The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and 

Reserves (Protected Areas) 

As Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals

Randall R. Reeves 

Okapi Wildlife Associates 

27 Chandler Lane 

Hudson, Quebec J0P 1H0, Canada 

prepared for the 

Marine Mammal Commission 

4340 East-West Highway, Room 905 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA 

Contract Number T74465385 

December 2000 
How to cite this report: 

Reeves, R.R. 2000. The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for 

Conserving Marine Mammals. Final Report to the Marine Mammal Commission, 

contract number T74465385. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, MD. 50 pp. 
CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 

Statement of Objectives and Approach ...........................................................................................2 

Definitions – What Is a Marine Protected Area? .............................................................................2 

General Review of Marine Protected Areas ....................................................................................3 

Reasons for Establishing Marine Protected Areas...............................................................3 

Setting Boundaries for Marine Protected Areas ..................................................................4 

Options for Management .....................................................................................................6 

Need for Integration and Coordination ................................................................................7 

Protected Area Networks .....................................................................................................8 

Marine Mammals in Protected Areas ............................................................................................10

Taxonomic Review ............................................................................................................10 

Geographical Review.........................................................................................................11 

Economic Benefits .............................................................................................................13 

Conservation Benefits for Marine Mammals.....................................................................14 

Conservation Benefits for Other Species...........................................................................15 

Marine Mammals and Protected Areas in North America: Selected Case Studies .......................16 

The Broader United States Context ...................................................................................16 

National Parks and Related Sites in the United States ......................................................17 

National Parks and Related Sites in Canada ......................................................................19 

National Marine Sanctuaries in the United States .............................................................21 

Marine Protected Areas under Canada’s Oceans Act ........................................................23 

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites .................................................24 

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................27 

Recommendations..........................................................................................................................29 

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................31 

Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................32 

Glossary .........................................................................................................................................39 

Appendix 1: Selected Examples of Protected Areas Outside North America 

That Contribute to Marine Mammal Conservation................................................41 

i 
Introduction 

The number of marine sanctuaries, parks, and 

reserves throughout the world grew from only a 

few to more than 1,200 in less than 25 years 

(apparently starting in about 1970; Earle 

1995:329). This number included primarily areas 

of the subtidal marine environment and therefore 

failed to reflect the many protected areas that 

incorporated intertidal, estuarine, or wetland areas 

but did not have a “marine” component (Kelleher 

et al. 1995). There clearly has been an enormous 

proliferation of marine protected areas around the 

world during the last quarter of the twentieth 

century. As one might expect, more than half of 

the marine protected areas included in the global 

inventory by Kelleher et al. (1995) were in the 

North Atlantic and North Pacific and their 

adjacent seas and about a fifth were in Oceania 

(New Zealand and Australia). One is also struck, 

however, by the fact that this proliferation has 

been a truly global phenomenon, encompassing all 

climatic zones and including countries large and 

small, rich and poor. The concept of protected 

areas is now understood to apply as much to the 

sea as to the land (Agardy 1994, 1997). 

The designation of protected areas has long been 

used as a tool for wildlife conservation on land. A 

few terrestrial parks, sanctuaries, or reserves benefitting marine mammals have existed for a considerable time. The Congressional declaration in 

1869 that the Pribilof Islands (St. Paul and St. 

George) were a “special reservation” under the 

authority of the U.S. Department of the Treasury 

brought regulation to the commercial hunt for 

northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) (Scheffer 

et al. 1984). In 1892, Afognak Island in Alaska 

was designated, by Presidential proclamation, a 

“fish cultural and forest reserve” under the Forest 

Reserves Act. According to Lavigne et al. (1999), 

the purpose was, in part, to protect seals, walruses 

(Odobenus rosmarus), and sea otters (Enhydra 

lutris). Also in Alaska, the Walrus Islands State 

Game Sanctuary was declared in 1960 for the 

explicit purpose of protecting “the only regular 

summer hauling grounds for walrus still in 

existence on United States territory” (Kenyon 

1960). “Seal Beach” on Kangaroo Island, South 

Australia, was established as a protected area for 

Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) and New 

Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) in 1954 

(Robinson and Dennis 1988). These modest early 

land-based efforts have been supplemented in 

recent years by an array of much more ambitious 

designations, some with the protection of marine 

mammals and their habitat as a major rationale, 

others simply including marine mammals as 

among the organisms that stand to benefit from 

management or protection. 

Many marine mammal populations were depleted 

by commercial hunting. Although deliberate 

exploitation continues in some areas, major 

ongoing threats to marine mammal populations 

and species now include both incidental catch 

(Perrin et al. 1994) and reductions in prey 

abundance (Earle 1996) by commercial fisheries, 

chemical pollution (O=Shea 1999), humangenerated underwater noise (Richardson et al. 

1995; Gordon and Moscrop 1996), vessel strikes 

(Laist et al. in press), entanglement in derelict 

fishing gear and other marine debris (Laist 1996; 

Laist et al. 1999), deterioration of habitat due to 

human activities and development (Whitehead et 

al. 2000), and global climate change (MacGarvin 

and Simmonds 1996). This array of threats 

requires a variety of policy and management 

responses. Where spatial components of threats 

can be defined, establishment of marine protected 

areas can be a useful approach to management for 

conservation. 

1 
Statement of Objectives and Approach 

This paper has three main objectives, as follows: (3) To develop recommendations concerning ways 

of improving the effectiveness of marine protected 

(1) To review the nature and scope of existing 

protected areas that are relevant to marine 

mammal conservation; 

areas as tools for conserving marine mammals and 

their ecosystems. 

The results are based mainly on a review of litera-

(2) Using examples from the literature, to assess 

the effectiveness and identify the strengths and 

weaknesses, in relation to marine mammal 

conservation, of different approaches toward 

designating and managing marine protected areas; 

and 

ture, including unpublished reports of 

management agencies and non-governmental 

organizations. In addition, individuals with 

experience in the development, management, or 

evaluation of marine protected areas have been 

consulted for advice and information (see 

Acknowledgments). 

Definitions – What Is a Marine Protected Area? 

The concept of a marine protected area embraces a 

number of different types of designation. A rigid 

and standardized terminology (see Glossary) may 

be useful in some contexts, but no attempt has 

been made to apply one here. Rather, sanctuaries, 

parks, reserves, preserves, and refuges are all 

considered to fall within the broad meaning of the 

term “marine protected area.” In her taxonomy, 

Agardy (1997) refers to marine sanctuaries and 

parks (her Category 4) as ranging “from the 

seaward extensions of coastal terrestrial parks, to 

ecosystem-based multiple use marine parks, 

sanctuaries and biosphere reserves.” This 

essentially describes the set of marine protected 

areas that are covered in the present paper. Many 

authors, particularly those concerned with the 

implications for fishing and fish stocks, use the 

term “marine reserve” to mean a “no-take” area or 

zone, i.e., an area where extractive activities such 

as fishing and plant removal are prohibited. 

However, even considering this single rubric, 

“marine reserve,” the meaning varies from country 

to country. For example, in South Africa, marine 

sanctuaries are defined as areas providing total 

protection; marine reserves as areas where most 

species are protected but selected species can be 

taken; and fishery reserves as areas where only 

one or a few species of commercial value are 

protected (Hockey and Branch 1997). In New 

Zealand, the Marine Reserves Act of 1971 explicitly defines reserves as no-take areas established 

for scientific study (Walls 1998). 

California’s Interagency Marine Managed Areas 

Workgroup recently adopted the term “marine 

managed area.” in part to avoid “the misimpression that the designated area is under complete 

protection, such that the extraction of marine 

resources is not allowed” (Resources Agency of 

California 2000:2). The workgroup also made the 

useful point that areas established administratively 

for recreational or commercial fishing restrictions, 

such as seasonal or geographic closures and size 

limits, should not be interpreted as falling within 

the definition of marine managed areas. Nor are 

these areas, which tend to be non-permanent and 

subject to change through time, generally 

recognized as marine protected areas [Agardy 

(1997:99) refers to them as “closed areas”]. Along 

the same lines, it is questionable whether 

designations such as the International Whaling 

Commission’s whale sanctuaries in the Indian 

2 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Ocean and Southern Ocean, or Ireland’s cetacean 

sanctuary, should be regarded as marine protected 

areas (see Appendix 1 for descriptions). An 

extreme suggestion is that the entire area south of 

60ES is, by virtue of the Antarctic Treaty System, 

“the world=s largest MPA” (Attwood et al. 1997). 

Hooker et al. (1999) note with respect to the IUCN 

definition of a marine protected area (see 

Glossary) that legislation is a key element. In their 

example, it was important to emphasize that two 

earlier gestures intended to protect the northern 

bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) in 

The Gully, offshore of Nova Scotia, Canada, had 

not been legislated and therefore were not 

enforceable (see later). This insistence on 

legislation should apply even to marine protected 

areas declared by local communities because their 

efforts need to be guaranteed by governmental 

commitments (e.g., see the example of Mafia 

Island Marine Park, Tanzania; Fontaubert et al. 

1996:51-52; also the many examples in the United 

Kingdom; Graham and Huff 1985). Thus, one 

required feature of a marine protected area is, or 

should be, that it be formally authorized by 

legislation or binding regulations of some kind. 

The recent Executive Order by President Clinton 

(26 May 2000; Executive Order 13158) defines 

Marine Protected Area as “any area of the marine 

environment that has been reserved by Federal, 

State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations 

to provide lasting protection for part or all of the 

natural and cultural resources therein.” 

A marine protected area without a management 

plan is like a ship without a rudder. A plan 

expressing management objectives and 

mechanisms is a sine qua non, a first principle for 

effectiveness. Not only must a management plan 

exist, but it must be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the site, feasible to implement, and 

subject to periodic review and revision. Even with 

a management plan, a protected area will be 

ineffective unless a director is empowered to 

implement it. Empowerment, in this instance, 

means that the director has the necessary legal 

authority, sufficient financial resources, and 

adequate staff to proceed with implementation. 

General Review of Marine Protected Areas 

Reasons for Establishing 

Marine Protected Areas 

Salm and Clark (1984:15) cite six possible reasons 

for designating a marine protected area, as 

follows: (1) it is typical of an “important” 

ecosystem or habitat type, (2) it has high species 

diversity, (3) it is an area of “intense biological 

activity,” (4) it provides “critical” habitat for a 

species or species group, (5) it has exceptional 

cultural value, or (6) it offers opportunities for 

“necessary” research or for determining baseline 

conditions. These criteria are similar to those used 

by Kelleher et al. (1995, Vol. I) to select “priority 

areas.” However, the latter authors consider three 

additional factors: (7) naturalness, i.e., the extent 

to which an area approaches its pristine condition; 

(8) economic importance; and (9) practicality or 

feasibility of achieving protection. Among the 

“biological factors” to be considered in site 

selection, they also mention source-sink dynamics 

(see below), “key” breeding and migration areas, 

isolation and endemism, areas of high 

productivity, and “vulnerable” species. All of 

these criteria, taken together, embrace most of the 

possible reasons for establishing a marine 

protected area. Jones (1994) and Agardy (1997) 

reformulate the above criteria as goals or 

objectives for management of marine protected 

areas. The latter author emphasizes the utility of 

marine protected areas as “testing ground[s] for 

management” and their potential to “empower 

local users.” 

3 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

It has been argued that marine protected areas are 

ideally suited to “science-based conservation” 

(Agardy 1994; also see Agardy 1997; Dayton et 

al. 2000). Not only do they provide opportunities 

for studying baseline conditions (item 6 in the 

preceding paragraph) and monitoring 

environmental change, but they also make it 

possible to conduct scientific experiments under 

relatively natural conditions. Marine protected 

areas can help alleviate the consequences of 

scientific uncertainty. The effectiveness of 

different approaches to management can be tested 

within the context of one marine protected area, 

then used to inform decisions about how to design 

and manage marine protected areas more 

generally, as well as how to protect valued 

resources that lie outside protected area 

boundaries. In principle, a marine protected area 

should function as “a buffer against unforeseen yet 

potentially disastrous management mistakes” 

(Agardy 1994). 

The Convention on Biodiversity (Article 8a,b, and 

e) calls for parties to establish a system of marine 

protected areas and buffer zones where special 

measures are needed to protect biodiversity 

(Fontaubert et al. 1996:15-18, 66). Under this 

convention, the Jakarta Mandate of 1995 urges 

that (a) selection of marine protected areas 

emphasize “ecosystem functioning” as well as the 

protection of specific stocks, (b) marine protected 

areas be incorporated within broader planning 

objectives that include multiple use, (c) local 

communities and resource users be encouraged to 

participate in the planning and management of 

marine protected areas, and (d) management plans 

consider “all three levels of biological diversity 

(ecosystem, species, and population or genetic)” 

(de Fontaubert et al. 1996:97). In general, the 

convention’s wording (like that of the United 

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) 

emphasizes the importance of integrating resource 

use into the fabric of protected area management. 

Community-level organization and traditional 

modes of exploitation are particularly valued and 

encouraged. The content and tone of the Jakarta 

Mandate are unmistakable in urging that protected 

areas include provisions for human use and 

economic benefit. 

Most other recent literature considers “multiple 

use” fundamental to the concept of marine protected areas (e.g., Dixon et al. 1993; Agardy 1994, 

1997). Indeed, Kelleher (1998) observes that “the 

almost universal failure of protected areas to perform their designed functions in the face of 

opposition or apathy from local communities has 

led to widespread recognition that protected areas 

must meet the needs of these communities if they 

are to survive.” This imperative is clearly a central 

issue in current thinking about marine protected 

areas. However, it is important not to abandon the 

concept of setting aside certain carefully selected 

areas where “use” of any kind is prohibited (with 

the possible exception of research). Although such 

designations will elicit local opposition for 

obvious reasons, the nature and severity of such 

opposition may depend on how the rationales for, 

and benefits of, designation are portrayed and 

explained from the outset. For example, the 

possibility that high production in a no-take area 

can replenish exploited populations of fish in 

surrounding areas could blunt at least some of the 

opposition to an off-limits approach, selectively 

applied. The objectives and reasons for 

establishing a protected area need to be explicitly 

stated as early in the designation process as 

possible. Ideally, these should be developed in 

consultation with resource users and others who 

have a realized or potential stake in the outcome. 

Setting Boundaries for 

Marine Protected Areas 

It has been recognized for some time that the 

boundaries of protected areas in the open sea 

might need to be fluid so that they follow the 

shifting spatial distribution of nutrients, 

organisms, and water masses (e.g., Salm and Clark 

1984:153; Agardy 1994, 1997). While protected 

areas centered on coral reefs are generally 

amenable to fixed boundaries (Laist 1986), those 

intended to protect or manage temperate openocean systems may be less so, particularly when 

4 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

the focal species of concern are as mobile and 

adaptable as some species of marine mammals. 

For example, there is clear evidence that the 

feeding distributions of cetacean populations can 

undergo major shifts, apparently related to 

variability in prey densities (Kenney et al. 1996) 

or oceanographic conditions (Forney 1999). The 

natural (and man-influenced) variability in 

distribution of mid-water resources on which so 

many marine mammals depend creates a 

formidable challenge to sanctuary design. There is 

also evidence, however, suggesting that cetacean 

distributions in some areas are “better defined by 

fixed features of the physical environment [i.e., 

depth in this instance] than by variable aspects of 

environment [e.g., sea surface temperature and 

month]” (Hooker et al. 1999:600; also see Selzer 

and Payne 1988; Baumgartner 1997). 

Optimal design of a protected area intended to 

conserve a population would encompass that 

population=s entire year-round distribution. While 

it may be possible to accomplish such a design for 

some resident or non-migratory species, the ranges 

of most marine mammal populations are too large 

for this to be practicable. When only a portion of a 

population’s range can be included within a protected area, it is crucial to understand source-sink 

dynamics for that population. If the population’s 

demographic rates are habitat-specific, it would be 

more important to protect some types of habitat 

than others (Pulliam 1988). There is obvious merit 

in selecting and designing protected areas on the 

basis of key breeding or feeding areas (see 

Kelleher et al. 1995, Vol. I:8). In practice, a 

number of protected beach areas exist to benefit 

land-breeding pinniped populations, and some of 

these extend to adjacent offshore waters. Such 

areas can be thought of as “source areas” for the 

pinniped populations. Similarly, polar bear (Ursus 

maritimus) denning habitat on land is relatively 

easy to delineate, and protection of such habitat is 

an efficient way of contributing to the 

conservation of this species (Prestrud and Stirling 

1994). The gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) 

refuges in Baja California, Mexico, and the 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

sanctuary in Hawaii are examples of protected 

areas explicitly established to protect whale 

breeding grounds (see later). 

