentils, play some guitar.

    17. Re:"Tourism"? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      The biggest problem is the Justice Systems will more likely punish people for breaking laws, vs trying to get them out of the catch 22 situations.

      The purpose of the Justice System is punish those who break laws. Sometimes the punishment is harsh, others time you're let off with a warning. Regardless, it is not the responsibility of the Justice System to get people out of their situation. The JS can make recommendations on how to improve the person's life, but it is up to the person to act.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    18. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I heard that Bayani in the next village over had some dayuhan pay him 5000 pesos to take them out in his boat and look at the whale sharks! If we could keep our local whale shark population here instead of migrating down the coast, they would pay US rather than them! In two days we would make more than we did all last month! Let's get some food and see if we can encourage the whale sharks to stay here...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No no, I'm being corrected, it's the noble savage who is having the Western ideal of life thrust upon him and taught to ignore/hate the environment...
      /sarc

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You can charge $190 per tourist per whale shark visit. The GDP per capita is under $3000 per year. You do the math. Take 20 trips a year with tourists - or work an average of 300 days. Your choice.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Here you go. Twenty one percent live below the poverty line, and that is in a country with a GDP per capita of below $3000. I'd say that is pretty darn low income. And 50 tons of shrimp sounds like a lot - but it's about 275 pounds a day, and that can be caught locally as warm-water shrimp or farmed in a pretty small area of about 5,000 square meters. Hmmm - catch shrimp at night/early morning, feed whale sharks in the day, earn lots of money (around $100 to $200 per tourist per day), seems like a great way to get out of proverty of making an average of less than $10 per day...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Mmmm... Whale Shark Lumpia...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re: "Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yep, only Tanawan had coral reefs! It's not like 9% of all reef area in the world is in the Philippines. Nope, Tanawan only, nothing else!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    24. Re:"Tourism"? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'll take 300 trips a year with tourists and then retire and live near a beach in Cebu and take tourists on trips to see whale sharks in my free time.

    25. Re:"Tourism"? by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      Mmmm... Whale Shark Lumpia...

      And me without any points to give...

    26. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think people don't mean to do bad, I suggest start browsing at -1 here. A lot of the stuff that's rated there that isn't downvoted simply for being "I disagree with your opinion" is most definitely posted by people thinking of how they can make the world worse today.

    27. Re: "Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot, you have no idea what you're talking about

    28. Re:"Tourism"? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Says a reliable source of Anonymous Coward.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    29. Re:"Tourism"? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Then who is responsible for getting people out of their situation.

      We really don't have any, the Justice System finds the people in desperate situations, then they go an punish them. Who is finding people with these problems and fixing them before there is a problem? No one. We don't have investigators finding people who have slipped threw the cracks and are suffering where some basic services can get them out of their slump.

      Because the Justice System is intent on finding such people, they have the responsibility to help them. It may not be their job, but they own it now.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    30. Re:"Tourism"? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In the US ~15% are under the poverty line.

      Guam is 23%. Puerto Rico was 43% (2013-2017)

      When you see low GDP per capita, but also a low poverty rate, it usually means most of the people are successfully living a traditional rural lifestyle, not that they are in abject poverty.

      Damaging the local environment for tourism risks destroying their traditional lifestyle, and generating massive poverty. It also risks urbanizing the poverty and creating deep suffering that lasts generations, and totally erases the local traditional lifestyle.

    31. Re:"Tourism"? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      , they have the responsibility to help them. It may not be their job, but they own it now.

      No. It is not the responsibility of the JS to do anything for people. Their sole job is, as I said before, to punish people for breaking the law.

      There are a multitude of other groups whose job it is to find people with problems and help them. They are the ones who should be working in coordination with the JS.

      That said, someone like this doesn't deserve to get out of their situation. It was all on them.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    32. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the purpose of the justice system is to enslave the lesser class and allow the greater class to live lavish lives free from competition from the lesser class. The idea that the justice system enforces laws equally and impartially is absurd. There are so many laws on the book that in a mathematical sense they are uncountable. EVERYTHING is illegal in some jurisdiction or interpretation of the law. However, when a lesser class individual (e.g. one who has made sufficient campaign donations to the political parties) does something that the greater class does not like; it is illegal. That is why you can get arrested for operating a Lemonade Stand. However driving your car into the river with a female in it and allowing her to drown and not reporting it is not considered an offense if you happen to be Ted Kennedy. The laws and rules are written by those with power and interpreted by those with power to ensure those without power do not get it.

      The justice system perpetuates the imbalance of power. That is its purpose and function. It is very effective. That is why lawyers get paid soo much money. People need to stop believing in the myth that the DOJ cares about justice.

      Do not expect to get power by following the law.

    33. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Being poor in the US is radically different - and much better - than being poor in the Philippines...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    34. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a mixed blessing. As long as the whale sharks are valuable to the local economy, the people there have an incentive to keep the whales healthy and the local environment appealing to tourism. Too much tourism tends to degrade those things no matter what.

      Of course if they are actually feeding the whale sharks 50 tons of shrimp a year, you could just feed those shrimp to the tourists, who would come for the shrimp bonanza!

    35. Re: "Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Struggling people who are trying to feed their family will do whatever it takes, regardless of long-term consequences."
      And yet this constant struggle and scrapping for cash in no way seems to impede the decision to add that 6th or 7th child to the family.