There is danger that the relative ease of identifying 

and managing reproductively significant areas for 

marine mammals will detract from the equally 

crucial problem of protecting areas that are essential to the populations for other reasons. Animals 

need access to adequate food resources, and this 

can present enormous challenges to protected area 

design, especially for marine mammals that 

depend on pelagic food webs. A novel approach to 

the protection of pelagic systems is presented by 

Hyrenbach et al. (2000), who identify three types 

of open-ocean “hotspots,” defined according to 

their dynamics and predictability in space and 

time. Static systems determined by topographic 

features, such as reefs, shelf breaks, submarine 

canyons, seamounts, and the lee shores of islands, 

are the easiest to define and manage. They are 

relatively stable, persistent hotspots that can be 

mapped. Persistent hydrographic features, such as 

currents and frontal systems, are more challenging 

because they are not stationary. Thus, they require 

either that a very large area be placed under 

protection, or that the boundaries be flexible. In 

the latter case, the boundaries would be 

determined by associations between species 

distributions and ocean properties, such as surface 

temperature or chlorophyll concentration, which 

can be monitored remotely. Zoning would be 

essential because aggregations of pelagic 

vertebrates often occur hundreds of kilometers 

“downstream” of the core areas of upwelling and 

high chlorophyll concentration, and these would 

need to be contained within buffer zones. Finally, 

and even more challenging, ephemeral habitats 

shaped by wind- or current-driven upwelling, 

eddies, and filaments constitute the third category 

of foraging hotspot. These more transient habitats 

probably require a protected area design based on 

real-time monitoring of ocean conditions using 

remote-sensing technology. 

5 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Although I am unaware of concrete examples in 

which either persistent hydrographic features or 

ephemeral habitats have been used to define the 

“fluid” boundaries of a marine protected area, 

consideration has been given recently to the idea 

of establishing temporary whale management 

zones around concentrations of feeding right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis) off the east coast of 

North America. The timing and locality of highdensity zooplankton patches that attract right 

whales are variable (e.g., Murison 1986; Murison 

and Gaskin 1989; Mayo and Marx 1990; Mayo 

and Goldman 1992; Wishner et al. 1995; Kenney 

et al. 1995). The idea would be to locate whale 

aggregations (through systematic surveys) and 

establish management zones within which, for 

example, fishing gear must be removed from the 

water and vessel traffic is either slowed down or 

re-routed. 

Prestrud and Stirling (1994) point out that the 

1973 International Agreement for the 

Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat 

specifically requires signatory nations to “take 

appropriate action to protect the ecosystem of 

which polar bears are a part, with special attention 

to habitat components such as denning and 

feeding sites and migration patterns.” While a 

large proportion of the denning habitat used by 

polar bears is inside protected areas, their feeding 

sites and migration routes occur primarily in the 

dynamic offshore sea ice, which “does not fit into 

conventional thinking about protected areas” 

(Prestrud and Stirling 1994). Thus, designing 

protected areas to meet the ecological needs of 

polar bears has some of the same challenges as 

those outlined by Hyrenbach et al. (2000) for 

pelagic cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

Options for Management 

Kelleher and Kenchington (1993) describe two 

models for the structure of a marine protected area 

(also see Attwood et al. 1997; Salm and Clark 

2000). One involves a general policy of regulating 

human activities “supplemented by the provision 

of special protection for comparatively small 

areas.” The other involves creation of a single 

large protected area “with levels of protection 

varying within it according to a zoning plan.” 

There are many examples of the former and few of 

the latter. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 

Australia, established by the 1975 Great Barrier 

Reef Marine Park Act, is one of the largest 

(350,000km2

), and perhaps the most complexly 

managed protected area in the world (e.g., Tanzer 

1998). Although the entire park is closed to 

petroleum exploration and development, and to 

spearfishing with scuba equipment, most other 

kinds of commercial or recreational activity are 

allowed in one or more zones within the park. 

About 4.5% of the park is closed to fishing and a 

quarter of it is closed to bottom trawling. 

Throughout the rest of the park, fishing is 

regulated through permits and zoning. Marine 

mammals, particularly the dugong (Dugong 

dugon), are among the species protected by the 

park=s management regime (Baldwin 1985). A 

series of sanctuaries have been established along 

the Queensland coast where gillnets are either 

banned or restricted to reduce the bycatch of 

dugongs as well as turtles and small cetaceans 

(Tanzer 1998). 

Zoning, even when it consists of no more than 

establishing core and buffer zones, is widely 

viewed as an optimal way of designing protected 

areas. It is essential for accommodating multiple 

uses of resources, resolving user conflicts, and 

achieving multiple objectives. Also, the corebuffer concept provides a way of dealing with the 

geo-graphic “uncoupling” of foraging habitats and 

prey aggregations from the physical forcing 

mechanisms responsible for water-column mixing 

and elevated production (Hyrenbach et al. 2000). 

Biosphere Reserves, which are supposed to serve 

the interests of both human (economic) 

development and conservation (see later), are 

required to have at least a core area of maximal 

protection and one or more buffer zones with less 

stringent restrictions on human activity. Many also 

have a transition zone with minimal management. 

6 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

The concept of adaptive management has become 

central to modern thinking about marine protected 

areas. Agardy (1994, 1997) cites two conditions as 

necessary for resource management to be adaptive 

– first, that there be a “feedback loop” between 

science and management, and second, that there be 

a framework for “experimental manipulation” so 

that the effectiveness of tried management measures can be evaluated. Equally key to modern 

marine protected area management is the 

provision of mechanisms for community 

consultation and participation. Conflicts among 

interest groups are inevitable. Therefore, if a 

protected area is to be viewed by local people as 

legitimate and its long-term effectiveness assured, 

negotiation and compromise are necessary 

elements of decision-making, and provision needs 

to be made for participation by the people whose 

lives are directly connected to the area and its 

resources (Kelleher and Kenchington 1993; 

Beaumont 1997). 

Need for Integration and Coordination 

The terms “integration” and “coordination” are 

invoked repeatedly in the literature on marine 

protected areas, and with good reason. A 

fundamental feature of such areas, particularly 

those that abut a continental or island shoreline 

(which most of them do), is the coupling between 

wet and dry environments (Dixon et al. 1993; 

Agardy 1997). Land use in the coastal zone plays 

a critical role in determining the near-shore marine 

conditions “downstream.” Therefore, without 

integrated coastal zone management to limit 

shore-based pollution and land degradation, 

investment in a coastal marine protected area may 

be ill-advised. “The high degree of linkage 

between marine environments and between the 

land and the sea imposes an urgent need for the 

integration of protected area management and 

overall conservation strategy in the coastal zone” 

(Kelleher et al. 1995, Vol I:4). Although coastal 

zone management cannot eliminate the effects of 

non-point-source pollution (e.g., by atmospheric 

transport) on a protected area, it can at least reduce 

the severity of aggregate human impacts. 

In general, near-shore marine areas and marine 

resources are publicly owned and managed by 

state and federal governments, in contrast to land 

and land-based resources that often fall under 

proprietary ownership. Thus, designations in the 

marine environment often do not have the landbased conflicts and acquisition costs arising from 

private land ownership. However, they must 

instead contend with longstanding principles such 

as freedom of navigation and perceived public 

rights to exploit fish or other marine resources. 

Split or mixed jurisdiction is a problem endemic to 

virtually every marine protected area. Duffus and 

Dearden (1993a), for example, point out that in 

Canada, the federal government has the power to 

deal with navigation, fisheries, and “general lawmaking” within the 3n.mi. territorial zone, but 

provincial governments have jurisdiction over 

living and non-living resources in the coastal zone. 

Within each of these levels of government, 

different agencies often have responsibility for 

different resources and different types of human 

activity in or near a given protected area. As a 

result, the Canadian Parks Service, for example, 

must negotiate and coordinate with numerous 

groups in order to establish, develop, and manage 

an area. Typically, in Canada and elsewhere, the 

park agency’s mandate comes into conflict with 

that of the fishery management agency (in this 

case the federal Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans), and the latter is in a stronger position 

because of its traditional involvement with the 

marine environment and the fishing industry. The 

need for integration thus applies both to the 

ecological dimension of recognizing land-sea and 

ecosystem interactions and to the bureaucratic 

dimension of recognizing overlapping 

management authority. 

In the United States, balancing the interests and 

authorities of the federal government with those of 

state governments is a major challenge. One of the 

greatest difficulties facing the National Marine 

Sanctuary program is that of reconciling the National Marine Fisheries Service’s mandate to 

manage fisheries with the sanctuary program’s 

7 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

requirement to protect living resources within 

sanctuary waters (Weber 1997; Center for the 

Economy and the Environment 1999; see later). 

This will require that the sanctuary authorities 

carve out their own mandate from existing 

programs (one of which is fisheries) and 

coordinate among the relevant state and federal 

agencies. National parks with marine components 

and state marine managed areas face similar 

challenges, involving not only the federal fishery 

agency but also state fish and game departments 

with jurisdiction over fishing in near-shore waters 

(e.g., McArdle 1997; Resources Agency of 

California 2000). Kelleher (1998) regards the 

competition between government agencies 

responsible for fishery management and those 

responsible for environmental protection as “perhaps the greatest inhibition to progress in 

achieving successful MPA (or ICM) [marine 

protected area (or integrated coastal management)] 

establishment and management.” 

Protected Area Networks 

Hockey and Branch (1997) point out that most 

marine protected areas in South Africa have been 

created “because of ad hoc local pressure,” and 

thus the patchwork of sanctuaries, parks, and 

reserves has little coherence. The situation has 

been similar in many, perhaps most, other parts of 

the world despite the recognition that site selection 

should be systematic and rigorous. The idea of 

establishing a network of representative (or 

thematic) marine protected areas was adopted and 

promoted by IUCN in 1988 (Kelleher and 

Kenchington 1992), and similar reasoning has 

been applied at the national level in some 

countries (e.g., Canada: Duffus and Dearden 

1993a; Australia: Agardy 1997) and at the state or 

provincial level in California (Resources Agency 

of California 2000) and British Columbia 

(Zacharias and Howes 1998). This is a form of gap 

analysis. Once biogeographic regions and zones 

are identified, it becomes possible to set priorities 

according to which of them are and are not 

included within the existing array of protected 

areas. Despite its beguiling simplicity, however, 

the representativeness approach will not 

necessarily ensure that areas critical to ecological 

processes and the species they support (including 

marine mammals) are conserved. Faced with an 

array of options for covering each “habitat type,” 

decision-makers are likely to begin by selecting 

those that are the least controversial rather than 

those that are most at risk or that support the species of greatest concern. A similar danger exists in 

using fixed percentage targets for placing areas 

under protection (e.g., aiming to set aside 20% of 

the nation’s total reef area in no-take reserves). 

Inevitably, and understandably, there will be a 

tendency to avoid those situations where resourceuse conflicts are most difficult to resolve and 

where serious habitat degradation is already 

occurring. 

There is an important distinction between a 

network of protected areas representing different 

ecosystems, geological or ecological phenomena, 

and species complexes on one hand, and a 

connected network of protected areas that can be 

thought of as a single large meta-park or metaprotected area on the other. The Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park can be thought of as a network unto 

itself, but few other entities under a single 

management umbrella are comparably large-scale 

and complex. 

Several examples exist of protected area networks 

that have become, or are on their way to 

becoming, unified systems providing populationlevel protection to marine mammals and other 

organisms. The coherence and continuity of these 

networks, however, derive from their near-shore, 

essentially linear conformation. The trilateral 

Wadden Sea Conservation Area in western 

Europe, for example, consists of “an almost 

unbroken stretch of nature reserves and national 

parks” in the southeastern part of the North Sea 

(Enemark et al. 1998). Denmark, Germany, and 

The Netherlands have held a series of 

intergovernmental conferences and established a 

Common Wadden Sea Secretariat to facilitate 

cooperation and coordination in managing the 

network. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are among 

the species benefitting from the conservation area, 

8 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

which encompasses more than two-thirds of the 

total Wadden Sea area. 

Another example is a series of protected areas 

along the west coast of Florida, deliberately 

planned with the goal of providing comprehensive 

protection to the habitat of the regional manatee 

(Trichechus manatus) population. In 1984, the 

Marine Mammal Commission produced a plan to 

link several National Wildlife Refuges; manatee 

sanctuaries (small areas with seasonal prohibitions 

on all waterborne activities created under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act); designated 

“critical habitat” areas for manatees under section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act; and Florida state 

parks, aquatic preserves, boat speed zones, 

outstanding water areas, wildlife management 

areas, and state land acquisition projects 

(purchases under the Conservation and Recreation 

Lands [CARL] Trust Fund) (Marine Mammal 

Commission 1984). Once completed, this network 

would limit coastal development in and near the 

core of the regional manatee population’s range, 

while enhancing the effectiveness of boat speed 

regulations and the general ban on the “taking” of 

manatees. A more expansive “string of pearls” 

network of manatee refuges and sanctuaries is 

currently being considered by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service for other parts of Florida (D. 

Laist, pers. comm., 2000). 

The potential benefits (and dangers) of using 

“conservation corridors” to allow faunal 

exchanges between protected areas have long been 

recognized by terrestrial ecologists, but until 

recently there has been little consideration of 

applying this approach to marine protected areas 

(see Harris et al. 1996). Among the obvious 

potential benefits of corridors are that they 

counteract the effects of habitat fragmentation and 

reduce the threats of inbreeding depression and 

demographic stochasticity to insular populations. 

Potential dangers are that they can facilitate the 

spread of pathogens, toxic substances, and 

invasive species; expose migrants to predation; 

and consume financial and other resources that 

might be better invested in more effective protection strategies (Simberloff and Cox 1987). The 

utility of a corridor will depend, among other 

things, on the species of concern, whether that 

species is likely to use it, and the size, 

composition, and condition of the populations 

being linked. Corridors in the marine environment, 

and particularly in the pelagic realm (Hyrenbach 

et al. 2000), may be intrinsically more difficult to 

design and manage than corridors linking land or 

freshwater protected areas. In a recent paper, 

Agardy and Engdahl (in press) acknowledge that 

marine corridors may not be strictly analogous to 

terrestrial ones. They nevertheless propose that 

conservation policies, based on integrated coastal 

planning, can serve as “virtual corridors” linking 

networks of protected sites (marine and 

terrestrial). As explained by one of the authors (T. 

Agardy, pers. comm., 2000), the idea is that the 

protected areas within a network should target 

critical habitat associated with the sea floor (e.g., 

reefs, sea mounts, seagrass beds, coves, intertidal 

areas) while the “corridor” linking them is policy 

that prevents the water column from being 

degraded. 

9 
 Marine Mammals in Protected Areas 

Taxonomic Review 

Protected areas have been used more often and 

more regularly with some groups of marine mammals than with others. For example, there are 

relatively many such areas that either were established specifically to protect New World manatees 

or that happen to protect these manatees and their 

habitat as an incidental benefit. In contrast, there 

are relatively few areas designated for the highly 

migratory cetaceans, and almost no offshore areas 

(feeding grounds or migratory routes) for 

pinnipeds. Special protection to pinniped haul-out 

beaches, however, is relatively common. 

Also, there has been a tendency to create protected 

areas for threatened species, such as the vaquita 

(Phocoena sinus), monk seals (Monachus spp.), 

manatees, baleen whales, and river dolphins. This 

is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, species 

protection can be seen “as a starting point for 

establishing a more comprehensive and 

ecologically realistic system of management” 

(Agardy 1994). Even though the protection 

initially provided to a “flagship species” (see 

Simberloff 1998) itself is often minimal, the 

public profile given to an area by some kind of 

special designation can be used to attract public 

and private funds, encourage research, and create 

needed infrastructure (for example, see discussion 

of El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, 

below). At the same time, there is always a danger 

that the creation of a marine protected area will 

lead to complacency, that designation will be 

viewed as the end, rather than the beginning, of 

the conservation process. Also, site selection 

based on the appeal of particularly charismatic 

species may result in neglect toward less favored, 

but perhaps more threatened, species. Zacharias 

and Howes (1998) cite the example of British 

Columbia, where they suggest that certain habitat 

features are over-represented in protected areas 

owing to the popularity of killer whales (Orcinus 

orca) and sea otters, while depleted populations of 

invertebrates (clams, oysters, abalones, and sea 

cucumbers) have only “minimal” protection. 

Nations with jurisdiction over beach and nearshore areas inhabited by the highly endangered 

Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) 

have been under considerable pressure to declare 

protected areas and introduce appropriate 

management measures for that species. The 

aggregate monk seal population, thought to 

number only a few hundred individuals, is 

fragmented, apparently with little or no movement 

and mixing between pockets of relative 

abundance. Protected areas for Mediterranean 

monk seals have a mixed record. At least three of 

them – National Marine Park of the Northern 

Sporades in Greece, the Desertas Islands Natural 

Reserve of Madeira, and Foça Specially Protected 

Area in Turkey – seem to have been successful in 

reducing seal mortality and allowing the local 

groups of seals to maintain their numbers and 

perhaps even increase somewhat (Neves and Pires 

1998; various news items in The Monachus 

Guardian, available at http://www.monachus.org). 

The patchwork of protected areas for the 

Mediterranean monk seal contrasts with the 

situation for the endangered but somewhat more 

abundant Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi). Virtually the entire haul-out range 

of the Hawaiian species falls within the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

National Wildlife Refuge system (Lavigne 1999). 

For both species, however, fishing in waters 

adjacent to the protected haul-out sites constitutes 

a serious and ongoing threat in the form of 

entanglement in actively fished or discarded 

fishing gear, and possibly habitat disturbance and 

competition for prey (cf. Ragen and Lavigne 

1999). Thus far, these conflicts have been 

addressed in Hawaii via a combination of “critical 

habitat” designation under the Endangered Species 

Act and fishery regulations enacted by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (Lavigne 1999). 

In the Mediterranean and off northwestern Africa, 

10 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

little progress of any kind has been made to 

protect the seals themselves while they are at sea 

or to reduce disturbance of their foraging habitat. 

Species-focused protected areas for cetaceans in 

Mexico are discussed below under Biosphere 

Reserves. Particular concern about the endemic 

Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori) led to 

establishment of the Banks Peninsula Marine 

Mammal Sanctuary in 1988 under New Zealand=s 

1978 Marine Mammal Protection Act (Dawson 

and Slooten 1993). The 1170km2

 sanctuary 

consists of a 4n.mi.-wide band around the 

peninsula. Commercial gillnetting is prohibited 

year-round, and “amateur” (or recreational) 

gillnetting is prohibited during the four months of 

summer (November-February). Effectiveness of 

the sanctuary has been assessed from bycatch 

monitoring and from abundance surveys since 

1988 (Department of Conservation 1992). The 

bycatch of dolphins is reported to have declined 

substantially, whereas the statistical power of the 

abundance surveys has been too low to allow a 

reliable evaluation of trend (Department of 

Conservation/Ministry of Agriculture and 

Fisheries 1994). 

Geographical Review 

It is far beyond the scope of this study to 

document, much less evaluate, the many protected 

areas around the world that ostensibly benefit 

marine mammals. A few examples are discussed 

in this section, and a few others are listed in Table 

1 and described in Appendix 1. It is important to 

emphasize that the mere existence of a “protected” 

area does not ensure that any meaningful 

protection is provided. As Kelleher and 

Kenchington (1993:49) point out, “The world is 

littered with paper parks.” 

The Republic of South Africa is known for its 

extensive array of marine protected areas, many of 

which include marine mammal habitat. In South 

Africa, as in the United States, cetaceans and 

pinnipeds are fully protected from deliberate 

taking (under the Sea Fishery Act and the Seabirds 

and Seals Protection Act), so to some extent the 

protection from hunting provided in reserves, 

parks, and other protected areas is redundant. A 

recent review indicated that more than 20 South 

African marine protected areas are visited at least 

seasonally by southern right whales (Eubalaena 

australis), 13 by humpback whales, 12 by IndoPacific hump-backed dolphins (Sousa chinensis), 

2 by Heaviside’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus 

heavisidii), 15 by common dolphins (Delphinus 

sp.), 2 by dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus 

obscurus), 19 by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

sp.), and 12 by Cape fur seals (Arctocephalus 

pusillus pusillus) (Attwood et al. 1997). These 

numbers include West Coast and Tsitsikamma 

National Parks but not Wilderness National Park, 

which encompasses 28km of Indian Ocean 

shoreline inhabited by bottlenose and humpbacked dolphins (Cockcroft and Joyce 1998). 

They also do not include the 600km-long Skeleton 

Coast Park in Namibia, which contains Cape 

Cross Seal Reserve (Cockcroft and Joyce 1998). 

Whale-watching, centered on the right whales that 

come inshore during the winter calving season, 

has been avidly promoted in South Africa since 

the mid-1990s (Findlay 1998; Cockcroft and 

Joyce 1998). Most of the watching is from shore 

vantage points, often along managed trail 

networks within coastal nature reserves or parks. 

The Walker Bay (Hermanus) and De Hoop Marine 

Reserves, in particular, are advertised for their 

exceptional whale-watching opportunities. These 

reserves extend only 5km offshore, and thus 

provide no more than local protection to the 

marine habitat of mammals. Karczmarski (2000) 

advocates the creation of multi-use management 

areas with controlled nature tourism, in 

combination with strict reserves in a few critical 

areas, as a strategy for protecting hump-backed 

dolphins in South Africa. Seals in the region 

probably derive some benefit from the fact that 

beach areas where they rest, breed, and nurse their 

young are protected, for example at Robberg and 

Mossel Bay=s Seal Island. 

On the west coast of Africa, there are few marine 

protected areas that might benefit marine 

mammals. Senegal has been a regional leader in 

providing genuine protection to its national parks, 

11 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

and two of them are relevant to marine mammal 

conservation. Parc National des Oiseaux du 

Djoudj and Parc National du Delta du Saloum 

both contain habitat for African manatees 

(Trichechus senegalensis), and the latter also 

includes waters inhabited by Atlantic humpbacked dolphins (Sousa teuszi) (K. Van 

Waerebeek, pers. comm., 17 December 1999). 

Two national parks in The Gambia include 

manatee and dolphin habitat: Niumi has humpbacked dolphins and Kiang West has bottlenose 

dolphins (Ibid.). Although enforcement of 

protective regulations within these parks is far 

from complete, at least the habitat has been less 

degraded than it otherwise would have been 

without the efforts of park management (Ibid.). 

In the Mediterranean Sea region, the most important existing marine protected areas (from the 

narrow perspective of concern about marine mammals) are those centered on monk seals (see 

above) as well as the new cetacean sanctuary 

(Appendix 1). In addition, there are a number of 

sites in Denmark, France, The Netherlands, and 

the United Kingdom that include protection of 

haul-out areas for harbor seals and gray seals 

(Halichoerus grypus) (Gubbay 1995). Special 

sanctuaries exist for cetaceans in Ireland and the 

German Wadden Sea (Appendix 1). In the 

Mediterranean and elsewhere in Europe, a 

European Union initiative (Directive 92/43) has 

prompted governments to establish Natura 2000 

reserves – protected areas intended to preserve 

endangered species and habitats. Thus, “Special 

Areas of Conservation” are, or soon will be, designated for bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary (Ireland) and in Cardigan Bay and Moray Firth 

(UK) (E. Rogan, pers. comm., 16 April 2000). 

There is no shortage of marine and coastal protected areas in the central and western Indian 

Ocean, many of which claim the dugong to be 

among their resident fauna (see Wells et al. 1995; 

Gaudian et al. 1995 ). An Indian national park and 

several Bangladeshi protected areas in the Sundarbans potentially benefit river dolphins (both Platanista and Orcaella). Most marine protected areas 

in southeast Asia are intended to protect sea turtle 

nesting sites, mangrove forests, and coral reefs 

(Bleakley and Wells 1995), but some may provide 

incidental benefits to marine mammals. 

Arctic protected areas in Canada, Greenland, and 

Svalbard are mentioned elsewhere in this report 

(see following text and Appendix 1). 

In South America, marine mammals (including the 

freshwater Amazon manatee, Trichechus inunguis, 

and the two freshwater dolphins, Inia geoffrensis 

and Sotalia fluviatilis) occur in numerous national 

parks and reserves (e.g., Capozzo and Junín 1991; 

Flórez et al. 1992; Reyes 1992). 

Australia has several marine protected areas, besides the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, intended 

explicitly to conserve marine mammals. One of 

the most prominent is the Great Australian Bight 

Marine National Park, which includes a Whale 

Sanctuary in the Head of the Bight intended to 

provide strict protection to an area used by 

southern right whales during their calving and 

early nursing season and by Australian sea lions 

for feeding. Another example is Macquarie Island, 

a Tasmanian National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary 

for many years, designated a UNESCO Biosphere 

Reserve in 1977, and inscribed on the World 

Heritage list in 1997. The Australian federal 

government recently announced its intention to 

establish a large marine park (16 million hectares) 

along the east coast of Macquarie, principally for 

the conservation of seals, penguins, and 

albatrosses. More than a third of the park is to 

consist of a no-take zone where both fishing and 

mining are completely prohibited. Three otariids 

(New Zealand, Antarctic, and subantarctic fur 

seals; Arctocephalus forsteri, A. gazella, and A. 

tropicalis, respectively) and the southern elephant 

seal (Mirounga leonina) breed on the island. Although the otariid breeding population on Macquarie is small relative to the total populations of 

the three species, it is estimated that one seventh 

of the world population of southern elephant seals 

haul out there in spring and summer (information 

from the World Wide Web). 

12 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Although not addressed in detail here, the 

Antarctic has a large and complex array of 

protected areas established under the Antarctic 

Treaty system (Berkman 1992; Kimball 1999). As 

mentioned earlier, the entire marine region fits the 

IUCN definition of a marine protected area, with 

zoning on a mega-scale. A number of relatively 

small areas within the Antarctic, classified as 

Specially Protected Areas or Sites of Special 

Scientific Interest, are relevant to pinniped 

conservation (ADADEST and Dingwall 1995). 

The 1972 Convention for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Seals designates three ocean areas as 

seal reserves, with a combined area of 190,000km2 

(ADADEST and Dingwall 1995). Furthermore, 

the International Whaling Commission’s Southern 

Ocean Sanctuary provides another layer of 

protection for the commercially valuable baleen 

whales and the sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus) (Appendix 1). 

Economic Benefits 

In numerous studies, the principal economic benefits of marine protected areas have been defined in 

terms of fishery enhancement (Bohnsack 1996, 

Hastings and Botsford 1999) or increased tourism, 

particularly in relation to diving on coral reefs 

(Dixon et al. 1993, Dixon 1993). Except for notake reserves, it is common for marine protected 

areas to allow consumptive uses of at least some 

resources, but rarely marine mammals. The most 

common form of use of marine mammals within 

protected areas is tourism, with obvious direct 

economic benefits in the form of revenues derived 

from activities such as whale-, dolphin-, sea otter-, 

seal-, and manatee-watching. Tens of thousands of 

people visit the Crystal River National Wildlife 

Refuge in Florida each year to view and dive with 

wild manatees in Kings Bay. According to 

information on the web site, Great Outdoor 

Recreation Pages, this attraction is estimated to 

represent an annual local economic benefit of $7 

million (www.gorp.com). Development of whaleand dolphin-watching has generally proceeded 

independently of protected area designations 

although there has certainly been some degree of 

connection in some cases (e.g., Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary, Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, 

Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve, Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve). As part of the 

ongoing negotiations over protection vs. use 

within a designated area, it is sometimes possible 

to argue that enhanced revenues from non- or lowconsumptive tourism help to compensate for lost 

income from foregone extractive activities (e.g., 

commercial fishing). 

The relatively sedentary behavior of sea otters and 

some pinnipeds (seasonally) and their close 

association with land have sometimes made it 

possible to link the development of shorelinecentered protected areas with the economic 

benefits of marine mammal-focused “ecotourism.” 

For example, Seal Bay Conservation Park and 

Point Labatt Conservation Park, both in South 

Australia, are visited by some 70,000 and 30,000 

people, respectively, each year (Robinson and 

Dennis 1988). Año Nuevo State Park in California 

is visited annually by 250,000 people, primarily to 

view northern elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris) (S. Allen, pers. comm., 9 May 

2000). These areas are managed intensively to 

protect their natural landscapes and the colonies of 

sea lions and seals that serve as the main attractions for tourists. The trade-off between economic 

and ecological goals (Dixon 1993) seems to have 

been taken into account in these examples. Visitation is managed to minimize disturbance to the 

animals, ensure visitor safety, and preserve the 

ecological integrity of the beach areas. 

It is of interest that in at least one instance – Robson Bight Ecological Reserve in British Columbia, 

Canada, declared in 1982 (Hoyt 1990) – the 

exclusion of whale-watching has been touted as 

one of the protected area=s regulatory benefits to 

the whales (Phillips 1996). More broadly, it has 

been suggested that marine sanctuaries might use 

the promotion and regulation of marine mammaloriented tourism as a major rationale for their 

existence (e.g., Center for the Economy and the 

Environment 1999). 

13 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Breiðafjörður Conservation Area in West Iceland, 

established in 1995, provides an exceptional 

example of a marine protected area in which both 

nature tourism and “sustainable use” through 

hunting of marine mammals co-exist. Seal hunting 

and whale-watching are encouraged, the former as 

a traditional activity and the latter as a new 

development (Petersen et al. 1998). 

Conservation Benefits for Marine Mammals 

It is often difficult to demonstrate and quantify the 

conservation benefits of a particular management 

measure, especially for animals as cryptic and 

dispersed as marine mammals. Reynolds and 

Gluckman (1988) cited evidence indicating that 

manatees, like some game birds and ungulates, 

recognize and make preferential use of areas that 

are relatively “safe” from harmful human 

activities. These authors considered the large and 

rapid increases in manatee numbers in protected 

waters around Crystal River, Blue Springs Run, 

the Port Everglades power plant, and the Kennedy 

Space Center as showing that “sanctuaries and 

refuges” can be effective tools for manatee 

conservation. For many marine mammal species, 

however, detecting trends is difficult and costly 

(Taylor and Gerrodette 1993). Moreover, even 

when a population increase is documented, the 

cause may be uncertain. In other words, it can be 

difficult to prove that a protected area, rather than 

some other natural or human-influenced variable, 

was responsible. Although it should be relatively 

easy to evaluate the effectiveness of measures 

intended to reduce bycatch mortality, such as the 

gillnet restrictions in the Banks Peninsula 

sanctuary (see above), this, too, requires a 

substantial and long-term commitment of resources. 

The potential benefits to marine mammals of 

effective fishery management policies are huge, 

including (a) reduced bycatch of the mammals 

themselves as a result of gear restrictions and 

effort limits; (b) increased amount and diversity of 

prey as a result of reduced fishing pressure, 

reduced fish bycatch, and habitat protection; and 

(c) reduced disturbance to pinniped pupping areas 

caused by commercial fishing operations. For this 

reason, sound management of fisheries is almost 

always in the overall long-term best interests of 

marine mammals. Thus, marine protected areas 

that are intended to protect fish brood stocks, 

enhance fish production, and prevent the 

degradation of fish habitat can usually be regarded 

as contributing, at least indirectly, to marine 

mammal conservation. The obverse applies all too 

often, however. That is, either because of strong 

resistance to increased fishery regulation or 

because of jurisdictional conflicts between 

agencies, many marine protected areas have no 

authority to manage fisheries. As a result, the 

conservation benefits for fish and marine 

mammals fall well short of the expectations of 

those who supported the area’s protected designation. 