    36. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Allowable?" By who? You sound like the Church leaders of the age of exploration who thought Europe needed to send missionaries and Conquistadors to convert native peoples and tell them how they should live. What business is it of yours?

    37. Re:"Tourism"? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Please add some kind of content when you reply, don't merely rephrase a tiny subset of what I said.

      If you didn't understand that I said that already, why are you even replying to something where you didn't understand the point?

    38. Re: "Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The decision to add an extra child is meant to add an advantage, not a burden, in a rural area. Kids become useful for helping out much earlier than in urban areas, where some would argue that they never become useful.

    39. Re:"Tourism"? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I would rather be below the poverty line in the US (which is how the first 21 years of my life were spent) than below the poverty line in the Philippines. That any better? And yes, I've spent significant time in the Philippines... I guess if you'd rather live with a stream to bathe in, communal pits for toilets, garbage tossed over the back fence, and dirt roads with spotty - at best - utilities, be my guest.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    40. Re:"Tourism"? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      An excuse and a reason are not the same thing. The GP didn't excuse the practice.

    41. Re:"Tourism"? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      The problem is actually poverty.

      Philipines, yeah probably.
      Guam, not so much. The folks in Guam aren't rich, but its not philipines style poverty either. $30K GDP with a 14% unemployment rate (which isn't great). The key though is its *very* deprendent on tourism, and it has very little political autonomy to set its own broader direction due to being unincorporated American territory, a very double sided sword (Its good to be an American. but its not so good to not have a vote)

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    42. Re:"Tourism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I don't disagree with your reasoning, I think you are too optimistic about how they think. No, locals either don't know or don't care about environment because it doesn't have immediate impact on them. It is simple. If they are poor, they won't earn money to pay for their kids to go to school but rather they use their kids to make money (work). You have no idea that kids in a poor family in the 3rd world country will start working to feed the family once they can talk. Besides, I want to point out another illogical reasoning you mentioned. If they have low education, so why would they know or care about environment?

      I guess you are applying the 1st world way of thought (concern about issues around but not direct to you) to the 3rd world country people.

  4. Good tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No such thing, ban airplanes please

    1. Re: Good tourism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carry on

  5. Feeding wild animals is bad by olddoc · · Score: 1

    This is not a case of tourism being bad. To me the big problem is the artificial feeding of wild whale sharks which keeps the number of visitors so high year round. If there was just a month where a few sharks visited and a few swimmers were in the water, it wouldn't be a big problem.

    --
    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    1. Re:Feeding wild animals is bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      So restrict the whale sharks from visiting except for one month when there are a few swimmers?

    2. Re:Feeding wild animals is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a simple solution to this problem: Build a zoo for sharks!

      You can put them in large cages filled with water, and people will come and look at the sharks. The sharks will then avoid eating all the coral reefs.

      As for the rest of the sharks, just send them to a special happy camp where they will receive baths laced with cyanide. Unless they swear allegiance to Fuhrer Trump, and agree to betray their fellow sharks for gold.

      Like George Soros. With gold teeth stolen from fellow sharks, this lucky shark will go on to build an empire, manipulate the economies of various countries, force Atlantis to be politically correct and force them to import undesirable immigrants (like humans, although most immigrants will be Africans from war-torn countries, and possibly a bunch of tuna).

    3. Re:Feeding wild animals is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your thinking. I want to spread it to human beings. Just as we should not feed whale sharks because it makes them dependent, we should not feed human beings. Let the poor huddled masses starve. This will force them to fend for themselves even if it means robbing a bunch of white liberals. Survival of the fittest. No mercy.

      I might hate robbers, but I have respect for them. I can not have respect for people who take or give handouts.

      There is no difference between robber barons and actual robbers. It is the lukewarm middle class brainwashed with the ideas of the brotherhood of mankind and all that garbage that is the problem.

      Starvation and genocide are the engines of evolution. Weakness is not a virtue.

    4. Re:Feeding wild animals is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heil Hitler! Yes! Heil Hitler!

      Heil Hitler! You are on the right track, my friend. Heil Hitler! We must do everything possible to encourage these ubermensch to destroy themselves. Heil Hitler!

      Heil Hitler! The middle class must have everything stolen from them and given to the poor. Heil Hitler! The upper class shall retain their monies and laugh at people like you. Heil Hitler!

    5. Re:Feeding wild animals is bad by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      There is a simple solution to this problem: Build a zoo for sharks!

      Interesting! Tell me more!

      You can put them in large cages filled with water,

      Man, you get my hopes up that you solved the issue, then you go and say something stupid like that! How the heck can a cage hold in water? It'll flow right out between the bars! Back to the drawing board...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Feeding wild animals is bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, are you ignorant! You mean to tell me you've never seen a shark cage on TV? Those things stay full of water.

  6. Move it to Japan by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0

    If feeding shrimps keep the whales around, looks like the Japanese could farm whales. That way wild whales can be saved.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Move it to Japan by Sorny · · Score: 1

      No way, free range tastes better!

      --
      OSX pwns.
    2. Re:Move it to Japan by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      A whale shark is not a whale, it's a shark.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  7. Cause? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What part of all this is allegedly damaging the coral?