It is instructive to consider the example of British 

Columbia, where more than 4% of the “nonabyssal” marine environment (i.e., that portion 

inshore of the 1000m contour) is included within 

nominally protected areas, giving the Canadian 

province “one of the most protected marine environments in the world” (Zacharias and Howes 

1998). Only two small areas are entirely closed to 

fishing – one a provincial park and the other a 

municipal park. Moreover, if one uses a fairly 

strict definition of “protection,” such as one 

requiring that bottom trawling, dumping, 

dredging, and non-renewable resource 

development are all prohibited, the total marine 

area under protection in British Columbia 

dwindles from 5253km2

 to only 214km2 (Ibid.). 

Two other types of benefit deserve mention here. 

First, protected area designations can encourage 

and provide new funding for research. In some instances, designations come with new, albeit 

limited, funding opportunities. In others, existing 

funding sources are more willing to support 

research to assist in defining and helping manage 

resources in a designated protected area simply 

because of the official acknowledgment of the 

resources’ importance. The new information 

gained from the research can then be used to argue 

for or justify the need for stronger management. 

14 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Second, designations often come with new staff to 

speak on behalf of resource-protection needs in 

decision-making processes. Even when a 

designation does not come with new staff, the 

individuals assigned responsibility for the area are 

in a stronger position to push for protection of 

resources recognized as especially important by 

virtue of the designation. 

Conservation Benefits for Other Species 

It is equally useful to consider the extent to which 

a marine protected area established to benefit a 

marine mammal species, or a group of marine 

mammal species, can provide ancillary benefits for 

other organisms and indeed for entire ecosystems. 

Advocates of protected areas centered on favored 

(i.e., especially charismatic) organisms typically 

invoke the belief that such species can function as 

“flagships” or “umbrellas” and thus serve as guarantors of broad-scale conservation. A flagship 

species is one that has become “a symbol and 

leading element of an entire ecosystem conservation campaign”; an umbrella species, one “with 

such demanding habitat requirements and large 

area requirements that saving it will automatically 

save many other species” (Simberloff 1998). A 

third concept, that of the “keystone species,” has 

sometimes been used to justify single-species 

conservation efforts in the belief, or in some cases 

certain knowledge, that particular species 

influence their communities or ecosystems in 

ways that are disproportionately large relative to 

their abundance (Power et al. 1996). Whales, 

dolphins, sea otters, and manatees are 

unquestionably good flagship species, as they 

readily attract funding and other forms of support 

to almost any conservation initiative. It is 

therefore not surprising that materials publicizing 

the Gray’s Reef and Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuaries highlight the fact that right 

whales occur there, even though the original 

sanctuary designations had little to do with 

conserving right whales (see below). The network 

of protected areas for manatees along the west 

coast of Florida, mentioned earlier, was justified, 

in part, by the expectation that it would contribute 

not only to the long-term protection of manatee 

habitat, but also to “the conservation of many 

other species of wildlife indigenous to that coastal 

region” (Twiss 1985; also Anonymous 1985). 

Implicit in this expectation was the belief that the 

Florida manatee would function as an umbrella 

species. Similarly, Perrin and Brownell (1989) 

claimed that preserving river dolphins in their 

natural habitat would help preserve “a good 

portion of the species diversity of the ecosystem.” 

Finally, the sea otter has long been put forth as a 

classic example of a keystone species (Estes and 

Palmisano 1974). However, any consequent 

interest in establishing protected areas for sea 

otters has been offset by the antipathy of 

fishermen, who view the otters mainly as 

competitors for shellfish rather than as keystone 

contributors to community or ecosystem integrity 

(see VanBlaricom and Estes 1988). 

Claims of flagship, umbrella, or keystone status 

for marine mammals need to be judged critically. 

Consider, for example, the question of whether 

protecting river dolphins can automatically be 

expected to benefit other species. Prohibitions 

against the deliberate taking of favored species do 

not, by themselves, offer anything of consequence 

to other species or the ecosystem. Thus, 

“umbrella” effects cannot be expected from 

simply designating a “sanctuary” for dolphins (or 

manatees) and trying to prevent poaching there. 

Broader measures are necessary. For example, 

river dolphins in the South Asian subcontinent are 

under severe pressure from incidental capture in 

fishing gear, especially the widely used plastic 

monofilament gillnets that also threaten many 

other forms of aquatic life. Because unselective 

fishing methods are wasteful almost by definition, 

their elimination will often be beneficial to 

humans as well as to wildlife. Using dolphin 

bycatch as leverage to achieve meaningful regulation of fishing activities should benefit other nontarget wildlife species that are subject to entanglement (e.g., turtles, snakes, crocodilians, otters, and 

some fishes; see Smith et al. 1996). Smith et al. 

(1998) argue that “aquatic biodiversity 

sanctuaries” created by banning fishing in deep 

pool areas with eddy countercurrents can protect 

both dolphins and the broodstocks of 

15 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

commercially valuable fish. Whether one regards 

the fish or the dolphins as the “umbrellas” 

becomes a semantic issue; what is important is that 

both groups benefit. 

Deciding whether a taxon or taxonomic group 

deserves the keystone label depends on a solid 

understanding of its ecological significance, which 

itself may depend as much on the context or the 

circumstances as on species traits (Power et al. 

1996). In considering the ecological roles of 

marine mammals, Bowen (1997) found less than a 

handful of good examples of possible keystone 

species in addition to the sea otter. Gray whales 

exert strong influence on benthic communities that 

they exploit for food, and dugongs help shape the 

seagrass communities on which they graze. Power 

et al. (1996) cite the role of baleen whales as krill 

consumers in the Antarctic (May et al. 1979), 

making them an example of what can be thought 

of as a “keystone guild.” In principle, protected 

areas centered on keystone species offer an 

efficient way of achieving community- or 

ecosystem-level conservation. However, the 

required standard of knowledge about ecological 

relationships and processes is high, and any 

initiative built on the keystone-species argument 

must be carefully considered. 

Although no attempt is made here to address the 

related and controversial issue of “indicator 

species” (Landres et al. 1988), it is of interest that 

the U.S. National Park Service uses pinniped 

species for monitoring the “health” of coastal 

ecosystems. The presence of pinnipeds is defined 

as a “vital sign” indicating ecosystem function and 

condition (S. Allen, pers. comm., 9 May 2000). 

Simberloff’s (1998) concept of faute de mieux 

may apply in this instance. He argues that 

“charismatic” vertebrate species are often chosen 

as indicators simply because the manager “feels 

obliged to monitor them anyway and nourishes the 

vague hope that [they] will fortuitously reflect the 

health of the entire system.” A judgment as to 

whether pinnipeds are good indicator species must 

await the results of field research designed to 

address this question explicitly. 

Marine Mammals and Protected Areas in North America: 

Selected Case Studies 

The Broader United States Context 

Systems and programs of natural area protection 

within the United States have been established by 

states, counties, municipalities, and private concerns (e.g., The Nature Conservancy) (see Laist 

and Bigford 1979), and some of these benefit 

marine mammals (e.g., the manatee sanctuary at 

Blue Springs State Park, designated in 1975, and 

the motorboat speed zones established under 

Florida’s Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978). At the 

federal level, again with reference only to the 

United States as an example, resource 

management policies of agencies such as the 

Department of Commerce, Department of 

Defense, U.S. Forest Service (Department of 

Agriculture), Department of Energy, and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM, Department of the 

Interior) sometimes contribute to marine mammal 

conservation by preserving habitat, protecting or 

enhancing prey resources, and reducing coastal 

pollution. For example, the BLM’s role in Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS, meaning the subsoil and 

seabed seaward of the line of state jurisdiction) 

mineral leasing gives this agency the potential to 

provide biologically important areas with 

protection from industrial development, in effect 

creating marine protected areas. The bureau, with 

assistance from the U.S. Geological Survey and 

other agencies, can use its authority to deny 

requests by oil and gas companies to explore or 

exploit particular OCS tracts. In one instance, a 

tract off the coast of Georgia was withdrawn from 

development explicitly to preserve a patch of “live 

bottom habitat” (Laist and Bigford 1979:23) that 

16 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

would later become Gray’s Reef National Marine 

Sanctuary (see below). 

Although the emphasis here is on the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Program of the Department of 

Commerce and the National Parks system of the 

Department of the Interior, other legislative instruments and programs play, or could play, an important role in protecting marine mammals and their 

habitat within areas under U.S. jurisdiction. No 

mention is made of marine protected areas, per se, 

in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. However, 

section 2 states that one of the Act’s goals is to 

protect essential habitat, including rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar significance 

(Baur et al. 1999:64). Moreover, the act includes 

habitat acquisition and improvement within the 

definitions of “conservation” and “management,” 

and it gives the lead agencies authority (under 

section 112) to protect “essential habitat” via rules 

and regulations. To date, this authority has been 

used only sparingly, and usually in conjunction 

with other agencies and legislation. Examples 

include the designations of “Manatee Protection 

Areas” in Florida (50 CFR, Part 17) and the ship 

traffic control zones within Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve, Alaska, to protect humpback 

whales from disturbance on their feeding grounds 

(Baur et al. 1999:64-65; and see below). Also, in 

section 108 of the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act, the federal government is directed to 

encourage international or bilateral agreements to 

protect ocean and land areas “of special 

significance to the health and stability of marine 

mammals” (Baur et al. 1999:65). This direction 

provides the basis for U.S. participation in a range 

of protected area initiatives. Under the 

Endangered Species Act (sections 3 and 4), the 

federal government has authority to designate and 

give special protection to “critical habitat” of 

endangered and threatened species and 

populations; it also has authority to acquire habitat 

for conservation purposes (section 5) (Baur et al. 

1999:69). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, provides a mechanism for the Department 

of the Interior to pursue its mandate to protect 

marine mammals and endangered species and their 

habitat (see Chadwick 1996). In 1997, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act explicitly affirmed that wildlife conservation 

is the system’s mission. Several of the more than 

500 National Wildlife Refuges are specifically 

intended to conserve important habitat for marine 

mammals, among them the following (from Baur 

et al. 1999): Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(polar bears, seals, and whales), Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge (walruses, seals, sea 

lions, sea otters, and cetaceans), Hawaiian Islands 

and Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuges 

(monk seals and cetaceans; also see Lavigne 

1999), Seal Beach in California (seals), and 

Crystal River in Florida (manatees). Many others 

provide protection to marine mammals and their 

habitat as a side-benefit of their founding mandate. 

National Parks and Related Sites 

in the United States 

National parks in the United States (and Canada) 

are expected to accommodate and promote recreational use (enjoyment) by people, while keeping 

the park environments in a natural state and preserving biotic diversity within park boundaries 

(e.g., Sellars 1997). The Organic Act of 1916 

defines the mission of National Parks as to “conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 

objects and the wildlife therein and provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations.” The Redwood 

National Park Act of 1988 (16 USC 79A-79Q) 

reaffirms that the National Park Service’s mission 

is to protect, manage, and administer the areas 

under its jurisdiction “in light of the high public 

value and integrity” of the park system, and that it 

must preserve “the values and purposes for which 

these various areas have been designated.” 

Many areas managed by the National Park Service 

contain marine mammal habitat or at least are 

adjacent to waters where marine mammals occur. 

At a minimum, these include Acadia National 

Park (Maine), Biscayne National Park (Florida), 

17 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Cabrillo National Monument (California), Cape 

Cod National Seashore (Massachusetts), Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore (North Carolina), Cape 

Lookout National Seashore (North Carolina), 

Channel Islands National Park (California), Dry 

Tortuga National Park (Florida), Everglades 

National Park (Florida), Glacier Bay National 

Park and Preserve (Alaska), Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area (California), Gulf Islands 

National Seashore (Washington), Kalapapa 

National Historic Monument (Hawaii), Katmai 

National Park (Alaska), Kenai Fjords National 

Park (Alaska), Padre Islands National Seashore 

(Texas), Point Reyes National Seashore 

(California), Redwood National Park (California), 

San Juan Islands National Historic Park 

(Washington), and Virgin Islands National Park. 

Each of those sites has one or more special 

protective measures in place for marine mammals 

as well as a monitoring or research program directed at marine mammals, whether using in-house 

staff or outside contractors (S. Allen, pers. comm., 

26 April 2000). 

The area category within the national park system 

of greatest relevance to marine mammals is the 

network of National Seashores. These sites 

encompass shoreline segments and nearshore 

islands that remain undeveloped and relatively 

undisturbed. Growing human populations and 

expanding recreational activities increasingly 

threaten such areas. In 1999, President Clinton 

designated all western coastal islets to be 

monuments under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Land Management (S. Allen, pers. comm., 9 May 

2000). 

Among the National Park Service’s sites, none has 

been more directly and persistently embroiled in 

issues of marine mammal conservation than the 

Glacier Bay site in southeastern Alaska. Glacier 

Bay was originally designated a National Monument in 1925, with the principal goal of preserving 

and providing access to the scenic glacial landscape. The boundaries of the Monument were 

expanded in 1939, more than doubling the size of 

the protected area. Its status was changed to a 

National Park in 1980 as a result of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The 

Glacier Bay-Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve 

was established in 1986 (see later), and in 1992 

Glacier Bay became part of a UNESCO World 

Heritage Site in combination with WrangellMount St. Elias National Park and Canada’s 

Kluane National Park (again, see later). The park 

area is presently more than 3.2 million acres, of 

which somewhat less than 20% consists of marine 

waters. Some 2,770,000 acres are designated as 

wilderness, and of this, about 2% is marine waters. 

There was little awareness that humpback whales 

used the waters of Glacier Bay until the 1970s 

when Jurasz and Jurasz (1979) published a 

description of the whales= spectacular surface 

“lunge feeding” and “bubblenet feeding” on 

clupeids and euphausiids in the bay. Already at the 

time of the Juraszes’ study, the spectacle of 

feeding humpbacks had become one of the park’s 

major tourist attractions. The vast majority of park 

visitors come by sea. According to 1998 visitation 

records, somewhat more than 405,000 people 

visited the park that year, and nearly 85% of them 

arrived on cruise ships (www.nps.gov/glba/). 

When use of Glacier Bay by humpbacks declined 

substantially in 1978 and 1979, for reasons 

thought to be related to vessel disturbance, the 

Park Service responded by establishing temporary 

regulations to limit the number of cruise ships 

entering the bay and to manage all kinds of vessel 

activity. Also, a research program sponsored by 

the National Park Service, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and Alaska cruise ship industry 

sought to determine with greater certainty the 

cause(s) of the whales= change in distribution and 

habitat use (e.g., Johnson 1983; Baker et al. 1982, 

1983). Although it has proven difficult to 

demonstrate a simple, direct cause-effect link 

between vessel activity and fluctuations in the 

number of humpbacks using Glacier Bay, the Park 

Service, in consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, has continued to restrict entry 

and manage vessel traffic in a precautionary 

manner in order to reduce the potential for 

disturbance (see Marine Mammal Commission 

1994:78-80). A vessel management plan came into 

18 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

effect in 1996 after broad public consultation. It 

allows two cruise ships, three tour boats, six chartered vessels, and 25 private boats to enter the bay 

per day (www.nps.gov/glba/). In addition, motorized vessels and floatplane landings are seasonally 

excluded from designated wilderness waters; 

special protection is given to areas considered 

sensitive for whales, sea lions, seals, and seabirds 

(e.g., designated “whale waters” where vessel 

traffic is either prohibited or restricted – CFR 36 

section 13.65); and cruise ships must adhere to 

pollution and noise minimization protocols while 

inside the bay. An ongoing research and 

monitoring program is in place to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the management plan. 

Parallel with the controversy about the possible 

adverse effects of tour vessels on humpback 

whales, the Park Service was under pressure to 

regulate commercial fishing in the waters of 

Glacier Bay National Park (e.g., Marine Mammal 

Commission 1992:56-58). Legislation has been 

drafted that would restrict commercial fishing in 

park waters, but this legislation has yet to be 

passed by Congress. 

Both Channel Islands National Park (established 

in 1980) and Point Reyes National Seashore 

(established in 1962) were created in part to 

protect and preserve marine mammals and their 

habitat. The two sites serve as important source 

areas for pinniped populations. Enabling 

legislation for Channel Islands National Park, the 

borders of which extend to 1nmi offshore (see 

McArdle 1997), refers specifically to protecting 

“the pinnipeds which breed and pup almost 

exclusively on the Channel Islands, including the 

only breeding colony for northern fur seals south 

of Alaska” (Sec. 201; fide S. Allen, pers. comm., 

26 April 2000). Similarly, the enabling legislation 

for Point Reyes National Seashore, which 

encompasses marine waters within a quarter mile 

of shore (see McArdle 1997), makes explicit 

reference to protecting marine mammals. 

Although a major drawback at both sites is the 

lack of authority to manage fishing, they provide 

good protection to pinniped haul-out habitat. Also, 

recreational boating (including kayaking) is 

restricted in areas where pinnipeds are likely to be 

disturbed, and at Point Reyes jet skis are 

prohibited entirely. National Park Service staff are 

actively exploring ways to implement no-take 

zones within the marine waters of the two parks 

(S. Allen, pers. comm., 9 May 2000). 

National Parks and Related Sites in 

Canada 

As in the United States, there are several terrestrial 

national parks or national park reserves (parks 

where native land claims are unresolved) in 

Canada that border waters inhabited by marine 

mammals. These include Terra Nova in 

Newfoundland, Cape Breton Highlands in Nova 

Scotia, Forillon in Quebec, Kouchibouguac in 

New Brunswick, Auyuittuq in southeastern Baffin 

Island, and Pacific Rim at the southern end of 

Vancouver Island (Mondor 1985). In four of them, 

the park borders extend a small distance offshore 

(Forillon, Pacific Rim), subsume waters inside a 

string of barrier islands (Kouchibouguac), or 

incorporate fiord waters (Auyuittuq). Little active 

management occurs, however, in the marine 

components of these parks (Mondor 1985; D. Duffus, pers. comm., 25 March 2000). Commercial 

fishing continues in the three temperate-region 

parks, and “subsistence” hunting of marine 

mammals continues in the fiords of Auyuittuq. 

Nevertheless, it can probably be assumed that 

pinnipeds hauling out along the shores of the three 

temperate-region parks derive some benefit from 

the prohibition on shoreline development, and this 

benefit may offset the disturbance caused by park 

visitors who use the beaches for recreation. Also, 

some effort is made to manage human activities in 

Auyuittuq so as to minimize impacts on female 

bears in maternity dens and prevent human-bear 

conflicts that could lead to the killing of bears 

(Calvert et al. 1998). 

In Canada, the national parks system is administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage, 

Parks Canada, which began development of a 

marine parks policy in 1971 (Duffus and Dearden 

1993a). The long-term goal is to have a system 

with representation from each of 29 “marine 

19 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

natural regions.” Criteria for selection are to 

include (1) feasibility of long-term conservation of 

the marine environment, together with associated 

islands and coast; (2) potential for public 

understanding and enjoyment; and (3) regional 

economic benefit. Permanent human communities 

are supposed to be excluded inside park 

boundaries, but commercial fishing is to be 

allowed as long as it is well managed (Duffus and 

Dearden 1993a). The designation of marine 

national parks in Canada has been an 

excruciatingly slow process. Several important 

areas for marine mammals (e.g., the West Isles 

region of the lower Bay of Fundy, the Lancaster 

Sound region off northern Baffin Island, and 

Georgia Strait in southern British Columbia) have 

been proposed and studied extensively, only to be 

rejected as a result of local opposition or jurisdictional conflict (Mondor 1985; Duffus and Dearden 

1993a). 

Wapusk National Park, established in 1996 on the 

Manitoba coast of Hudson Bay, represents a 

potentially significant step toward conserving 

polar bears and their denning habitat (see Lunn et 

al. 1998, Calvert et al. 1998). Already in 1968 the 

province of Manitoba had established the Cape 

Tatnam and Cape Churchill Wildlife Management 

Areas, which provided authority to regulate 

human activities in key denning and summering 

areas (Stirling 1986). These areas provide buffer 

zones immediately around the national park. In 

addition, Ontario’s large (24,000km2

) Polar Bear 

Provincial Park lies along the Hudson Bay coast to 

the south. Lunn et al. (1998) point out that the 

management of polar bears, particularly in regard 

to visitor protection, is relevant to four National 

Parks (Aulavik and Tuktut Nogait in the 

Northwest Territories, Ivvavik in the Yukon, and 

Wapusk), two National Park Reserves (Auyuittuq 

and Ellesmere Island in the Northwest Territories), 

and four National Historic Parks and Sites (Prince 

of Wales= Fort, Sloop Cove, Cape Merry Battery, 

and York Factory in Manitoba). 

The initiative to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park was driven by concern about 

the small population of white whales 

(Delphinapterus leucas) centered at the confluence 

of the Saguenay and St. Lawrence Rivers (see 

Lesage and Kingsley 1998). Included within the 

park is an area at the head of the deep, cool 

Laurentian Channel where densities of krill rival 

those found in the Antarctic (Simard and Lavoie 

1999). As a result, park waters attract baleen 

whales (primarily blue [Balaenoptera musculus], 

fin [B. physalus], minke [B. acutorostrata], and 

humpback) in summer and autumn which, together 

with the white whales, support a profitable tourism 

industry. 

Although a great deal of attention has been given 

to Robson Bight Ecological Reserve in Johnstone 

Strait, British Columbia, an area made famous by 

the “rubbing rocks” where the local “northern 

resident community” of killer whales congregate 

in the summer (Hoyt 1990; Kruse 1991; Duffus 

and Dearden 1993b), this attention seems far out 

of proportion to the size and proven significance 

of the designated area (Duffus and Dearden 1995). 

The 190 or so whales that visit the reserve do so 

for only a brief period of each year. As a 

provincial reserve (not federal as indicated by 

Kruse 1991), the special protection provided 

extends only to recreational use (i.e., whalewatching) and land use on the adjacent shoreline 

and in the nearby Tsitika River valley (i.e., mainly 

logging). It does not affect marine shipping, 

fishing, or the whales themselves, as these fall 

under federal authority. The evaluation of Robson 

Bight reserve by Duffus and Dearden (1995) is 

instructive as it could well apply to many other 

small marine protected areas: “... the fallacy of 

tokenism – that is, giving the public the appearance of protecting an important whale habitat, 

when neither the importance of the site to the 

whales, nor the veracity of the protection is 

established – creates a political ‘success’ that may 

mask an ecological failure.” 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

in the United States 

The Marine Sanctuary Program of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) is perceived as the centerpiece of U.S. 

20 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

federal efforts to develop a marine protected area 

system (Chadwick 1998). The program is 

authorized under Title III of the Marine 

Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 

(33 USC ' 1401 et seq.; MPRSA), and its mandate 

is to preserve or restore marine areas for their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic 

values (MPRSA, section 302a). The Office of 

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of the 

National Ocean Service administers the program. 

At present, 13 marine sanctuaries are designated 

(Table 2). Of this number, three (Monitor, 

Fagatele Bay, and Thunder Bay) are essentially 

irrelevant in the present context because they are 

small, focused on the protection of historically 

significant wrecks or wreckage, and do not 

encompass significant amounts of marine mammal 

habitat. Three other sanctuaries (Gray’s Reef, 

Florida Keys, and Flower Garden Banks) are 

intended primarily to facilitate protection, restoration, and use of coral reefs. They may benefit 

marine mammals, but if they do it is probably only 

to a small degree or indirectly. The Gray’s Reef 

sanctuary website claims that the site contains 

“part of the only known winter calving ground for 

the highly endangered North Atlantic right whale” 

(http://www.omsgraysnatset.html; also see Chadwick 1998:22). However, the proportion of the 

calving and nursing ground actually inside the 

sanctuary is small, and well offshore from where 

most right whale mothers and calves are sighted. 

Perhaps the greatest contribution by the sanctuary 

is in the form of support for whale research in 

nearby waters and public awareness efforts. Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are probably 

the most common marine mammals in the Florida 

Keys sanctuary, judging by their general 

distribution and habitat preferences. The Flower 

Garden Banks site is not thought to be of any 

particular significance to marine mammals (R. 

Davis, pers. comm., 20-21 March 2000). The other 

seven sanctuaries were selected and designed at 

least partly to benefit marine mammals. Interest in 

both Stellwagen Bank in the Atlantic and the 

Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific was driven by 

concern about humpback whales (Weber 1988a; 

Chadwick 1998). The other five sanctuaries 

encompass large tracts of ocean off the mainland 

Pacific coast and include within their borders 

habitat for a large variety, and large numbers, of 

marine mammals, some of which are listed as 

endangered, threatened, or depleted. Their known 

importance to marine mammals unquestionably 

played a role in the selection of these sanctuary 

sites. 

The marine sanctuary program has fallen well 

short of the high expectations surrounding it 

(Weber 1988b, 1997; Chadwick 1998; Center for 

the Economy and the Environment 1999). Among 

the program’s difficulties have been the 

inadequacy of funding during the first decade of 

its existence; under-staffing (only partly because 

of budgetary constraints); reluctance to regulate 

fishing and other extractive industries; and 

NOAA’s emphasis on multiple use rather than 

preservation. Most significantly to date, 

sanctuaries have made little or no progress toward 

implementing regulations to reduce fishing 

pressure, prohibit or restrict the use of certain 

types of fishing gear in order to protect habitat, or 

close areas completely to fishing. For example, 

Chadwick (1998) describes the situation in the 

Channel Islands sanctuary, where the intensive 

squid fishery has implications for marine 

mammals, both in terms of reduced availability of 

prey and the potential for incidental mortality 

from entanglement in the fishing gear. Lights and 

noise from the squid boats, which operate at night, 

also disturb hauled-out pinnipeds and roosting 

seabirds (S. Allen, pers. comm., 9 May 2000). 

This general failure of sanctuaries to become 

involved directly in fishery management is not due 

to their lack of authority. In fact, they have the 

authority to regulate as long as they provide the 

relevant fishery management council(s) with an 

opportunity to prepare draft fishing regulations. 

Any such draft regulations must adhere to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act, but only to the extent that they 

remain consistent with the purposes of the 

sanctuary. The sanctuary (through the Secretary of 

Commerce) may over-rule the council=s 

recommendations (J. Sobel and C. Recchia, pers. 

comm., June 2000). 

21 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Although in some sanctuaries significant progress 

has been made toward resource protection, e.g., by 

the establishment of no-take zones in the Florida 

Keys sanctuary (Weber 1997; Chadwick 1998), 

there is little evidence of such progress in the two 

whale-centered sanctuaries – Hawaiian Islands and 

Stellwagen. The Hawaiian sanctuary is nonregulatory and therefore its conservation efforts 

have been limited to education, outreach, and 

support for research (Center for the Economy and 

the Environment 1999). Problems that could be of 

considerable ecological consequence in sanctuary 

waters, such as agricultural runoff and naval 

exercises, remain unaddressed (J. Darling, pers. 

comm., 19 March 2000). At Stellwagen, existing 

prohibitions on sand and gravel mining, waste 

dumping, and petroleum development are 

arguably important, although there is no strong 

commercial incentive for any of these types of 

development at present (Center for the Economy 

and the Environment 1999). Commercial fishing, 

including trawling and dragging (Chadwick 1998), 

continues inside the sanctuary with no special 

regulation (some 200-250 commercial vessels 

fishing in and around the sanctuary generate an 

estimated $15.3million/yr in revenues; 

www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/omsstellwagenman 

ag.html); heavy ship traffic into and out of Boston 

harbor continues to cross the bank (2700 vessels 

carrying 20 million tons of cargo per year; Center 

for the Economy and the Environment 1999); and 

previously acknowledged concerns about nearby 

urban waste disposal (see Phillips 1996) have not 

diminished since 1992 when the sanctuary was 

declared (C. Mayo, pers. comm., 24 March 2000). 

Boston’s new wastewater outfall and a dump site 

for dredge spoil are both within a few miles of the 

sanctuary’s borders (Center for the Economy and 

the Environment 1999). The sanctuary, however, 

may soon begin addressing at least some of these 

issues, as its management is considering 

regulatory measures regarding vessel traffic and 

fishing. 

The Stellwagen sanctuary provides an example of 

how difficult it is to design a sanctuary around the 

seasonal presence of a highly mobile and opportunistic species, in this case the humpback whale. 

Already by the time it was decided to establish the 

Stellwagen sanctuary in the early 1990s, use of the 

bank by humpbacks, especially adults and mothercalf pairs, was rapidly declining (Weinrich et al. 

1997). One plausible hypothesis was as follows 

(from Weinrich et al. 1997): Humpbacks were 

exceptionally abundant on Stellwagen Bank 

during the late 1970s and early to mid 1980s 

because the stocks of herring (Clupea harengus), 

their preferred prey, had crashed as a result of 

overfishing on Georges Bank and in the northern 

Gulf of Maine. Meanwhile, sand lance 

(Ammodytes spp.), which may compete with and 

are preyed upon by herring, were irrupting in the 

southwestern Gulf of Maine (including Stellwagen 

Bank) and thus became an alternate prey choice 

for the whales. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, 

with the recovery of herring stocks, the 

humpbacks returned to their previous distribution 

centered on Georges Bank and elsewhere in the 

Gulf of Maine. Whatever the cause of the shift in 

humpback whale distribution, the situation 

demonstrates the complexities and challenges of 

habitat protection in a fluid, dynamic ocean 

environment. 

As is true of Gray’s Reef sanctuary (see above), 

the staff of Stellwagen sanctuary have recently 

emphasized its potential relevance to right whale 

conservation even though the bank seems not to be 

a particularly critical area for the species. There is 

little evidence to support the statement by Chadwick (1998:22) that Stellwagen is “part of an 

important winter feeding area” for right whales. 

In both the Hawaii and Stellwagen examples, 

major concessions were said to have been made to 

the fishing industry in order to gain support for 

sanctuary designation. Regardless of whether 

these concessions were official or legally binding 

(at least in the case of Stellwagen they were not, 

according to J. Sobel and C. Recchia, pers. comm., 

June 2000), they have been viewed as 

impediments to achieving significant changes in 

fishing methods or intensity. Thus, the obvious 

conflicts between commercial fishing and the 

sanctuary program’s avowed primary objective of 

“resource protection” have remained unaddressed, 

22 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

or at least inadequately addressed (e.g., see 

Brailovskaya 1998). Mayo’s view of the Stellwagen sanctuary, that it is still engaged in a search 

for identity or mission, applies equally to the 

Hawaii sanctuary. In both, the possibilities for 

meaningful resource protection has been 

constrained by the compromises that were made to 

achieve designation. Hopefully, the effect of these 

constraints will diminish over time and prove to 

reflect little more than the slow process inherent in 

building effective management. 

The most active programs at the Stellwagen and 

Hawaii sanctuaries are those involving public 

education and community “outreach.” Volunteer 

participation is encouraged in the monitoring and 

education programs. The sanctuary staffs also 

strive to affiliate with research activities as often 

as possible, trumpeting the value of “partnerships” 

with academic institutions, non-governmental 

organizations, and government agencies involved 

in research. They work closely with private tour 

operators and readily point out the economic and 

public relations value of mammal and bird watching. Chadwick (1998) concluded, after spending a 

year investigating the sanctuary program for National Geographic magazine, that the sanctuaries 

had made themselves “clearinghouses for information about the ocean environment” and that they 

“mainly coordinate research by other agencies and 

institutions while reaching out through them to 

educate the public.” 

Marine Protected Areas under 

Canada’s Oceans Act 

Canada’s Oceans Act of 1997 designated the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as the lead agency in developing a national “oceans strategy,” 

which was explicitly expected to include a 

national system of marine protected areas. The act 

specifies that protected areas can be designated for 

the conservation and protection of (1) fishery 

resources, including marine mammals and their 

habitat; (2) endangered or threatened species and 

their habitat; (3) “unique” habitat; (4) areas of 

high biological diversity or productivity; or (5) 

any other resource or habitat necessary to fulfill 

the mandate of the minister (Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 1998). Emphasis is on integrated 

management, with equal consideration for 

environmental and socio-economic effects. The 

approach is to somehow balance the protection of 

“ecological integrity” with “compatible use,” 

while improving scientific understanding and 

contributing to the “social and economic 

sustainability” of coastal human communities. 

To date, several “pilot” marine protected areas 

have been announced, and one of these is centered 

on The Gully, a deep canyon about 260km 

offshore of Nova Scotia. The Gully’s importance 

as habitat for marine mammals has been 

established by the work of Hal Whitehead and his 

students at Dalhousie University in Halifax. They 

have shown that a small population of northern 

bottlenose whales inhabits The Gully year-round 

(Whitehead et al. 1997a, 1997b) and that the area 

is also used at least seasonally by sperm whales, 

various dolphin species, and baleen whales 

including fin, humpback, blue, minke, and 

occasionally sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) 

(Gowans and Whitehead 1995; Hooker et al. 

1999). On the strength of the consistent presence 

of cetaceans, the Dalhousie group has urged that 

The Gully be designated as a marine protected 

area under the Oceans Act (see Hooker et al. 

1999). The presence of deep-sea corals and a 

diverse fish fauna has helped buttress the 

argument that the area meets at least one, if not 

several, of the criteria for designation. Although 

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans declared 

The Gully to be a “whale sanctuary” in 1994, this 

designation amounted to nothing more than a 

commitment to provide advisories to mariners 

through printed circulars and recommend that they 

either avoid transiting the area or take precautions 

to prevent collisions with bottlenose whales 

(Faucher and Whitehead 1995; Hooker et al. 

1999). Fishing and marine debris have been cited 

as problems for marine mammals in the region, 

but the principal threats are considered to be those 

related to petroleum development in and around 

The Gully, specifically the Sable Offshore Energy 

Project (Faucher and Weilgart 1992; Geddes 1998; 

Hooker et al. 1999). Therefore, those involved in 

23 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

the planning and lobbying for the new designation 

as an official Oceans Act marine protected area 

have had to address not only fishery and pollution 

issues, but also those surrounding the regulation 

and management of seismic testing, drilling, 

transport of hazardous material, ship and small 

vessel traffic, and other aspects of petroleum 

development in the region. 

Right whales are a major conservation concern in 

marine waters of southeastern Canada. The 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans designated 

two “seasonal conservation areas” for right whales 

in 1993, one in the lower Bay of Fundy and one in 

Roseway Basin on the Scotian Shelf (Brown et al. 

1995). These, however, have no legislative or 

regulatory authority and are simply administrative 

measures that depend on voluntary actions by 

vessel operators to avoid collisions with whales. 

The boundaries of the conservation areas are 

marked on nautical charts, a pamphlet with guidelines is distributed to ship captains, and radio 

advisories are provided when right whales are 

observed to be present in the shipping lanes. 

Designation of one or more protected areas for 

right whales under the Oceans Act was discussed 

by the Canadian right whale recovery team in 

1998, but to date no tangible progress has been 

made. 

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves 

and World Heritage Sites 

The Biosphere Reserve Program is administered 

by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, as part of its 

Man and the Biosphere Program. It is premised on 

the conviction that economic growth and human 

“development” can be reconciled with the maintenance of ecological complexity and diversity. The 

mechanism for attempting to achieve this elusive 

state of reconciliation is the creation of zoned, 

multiple-use reserves (Batisse 1990, 1993). 

Agardy (1997:209) views the biosphere reserve 

model as having particular potential “in coastal 

areas, where conventional ‘garrison reserve’ 

measures to preserve nature or protect the 

environment are not compatible with the open, 

multi-jurisdictional, and common property nature 

of marine systems.” Biosphere reserves generally 

have core, buffer, and transition zones, with the 

idea that by providing full protection to the core 

areas “where critical processes that drive the 

system are concentrated,” it will be possible in the 

buffer zones and outside the reserve “to continue 

to reap its resources and derive benefits from its 

use, leading to greater economic and sociological 

sustainability” (Ibid.). 

The principal criteria for designation of Biosphere 

Reserves include representativeness, diversity, 

naturalness, and effectiveness as a conservation 

unit. Secondary criteria include knowledge of the 

area’s history, the presence of rare or endangered 

species, and the site’s value for education and 

research (Agardy 1993; Kelleher et al. 1995, Vol. 

I:10). A Biosphere Reserve is supposed to perform 

at least three functions, as follows: (1) 

conservation of ecosystems and biological 

resources, (2) development that is “ecologically 

sustainable,” and (3) logistical support for 

monitoring, research, and education. Sites are 

nominated by national governments and must 

meet a minimal set of criteria and standards before 

being officially added to the World Network. 

While the designation process may be fairly 

rigorous, it is important to emphasize that the 

Biosphere Reserve Programme does not have the 

force of a treaty behind it. Thus, the impetus for 

pursuing particular policies for conservation or 

sustainable development comes largely from the 

informal status that accompanies designation. 

Most Biosphere Reserves include, or consist of, 

areas that are managed under some other 

instrument, such as a national park or nature 

reserve. However, the emphasis in the biosphere 

reserve concept on “sustainable use” and human 

economic development (Batisse 1990; 

Kenchington and Agardy 1990) means that notake reserves or wilderness parks cannot, by 

themselves, become Biosphere Reserves. 

Regardless of how a Biosphere Reserve is constituted, whether by combining two or more existing 

protected areas or by starting from ground level, a 

management plan and an appropriate mechanism 

for coordination and oversight are essential. 

24 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

As of January 2000, there were 368 Biosphere 

Reserves located in 91 countries 

(www.unesco.org/mab/wnbr). Kelleher et al. 

(1995, Vol. I:10, 38-39) found that about a quarter 

of the total Biosphere Reserves (314 in 1992) had 

a marine (including subtidal features) or coastal 

(coastal intertidal or terrestrial features) 

component. It is likely that this percentage has 

increased since then. 

The 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection 

of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (commonly known as the World Heritage Convention) 

provides a mechanism, also administered by 

UNESCO, for recognizing natural sites that are of 

“outstanding universal value.” The criteria for 

selection are that a site (1) be an outstanding 

example of a major stage in the earth’s 

evolutionary history; (2) be an outstanding 

example of significant geological processes, 

biological evolution, and human interaction with 

the natural environment; (3) contain unique, rare, 

or superlative natural phenomena, formations, or 

features, or areas of exceptional natural beauty; or 

(4) provide habitat for rare or endangered plants or 

animals. Most of the natural (as opposed to 

cultural) World Heritage Sites are national parks, 

Biosphere Reserves, or both, and between a 

quarter and a third of them have marine or coastal 

components (Kelleher et al. 1995, Vol. I:9, 37). 

Inscriptions are purely symbolic but imply an 

expectation that responsible governments will 

maintain or enhance the values initially attributed 

to the sites. UNESCO’s World Heritage 

Committee maintains and publicizes a “List of 

World Heritage in Danger,” which contains those 

World Heritage Sites judged to be threatened by 

“serious and specific dangers,” ranging from 

large-scale industrial or touristic development 

projects to natural catastrophes and armed 

conflicts. The danger list provides a means of 

allocating technical and financial aid to assist state 

parties in protecting sites under their care, and a 

mechanism for focusing world attention on 

immediate threats to highly valued landscapes. 

U.S. participation in the Biosphere Reserve 

network is administered within the State 

Department. As of June 1999, there were 47 

Biosphere Reserves in the United States. A few of 

these have potential relevance to marine mammal 

conservation. They include (year of Biosphere 

Reserve designation in parentheses, followed, 

when appropriate, by year of World Heritage Site 

designation): Aleutian Islands (1976), Channel 

Islands (1976), Everglades and Dry Tortugas 

(1976; WHS for Everglades 1979), Olympic 

(1976; WHS for Olympic National Park 1981), 

Virgin Islands (1976), Virginia Coast (1979), 

Hawaiian Islands (1980), Glacier Bay (1986; 

WHS for Glacier Bay National Park 1992), and 

Golden Gate (1988). 

Mexico’s national system of protected areas is 

divided into four categories: National Parks, Natural Monuments, Ecological Reserves, and Biosphere Reserves (Dedina and Young 1995). Of 

these, Biosphere Reserves play the most 

prominent role in marine mammal conservation. 

Source habitats of two cetacean species, one of 

them (the gray whale) the sole living 

representative of an entire family (Eschrichtiidae) 

and the other considered one of the world=s most 

critically endangered marine cetaceans (the 

vaquita), are centered in two Mexican Biosphere 

Reserves. In both cases, the Biosphere Reserve 

designation is the primary mechanism for 

protecting these animals and their habitat. Sian 

Ka=an Biosphere Reserve, on the central coast of 

Quintana Roo, also encompasses marine mammal 

habitat, most significantly freshwater and coastal 

areas inhabited by Antillean manatees (T. manatus 

manatus) (e.g., Colmenero-R. and Zárate 1990). 

El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve was approved as a 

national Biosphere Reserve by the Government of 

Mexico in 1988 and by UNESCO in 1993. It consists of a vast terrestrial component in Baja 

California Sur together with the semi-enclosed 

waters of Laguna Ojo de Liebre (Scammon’s 

Lagoon) and Laguna San Ignacio. Laguna Ojo de 

Liebre had been declared a “whale refuge” in 1971 

– “the first of its kind in the world” (Dedina and 

Young 1995:14) – and Laguna San Ignacio 

became a “Whale Refuge and Maritime Tourist 

Attraction Zone” in 1979 (Ibid.). The reserve is 

25 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

administered by the Ministry for Environment, 

Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP). 

Although a draft management plan for the 

Biosphere Reserve had been submitted and was 

under review by 1994 (Dedina and Young 1995), 

it still had not been approved and implemented as 

of September 1999 (Rössler et al. 1999). 

The two lagoons were inscribed on the World 

Heritage List in 1993 as the Whales Sanctuary of 

El Vizcaino. Importantly, although the Mexican 

government had nominated the site on the basis of 

three criteria (numbers 2, 3, and 4 listed above), 

the inscription was ultimately based on only one 

of them (number 4) – that the site should contain 

“the most important and significant natural 

habitats for in-situ conservation of biological 

diversity, including those containing threatened 

species of outstanding universal value from the 

point of view of science or conservation” (Rössler 

et al. 1999). The World Heritage Committee=s 

decision was intended primarily to recognize the 

global importance of the lagoons as calving and 

nursing grounds for gray whales. 

A proposal for an evaporative saltworks on the 

shores of Laguna San Ignacio to supplement the 

existing saltworks at Guerrero Negro (Laguna Ojo 

de Liebre) was considered by the Mexican government during the 1990s (Dedina and Young 1995; 

Mate 1995). Although initially unsuccessful, the 

proponents continued their efforts to develop a 

comprehensive environmental impact assessment 

in the hope of obtaining approval for their project. 

For its part, the Mexican government established 

an independent scientific advisory committee to 

review the assessment, once completed (see 

Marine Mammal Commission 1998). 

Early in 1999, several non-governmental organizations petitioned UNESCO to consider adding the 

Whales Sanctuary of El Vizcaino to the List of 

World Heritage in Danger, citing both the record 

of environmental malpractice by the salt company 

at Guerrero Negro and the looming threat of a new 

saltworks at San Ignacio. Accordingly, a mission 

was sent by UNESCO to evaluate the situation in 

August 1999. This mission concluded that 

although the values for which the site was 

inscribed were not in immediate danger under 

present conditions (i.e., the gray whale population 

is not endangered and has continued to increase in 

recent years), any “significant change to the 

present situation” (which a new saltworks 

certainly would represent) would necessitate 

prompt re-evaluation (Rössler et al. 1999). The 

mission report also pointed out that state parties 

have a responsibility to maintain a World Heritage 

Site’s “conditions of integrity,” and that in the 

present instance these go beyond merely ensuring 

that the gray whale population is stable or 

growing. In the mission team’s view, the 

“relatively pristine condition” of Laguna San 

Ignacio was a key element of the original 

inscription, and therefore the new salt project 

could threaten the integrity of the site. Soon after 

the mission report had been accepted by the World 

Heritage Committee (December 1999), the 

government of Mexico announced its decision to 

halt further consideration of the saltworks 

proposal (March 2000). 

This example is less straightforward than it might 

appear. Concern about the conservation of gray 

whales is what initially prompted the Mexican 

authorities to designate the Biosphere Reserve and 

to propose a portion of it as a World Heritage Site. 

The gray whale was undeniably a “flagship 

species” for both designations, and the importance 

of the lagoons as gray whale calving and nursing 

areas was repeatedly emphasized in the campaign 

by non-governmental organizations to convince 

Mexican authorities that they should deny 

permission for construction of a new saltworks. 

These organizations exploited the fact that 

addition of the Whales Sanctuary to the World 

Heritage in Danger List would be a major 

embarrassment to the Mexican administration. 

Even though there was no clear evidence that 

evaporative salt production and transport 

threatened gray whales, and even though the 

World Heritage Committee ultimately decided 

against listing the site as in danger, the Mexican 

government ruled against the proposed development, citing the need to preserve the ecosystems, 

endemic species, and “unique scenic landscapes” 

26 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

of the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site 

(statement by President Ernest Zedillo, 2 March 

2000, available from www.unesco.org/whc/nwhc). 

In effect, Mexico accepted the UNESCO argument 

that the value of the World Heritage Site goes 

beyond its function as a gray whale nursery and 

includes the natural landscape and the integrity of 

the lagoon ecosystems. Thus, one interpretation of 

the outcome is that the gray whale served as both a 

flagship and an umbrella species, effectively fueling and sustaining public interest in the saltworks 

controversy, which has finally been resolved with 

the recognition that the entire Laguna San Ignacio 

ecosystem deserves protection from industrial 

development. 

A management plan for the Biosphere Reserve of 

the Upper Gulf of California, published in 1995, 

provides “a general framework for the protection, 

conservation and restoration of the biota and 

environment” (Anonymous 1997). However, little 

progress has been made in reducing threats to the 

vaquita. 

Conclusions 

Only a small subset of the world’s marine 

protected areas have been created for the explicit 

purpose of conserving marine mammals. In most 

instances, stated goals are more general, ranging 

from protection of biological diversity and 

ecological “health,” to improved fish production 

and direct economic benefit for humans. In North 

America, several reserves, sanctuaries, or parks 

were established primarily to protect marine 

mammals. These include the Upper Gulf of 

California and El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserves in 

Mexico (vaquita and gray whale, respectively); the 

Hawaiian Islands and Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuaries in the United States 

(humpback whales); Channel Islands National 

Park and Point Reyes National Seashore in the 

United States (seals and sea lions); and the 

Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine National Park and 

Wapusk National Park in Canada (white whale 

and polar bear, respectively). 

In assessing the value to marine mammal 

conservation of these and other protected areas, it 

is necessary to consider whether they provide 

incremental benefits that are not already being 

provided by other forms of protection. In the 

United States, for example, marine mammals 

benefit from the protection provided under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act and, for some 

species, the Endangered Species Act; the 

designation and protection of “critical habitat” 

under the Endangered Species Act (in the United 

States); and various other legislative and 

regulatory processes (e.g., time and area closures 

to certain types of fishing activity). In both 

Mexico and Canada as well, laws and regulations 

exist to prevent, or at least regulate, the hunting of 

marine mammals. Although assessments of 

conservation value certainly need to be conducted 

on a species, population, or site-specific basis, it is 

probably fair to conclude that, overall, the direct 

benefit derived by marine mammals from the 

existing array of protected areas in North America 

is considerably less than it could be. What 

management there is of fishing and vessel traffic, 

both potentially harmful to marine mammals, 

comes primarily as a result of legislative or 

regulatory processes that are independent of 

protected area authorities. 

In some situations, a protected area could prove 

detrimental to marine mammal conservation by 

encouraging increased use that is incompatible 

with the animals’ needs. As the history of 

Yellowstone, Yosemite, Banff, and other popular 

North American national parks demonstrates, too 

much recreational use can destroy the values that 

led to park designation in the first place. To a 

certain extent, this may be happening, on a 

relatively small scale, to manatees in Crystal River 

27 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

National Wildlife Refuge. A serious potential 

drawback of multiple-use management is that by 

advertising an area’s resources and facilitating 

their use, the overall productivity and diversity of 

the area will become degraded with time, 

eventually reducing the regional carrying capacity, 

particularly for high-order predators. 

Most authors who have considered the realized 

and potential benefits of marine protected areas 

have concluded that, if nothing else, such areas 

can perform a valuable education and research 

function. Marine mammals are ideal “flagship 

species” because of the great popular interest in 

and affection for them (e.g., see Lavigne et al. 

1999). As a result, protected areas inhabited by 

marine mammals have the potential to draw 

people’s attention and engage them in broader 

conservation dialogue, and also to attract support 

for conservation-related research. Duffus and 

Dearden (1993a) conclude concerning the 

Canadian context: “Marine parks themselves play 

only a minor role in protection; their significance 

is in public education.” This significance may be 

crucial to conservation, but it is extremely difficult 

to demonstrate or quantify. It is also uncertain 

whether public support can be maintained for a 

marine protected area that performs no regulatory 

(i.e., protection) function. 

Is it desirable to designate more marine protected 

areas, or would it be better to invest resources in 

improving those that already exist? This question 

cannot be answered categorically. Kelleher and 

Recchia (1998; also see Kelleher and Kenchington 

1993; Kelleher et al. 1995, Vol. I:6-7) conclude 

that, “It is better to have an MPA which is not 

ideal in an ecological sense but which meets the 

primary objective than to strive vainly to create 

the ‘perfect MPA’.” Similarly, the statement by 

Agardy (1994), quoted earlier, implies that it may 

be both practical and desirable to use concern for a 

valued species (e.g., an endangered monk seal or 

baleen whale) as the basis for establishing a 

protected area, then strive to broaden the goals of 

management to incorporate other species, 

ecological processes, and ultimately entire 

ecosystems. It could be argued, however, that the 

designation process itself should be, and is, an 

exercise in “public education.” Thus, the basis for 

selecting and designing sites should rest on sound 

ecological principles and not simply be a response 

to the clamor for a favored species (e.g., the 

humpback whale sanctuary in Hawaii). 

In many instances, marine protected areas were 

established after careful planning on ecological 

grounds, but their potential has been subverted by 

a failure to account adequately for social and 

political factors. Of these factors, two stand out as 

particularly widespread and important (Kelleher 

and Kenchington, 1993). First is the challenge of 

achieving legitimacy in the eyes of the people who 

live in and near a protected area and use its resources. Although virtually all protected area 

designations are accompanied by documentation 

paying lip service to the principles of community 

consultation, participation, even “ownership,” few 

examples of genuine community engagement 

seem to exist. This should not be surprising in 

view of the costs involved – in terms of time, 

funding, and compromise. 

Second is interagency conflict, particularly 

between the authority responsible for fishery 

management and the entity charged with 

developing and managing the protected area. 

Often, both groups are themselves conflicted over 

their contradictory mandates. Fishery departments 

are charged with improving the economic state of 

the fishing industry while at the same time 

protecting the integrity of fish resources. Protected 

area officials are expected to pursue, 

simultaneously, the objectives of biodiversity 

preservation and “sustainable use” (recreation, 

controlled resource extraction, etc.). Although 

there is probably no single, simple way to resolve 

these conflicts, Kelleher (1998) suggests an 

approach that may at least get things started in the 

right direction. He argues that working groups 

dealing with marine protected areas be interdisciplinary and interdepartmental, with staff from both 

(or all) competing agencies as well as representation from scientific and advocacy groups. He adds 

that it would be helpful if the reward system could 

be changed so that scientists gained credit for 

28 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

contributing to conservation efforts, such as the 

development of marine protected areas, and not 

only (or mainly) for their publication record. 

A major obstacle to the creation of protected areas 

in offshore waters has been insufficient 

understanding of pelagic food webs, species 

behavior and life histories, and ecological 

processes. Technology has also been a strong 

limiting factor. Hyrenbach et al. (2000) argue that 

these limitations have been largely overcome in 

recent years and that “even though our 

understanding is by no means perfect, ... imperfect 

knowledge is no excuse for a lack of action.” In 

their view, the only remaining obstacle is the lack 

of political will. 

Recommendations 

1. The limited progress of many protected 

areas in meeting expectations is related to 

the implicit assumption that designation is 

the end rather than the beginning of a 

conservation process. It is essential that 

authorities responsible for site designation 

be committed to ensuring adequate longterm funding and staffing, timely 

preparation and implementation of 

management plans, and realistic evaluation 

of accomplishments in relation to stated 

objectives. 

2. The U.S. National Marine Sanctuary 

Program should be encouraged to 

strengthen existing sanctuaries. Such 

strengthening may require drastic measures, 

possibly including substantial redesign in 

some instances. The latter should take 

advantage of opportunities for integration 

between or among sites (e.g., in California, 

many state and federal protected areas are 

spatially contiguous or proximate; see 

McArdle 1997, Resources Agency of 

California 2000). One of many examples is 

the Farallon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge bordering the Gulf of the Farallones 

National Marine Sanctuary. A proposed 10-

mi.-wide no-take zone bordering the refuge 

would encompass about a third of the 

sanctuary=s entire area and afford protection 

to a large, diverse assemblage of pinnipeds 

and seabirds (Evans 1998). 

3. Management plans for marine sanctuaries 

are subject to mandatory review every five 

years. This requirement, if met, would 

provide a mechanism for ensuring that 

sanctuaries adapt to or take advantage of 

advances in knowledge, changes in 

environmental conditions, and opportunities 

for consolidation and integration (cf. Weber 

1996). This requirement should be taken 

seriously and the necessary resources be 

made available to facilitate these periodic 

reviews. 

4. The potential of National Park Service lands 

and National Wildlife Refuges in the United 

States to contribute to marine mammal conservation has only begun to be realized. 

Both the National Park Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (which 

administers the refuge program) should be 

encouraged and supported in efforts to 

expand their reach into the marine 

environment. It would be useful for each of 

these agencies to undertake a systematic 

review of marine mammal habitat on and 

adjacent to lands under their respective 

juridictions. The purpose of such reviews 

would be to identify opportunities for 

greater involvement in the conservation of 

marine mammal habitat, including prey 

resources. It is important that national parks 

and wildlife refuges be seen as 

complementary, rather than as competing 

alternatives, to national marine sanctuaries. 

29 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

5. A marine protected area or a marine compo- such integration. Although nonnent of a land-based protected area is most governmental organizations have begun to 

likely to contribute to marine mammal con- explore and develop the idea of protected 

servation if the protected area’s area networks in both the Gulf of Maine, 

management body has both the authority where the right whale is potentially a 

and the will to regulate fisheries. At a flagship species, and the coastal waters from 

minimum, fishing effort within a protected Baja California to the Bering Sea, which 

area should be frozen at the time of encompass the gray whale’s long-distance 

designation and until an appropriately migration (Anonymous 1999, 1999/2000a), 

precautionary management plan is in place. these ideas need to be considered more 

“Limiting entry and technology will allow seriously by government agencies in the 

fishermen to continue their traditional way three countries. 

of life, while helping to insure that 

sanctuary [or the protected area’s] resources 8. Serious consideration should be given to the 

are protected from increased numbers of proposal by Brailovskaya (1998) for a Nafishermen or more fish-killing capability” tional Marine Wilderness Preservation Act 

(Weber 1997:34). Even though wholesale that would establish the intrinsic importance 

devolution or transfer of authority from of protecting marine biological diversity. 

fishery agencies to protected area manage- The political acceptability of such an act 

ment bodies is probably unrealistic (and would be enhanced by citing the beneficial 

possibly undesirable), incremental acquisi­ effects of no-take (i.e., “wilderness”) 

tion of authority to regulate fishing will reserves on fishery yields (e.g., Roberts 

often be a highly desirable medium- and 1995; Bohnsack 1996), but the legislation 

long-term goal. itself should entrench the idea that marine 

organisms and systems have value in their 

6. No-take zones not only benefit fish and own right. 

invertebrate populations, which in turn improve the prey base for marine mammals, 9. A federal interagency task force involving 

but they can also provide areas where the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, 

marine mammals are relatively safe from State, Transportation, and Defense, the 

accidental capture in fishing gear (bycatch) Environmental Protection Agency, and 

and from disturbance by fishing operations. other interested agencies should be 

In general, the Marine Mammal convened to evaluate the merits of 

Commission and other conservation- establishing a series of large regional 

oriented agencies should promote the marine management areas, similar to the 

expanded use of no-take zones within Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, to protect 

present and future marine protected areas. and manage significant marine resources 

and habitats associated with major regional 

7. The United States should pursue bilateral marine ecosystems and biogeographic 

and multilateral initiatives, particularly with features in ocean areas of the United States. 

Canada and Mexico, to connect and coordi- Areas to be considered should be on the 

nate the management of protected areas scale of the Florida Keys Coral Reef Marine 

affecting migratory species of marine mam- Sanctuary, the combined size of the 

mals. The gray whale (and possibly also the Farallons, Cordell Bank, and Monterey Bay 

Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus town- National Marine Sanctuaries, or larger. In 

sendi) on the west coast and the right whale particular, the task force should consider the 

on the east coast are the species most in merits of systematically identifying, 

need of, and most obviously amenable to, integrating, and strengthening measures to 

30 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

protect essential habitat components for 

regionally significant populations and communities of fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and other marine life. In this 

regard, it should consider site-specific 

zoning and measures to regulate human 

activities, such as commercial and 

recreational fishing, aquaculture, vessel 

traffic, whale-watching, mineral 

exploitation, and dredging. 

Acknowledgments 

This work was supported by a contract from the 

Marine Mammal Commission to Okapi Wildlife 

Associates. John Twiss, Bob Hofman, and Rob 

Mattlin of the Commission were generous with 

advice and support of various kinds. I am 

especially indebted to David Laist and Suzanne 

Montgomery of the Marine Mammal Commission, 

Cheri Recchia and Jack Sobel of the Center for 

Marine Conservation, Tundi Agardy of 

Conservation International, and Sarah Allen of the 

Point Reyes National Seashore, all of whom read 

at least one version of the manuscript and 

provided extensive comments and helpful 

suggestions. The following colleagues also 

provided useful information or advice: Jeff Breiwick, Jim Darling, Randall Davis, Paul Dayton, 

Dave Duffus, Ian Gjertz, Janice Hannah, Charles 

(Stormy) Mayo, Birgit Njastad, Giuseppe 

Notarbartolo di Sciara, Randi Olsen, Emer Rogan, 

Pedro Rosabal, Brent S. Stewart, Koen Van 

Waerebeek, and Michael L. Weber. 

31 
Literature Cited 

ADADEST (Antarctic Division, Australian Department of 

Environment, Sport, and Territories) and P. Dingwall. 

1995. Antarctic. Pages 45-59 in G. Kelleher, C. 

Bleakley, and S. Wells, eds., A Global Representative 

System of Marine Protected Areas. Volume I: Antarctic, 

Arctic, Mediterranean, Northwest Atlantic, Northeast 

Atlantic and Baltic. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority, World Bank, and IUCN, Washington, D.C. 

Agardy, T. 1993. Draft guidelines for Biosphere Reserve 

planning. Pages 75-88 in A. Price and S. Humphrey, 

eds., Application of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to 

Coastal Marine Areas. Papers presented at the 

UNESCO/IUCN San Francisco Workshop of 14-20 

August 1989. A Marine Conservation and Development 

Report. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Agardy, M.T. 1994. Advances in marine conservation: the 

role of marine protected areas. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution 9:267-270. 

Agardy, T.S. 1997. Marine protected areas and ocean 

conservation. Environmental Intelligence Unit, R.G. 

Landes Co., Austin, Texas. 240 pp. 

Agardy, T., and S. Engdahl. In press. Marine protected area 

networks and corridor approaches: optimal ways to 

conserve ecosystem integrity. Conservation Biology in 

Practice. 

Aguilar, A. 2000. Population biology, conservation threats 

and status of Mediterranean striped dolphins (Stenella 

coeruleoalba). Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management 2:17-26. 

Anonymous. 1979. Report from the IUCN/UNEP/WWF 

Workshop on Cetacean Sanctuaries, Mexico, February 

1979. [not seen] 

Anonymous. 1985. Report of a meeting to identify and agree 

on cooperative federal and state actions needed to 

protect habitat essential for the Crystal River 

subpopulation of manatees. 14 March 1985, Homosassa 

Springs, FL. (Available from Marine Mammal 

Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905, 

Bethesda, MD 20814.) 10 pp. typescript + 7 

attachments. 

Anonymous. 1997. Mexico. Progress report on cetacean 

research, June 1995 to April 1996. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47:349-352. 

Anonymous. 1999. More North American efforts to network 

MPAs. MPA News 1(3):3. 

Anonymous. 1999/2000a. Project aims to network North 

American MPAs. MPA News 1(4):4. 

Anonymous. 1999/2000b. MPA nomenclature: the thicket of 

terms and definitions continues to grow. MPA News 

1(4):5-6. 

Asigau, W. 1991. The Maza Wildlife Management Area, 

Western Province, Papua New Guinea: the resources 

and its management. Pages 461-469 in D. Lawrence and 

T. Cansfield-Smith, eds., Sustainable Development for 

Traditional Inhabitants of the Torres Strait Region. 

Proceedings of the Torres Strait Baseline Study Conference, Kewarra Beach, Cairns, Queensland, 19-23 

November 1990. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 

Authority Workshop Series No. 16. 

Attwood, C.G., B.Q. Mann, J. Beaumont, and J.M. Harris. 

1997. Review of the state of marine protected areas in 

South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 

18:341-367. 

Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, B.G. Bays, and W.F. Stifel. 1982. 

The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior of 

humpback whales in southeast Alaska. Contract report, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, Seattle. 39 pp. + tables and 

figures. 

Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, B.G. Bays, and G.B. Bauer. 1983. 

The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior of 

humpback whales in southeast Alaska: 1982 season. 

Contract report, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle. 30 pp. + 

tables and figures. 

Baldwin, C. 1985. Management of the dugong: an 

endangered marine species of traditional significance. 

Pages 241-254 in J. Lien and R. Graham, eds., Marine 

parks & conservation challenge and promise, Vol. 1. 

National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada. 

Batisse, M. 1990. Development and implementation of the 

Biosphere Reserve concept and its applicability to 

coastal regions. Environmental Conservation 17:111-

116. 

Batisse, M. 1993. Development and implementation of the 

Biosphere Reserve concept and its applicability to 

coastal regions. Pages 1-11 in A. Price and S. 

Humphrey, eds., Application of the Biosphere Reserve 

Concept to Coastal Marine Areas. Papers presented at 

the UNESCO/IUCN San Francisco Workshop of 14-20 

August 1989. A Marine Conservation and Development 

Report, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 114 pp. 

Baumgartner, M.F. 1997. The distribution of Risso’s dolphin 

(Grampus griseus) with respect to the physiography of 

the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science 

13:614-638. 

Baur, D.C., M.J. Bean, and M.L. Gosliner. 1999. The laws 

governing marine mammal conservation in the United 

States. Pages 48-86 in J.R. Twiss, Jr., and R.R. Reeves 

eds., Conservation and Management of Marine 

Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

Beaumont, J. 1997. Community participation in the establishment and management of marine protected areas: a 

review of selected international experience. South 

African Journal of Marine Science 18:333-340. 

32 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Berkman, P.A. 1992. The Antarctic marine ecosystem and 

humankind. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences 6:295-333. 

Bleakley, C., and S. Wells. 1995. East Asian seas. Pages 107­

136 in G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, and S. Wells, eds., A 

Global Representative System of Marine Protected 

Areas. Volume III: Central Indian Ocean, Arabian Seas, 

East Africa and East Asian Seas. Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park Authority, World Bank, and IUCN, 

Washington, D.C. 

Bohnsack, J.A. 1996. Marine reserves, zoning, and the future 

of fishery management. Fisheries 21(9):14-16. 

Bonner, W.N. 1982. Seals and Man. A Study of Interactions. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle.170 pp. 

Born, E.W. 1984. Status of the Atlantic walrus Odobenus 

rosmarus rosmarus in the Svalbard area. Polar Research 

2 n.s.:27-45. 

Born, E.W. 1995. Status of the polar bear in Greenland 1993. 

Pages 81-103 in Ø. Wiig, E.W. Born, and G.W. Garner 

eds., Polar bears: Proceedings of the eleventh working 

meeting of the IUNC/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 

25-27 January 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. IUCN 

Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper No. 10. 

192 pp. 

Born, E.W., I. Gjertz, and R.R. Reeves. 1995. Population 

assessment of Atlantic walrus. Norsk Polarinstitut 

Meddelelser No. 138, 100 pp. 

Bowen, W.D. 1997. Role of marine mammals in aquatic 

ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 158:267-

274. 

Brailovskaya, T. 1998. Obstacles to protecting marine 

biodiversity through marine wilderness preservation: 

examples from the New England region. Conservation 

Biology 12:1236-1240. 

Brown, M.W., J.M. Allen, and S.D. Kraus. 1995. The 

designation of seasonal right whale conservation areas 

in the waters of Atlantic Canada. Pages 90-98 in N.L. 

Shackell and J.H.M. Willison, eds., Marine protected 

areas and sustainable fisheries. Science and 

Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, 

Nova Scotia. 

Calvert, W., M. Taylor, I. Stirling, S. Atkinson, M.A. 

Ramsay, N.J. Lunn, M. Obbard, C. Elliott, G. 

Lamontagne, and J. Schaefer. 1998. Research on polar 

bears in Canada 1993-1996. Pages 69-91 in A.E. 

Derocher, G.W. Garner, N.J. Lunn, and Ø. Wiig, eds., 

Polar bears: Proceedings of the twelfth working meeting 

of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 2-7 

February 1997, Oslo, Norway. IUCN Species Survival 

Commission Occasional Paper No. 19. 159 pp. 

Capozzo, H.L. and M. Junín, eds.. 1991. Estado de conservación de los mamíferos marinos del Atlántico 

Sudoccidental. Informes y Estudios del Programa de 

Mares Regionales del PNUMA No. 138. 250 pp. 

Center for the Economy and the Environment. 1999. 

Protecting our National Marine Sanctuaries. National 

Academy of Public Administration, Washington, D.C. 

116 pp. (www version). 

Chadwick, D.H. 1996. Sanctuary: U.S. National Wildlife 

Refuges. National Geographic 190(4):2-35. 

Chadwick, D.H. 1998. Blue refuges: U.S. National Marine 

Sanctuaries. National Geographic 193(3):2-31. 

Cockcroft, V., and P. Joyce. 1998. Whale watch: a guide to 

whales and other marine mammals of southern Africa. 

Struik Publishers, Cape Town, R.S.A. 104 pp. 

Colmenero-R., L.C., and B.E. Zárate. 1990. Distribution, 

status and conservation of the West Indian manatee in 

Quintana Roo, México. Biological Conservation 52:27-

35. 

Dawson, S.M., and E. Slooten. 1993. Conservation of 

Hector’s dolphin: the case and process which led to 

establishment of the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal 

Sanctuary. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and 

Freshwater Ecosystems 3:207-221. 

Dayton, P.K., E. Sala, M.J. Tegner, and S. Thrush. 2000. 

Marine reserves: parks, baselines, and fishery enhancement. Bulletin of Marine Science 66:617-634. 

Dedina, S., and E. Young. 1995. Conservation and development in the gray whale lagoons of Baja California, 

Mexico. Marine Mammal Commission Contract Report, 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

VA. PB96-113154. 

Department of Conservation. 1992. Banks Peninsula Marine 

Mammal Sanctuary Technical Report, 1992. Canterbury 

Conservancy Technical Report Series 4. Canterbury 

Conservancy, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

Department of Conservation/Ministry of Agriculture and 

Fisheries. 1994. Review of the Banks Peninsula Marine 

Mammal Sanctuary. A paper for public comment June 

1994. New Zealand Department of Conservation, Christchurch; Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Dunedin. 

Canterbury Conservancy Miscellaneous Report Series 

No. 3. 34 pp. 

Dixon, J.A. 1993. Economic benefits of marine protected 

areas. Oceanus 36(3):35-40. 

Dixon, J.A., L.F. Scura, and T. van=t Hof. 1993. Meeting 

ecological and economic goals: marine parks in the 

Caribbean. Ambio 22:117-125. 

Duffus, D.A., and P. Dearden. 1993a. Marine parks: the 

Canadian experience. Pages 256-271 in P. Dearden and 

R. Rollins, eds., Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: 

Planning and Management. Oxford University Press, 

Toronto. 

Duffus, D.A., and P. Dearden. 1993b. Recreational use, 

valuation, and management, of killer whales (Orcinus 

orca) on Canada’s Pacific coast. Environmental 

Conservation 20:149-156. 

Duffus, D.A., and P. Dearden. 1995. Whales, science and 

protected area management in British Columbia, 

Canada. Pages 53-61 in T. Agardy (ed.), The science of 

conservation in the coastal zone. New insights on how to 

design, implement and monitor marine protected areas. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 

Earle, M. 1996. Ecological interactions between cetaceans 

and fisheries. Pages 167-204 in M.P. Simmonds and J.D. 

33 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Hutchinson, eds., The Conservation of Whales and 

Dolphins: Science and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 

Ltd., Chichester. 

Earle, S. 1995. Sea Change. Fawcett Columbine, New York. 

Enemark, J., H. Wesemüller, and A. Gerdiken. 1998. The 

Wadden Sea: an international perspective on managing 

marine resources. Parks 8(2):36-41. 

Estes, J.A., and J.F. Palmisano. 1974. Sea otters: their role in 

structuring nearshore communities. Science 185:1058-

1060. 

Evans, D. 1998. Protecting our last frontier. Point Reyes Bird 

Observatory Files, Summer:5. 

Faucher, A., and L.S. Weilgart. 1992. Critical marine 

mammal habitat in offshore waters: the need for 

protection. Pages 75-78 in J.H.M. Willison, S. BondrupNielsen, C. Drysdale, T.B. Herman, N.W.P. Munro, and 

T.L. Pollock, eds., Science and the management of 

protected areas. Developments in landscape 

management and urban planning, 7. Elsevier, 

Amsterdam. 

Faucher, A., and H. Whitehead. 1995. Importance of habitat 

protection for the northern bottlenose whale in the 

Gully, Nova Scotia. Pages 99-102 in N.L. Shackell and 

J.H.M. Willison, eds., Marine protected areas and 

sustainable fisheries. Science and Management of 

Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. 

Findlay, K.1998. Aspects of whale watching of right whales 

off South Africa. International Whaling Commission, 

Cambridge, UK. Document SC/M98/RW 17. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1998. Marine protected areas 

program. Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. 27 pp. 

Flórez, L., M. Prieto, and O. Bohórquez. 1992. Informe 

nacional sobre la situación de los mamíferos marinos en 

Colombia. Informes y Estudios del Programa de Mares 

Regionales del PNUMA No. 146. 19 pp. 

Flórez-González, L. 1991. Humpback whales Megaptera 

novaeangliae in the Gorgona Island, Colombian Pacific 

breeding waters: population and pod characteristics. 

Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 30(2):291-295. 

Fontaubert, A.C. de, D.R. Downes, and T.S. Agardy. 1996. 

Biodiversity in the Seas: Implementing the Convention 

on Biological Diversity in Marine and Coastal Habitats. 

IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 32. A 

Marine Conservation and Development Report. IUCN, 

Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. 

Forney, K.A. 1999. Trends in harbour porpoise abundance 

off central California, 1986-95: evidence for interannual 

changes in distribution? Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management 1:73-80. 

Gaudian, G., A. Koyo, and S. Wells. 1995. East Africa. Pages 

71-105 in G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, and S. Wells, eds., 

A Global Representative System of Marine Protected 

Areas. Volume III: Central Indian Ocean, Arabian Seas, 

East Africa and East Asian Seas. Great Barrier Reef 

Marine Park Authority, World Bank, and IUCN, 

Washington, D.C. 

Geddes, J. 1998. A sanctuary at risk. Maclean’s Magazine, 20 

March, p. 26. 

Gjertz, I., and Ø. Wiig. 1994. Past and present distribution of 

walruses in Svalbard. Arctic 47:34-42. 

Gordon, J.C.D., J.N. Matthews, S. Panigada, A. Gannier, J.F. 

Borsani, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 2000. 

Distribution and relative abundance of striped dolphins, 

and distribution of sperm whales in the Ligurian Sea 

cetacean sanctuary: results from a collaboration using 

acoustic monitoring techniques. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management 2:27-36. 

Gordon, J., and A. Moscrop. 1996. Underwater noise 

pollution and its significance for whales and dolphins. 

Pages 281-319 in M.P. Simmonds and J.D. Hutchinson, 

eds., The Conservation of Whales and Dolphins: Science 

and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 

Gowans, S., and H. Whitehead. 1995. Distribution and 

habitat partitioning by small odontocetes in the Gully, a 

submarine canyon on the Scotian Shelf. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 73:1599-1608. 

Graham, R., and D. Huff. 1985. Voluntary and cooperative 

management in marine conservation: England, Scotland 

and Wales. Environments 17(4). [not seen] 

Gubbay, S. 1995. Marine Region 5: Northeast Atlantic. Pages 

127-151 in G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, and S. Wells, eds., 

A Global Representative System of Marine Protected 

Areas. Vol I. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 

World Bank, and IUCN, Washington, D.C. 

Haftorn, S., L. Sømme, and J.S. Gray. 1981. A census of 

penguins and seals on Bouvetøya. Norsk Polarinsitut 

Skrifter 175:29-35. 

Harris, L.D., T. Hoctor, D. Maehr, and J. Sanderson. 1996. 

The role of networks and corridors in enhancing the 

value and protection of parks and equivalent areas. 

Pages 173-197 in R.G. Wright, ed., National Parks and 

Protected Areas. Their Role in Environmental 

Protection. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. 470 pp. 

Hastings, A., and L.W. Botsford. 1999. Equivalence in yield 

from marine reserves and traditional fisheries management. Science 284:1537-1538. 

Hockey, P.A.R., and G.M. Branch. 1997. Criteria, objectives 

and methodology for evaluating marine protected areas 

in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine 

Science 18:369-383. 

Hooker, S.K., H. Whitehead, and S. Gowans. 1999. Marine 

protected area design and the spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans in a submarine canyon. 

Conservation Biology 13:592-602. 

Hoyt, E. 1990. Orca the whale called killer. Camden House, 

Camden East, Ontario. 291 pp. 

Hyrenbach, K.D., K.A. Forney, and P.K. Dayton. 2000. 

Marine protected areas and ocean basin management. 

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems 10:437-458. 

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected area management 

categories. International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland, and 

Cambridge, UK. 261 pp. 

34 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Johnson, J.H. 1983. Compatability of ships and whales in 

Glacier Bay, Alaska. Journal of the Acoustic Society of 

America 74 (Suppl. 1):S53-S54. 

Jones, P.J.S. 1994. A review and analysis of the objectives of 

marine nature reserves. Ocean & Coastal Management 

24:149-178. 

Jurasz, C.M., and V.P. Jurasz. 1979. Feeding modes of the 

humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in southeast 

Alaska. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute (Tokyo) 31:69-83. 

Karczmarski, L. 2000. Conservation and management of 

humpback dolphins: the South African perspective. 

Oryx 34:207-216. 

Kelleher, G. 1998. A global representative system of marine 

protected areas. George Wright Forum 15(3):17-24. 

Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995. A Global 

Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. 4 

volumes. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 

World Bank, and IUCN, Washington, D.C. 

Kelleher, G., and R. Kenchington. 1992. Guidelines for 

Establishing Marine Protected Areas. A Marine 

Conservation and Development Report. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland. 

Kelleher, G., and R. Kenchington. 1993. Political and social 

dynamics for establishing marine protected areas. Pages 

43-55 in A. Price and S. Humphrey, eds., Application of 

the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Coastal Marine 

Areas. Papers presented at the UNESCO/IUCN San 

Francisco Workshop of 14-20 August 1989. A Marine 

Conservation and Development Report. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland. 

Kelleher, G., and C. Recchia. 1998. Editorial - lessons from 

marine protected areas around the world. Parks 8(2):1-4. 

Kenchington, R.A., and M.T. Agardy. 1990. Achieving 

marine conservation through Biosphere Reserve 

planning and management. Environmental Conservation 

17:39-44. 

Kenney, R.D., P.M. Payne, D.W. Heinemann, and H.E. 

Winn. 1996. Shifts in northeast shelf cetacean 

distributions relative to trends in Gulf of Maine/Georges 

Bank finfish abundance. Pages 169-196 in K. Sherman, 

N.A. Jaworski, and T.J. Smayda, eds., The Northeast 

Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, and 

Management. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, 

Massachusetts, USA. 

Kenney, R.D., H.E. Winn, and M.C. Macaulay. 1995. Cetaceans in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf 

Research 15:385-414. 

Kenyon, K.W. 1960. The Pacific walrus. Oryx 5:332-340. 

Kimball, L.A. 1999. The Antarctic Treaty System. Pages 

199-223 in J.R. Twiss, Jr., and R.R. Reeves, eds., 

Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Kruse, S. 1991. The interactions between killer whales and 

boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. Pages 149-159 in K. 

Pryor and K.S. Norris, eds., Dolphin Societies: 

Discoveries and Puzzles. University of California Press, 

Berkeley. 397 pp. 

Laist, D.W. 1978. Neglected marine sanctuary law is 

showing signs of life. Audubon 80(3):117-119. 

Laist, D.W. 1996. Marine debris entanglement and ghost 

fishing: A cryptic and significant type of bycatch? Pages 

33-39 in Solving Bycatch: Considerations for Today and 

Tomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report 

96-03. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 

Laist, D.W., and T.E. Bigford. 1979. Unique or endangered 

environments. Vol. I, Book 4, Chapter XVIII in A Summary and Analysis of Environmental Information on the 

Continental Shelf and Blake Plateau from Cape Hatteras 

to Cape Canaveral (1977). Prepared for the Bureau of 

Land Management, Contract No. AA 550-CT7-39, by 

Center for Natural Areas, S. Gardiner, ME; Washington, 

D.C.; Los Angeles, CA. 333 pp. 

Laist, D.W., J.M. Coe, and K.J. O’Hara. 1999. Marine debris 

pollution. Pages 342-366 in J.R. Twiss, Jr., and R.R. 

Reeves, eds., Conservation and Management of Marine 

Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. 

Podesta. In press. Collisions between ships and whales. 

Marine Mammal Science. 

Laist, D.W., T. E. Bigford, G.W. Robertson, and D.R. Gordon. 1986. Management of corals and coral ecosystems 

in the United States. Coastal Zone Management Journal 

13:203-239. 

Landres, P.B., J. Verner, and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological 

uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. 

Conservation Biology 2:316-328. 

Lavigne, D.M. 1999. The Hawaiian monk sea: management 

of an endangered species. Pages 246-266 in J.R. Twiss, 

Jr., and R.R. Reeves, eds., Conservation and 

Management of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Lavigne, D.M., V.B. Scheffer, and S.R. Kellert. 1999. The 

evolution of North American attitudes toward marine 

mammals. Pages 10-47 in J.R. Twiss, Jr., and R.R. 

Reeves, eds., Conservation and Management of Marine 

Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

D.C. 

Lefebvre, L.W., T.J. O=Shea, G.B. Rathbun, and R.C. Best. 

1989. Distribution, status, and biogeography of the West 

Indian manatee. Pages 567-610 in C.A. Woods (ed.), 

Biogeography of the West Indies. Sandhill Crane Press, 

Gainesville, FL. 

Lesage, V., and M.C.S. Kingsley. 1998. Updated status of the 

St. Lawrence River population of the belgua, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

112:98-114. 

Lunn, N.J., M. Taylor, W. Calvert, I. Stirling, M. Obbard, C. 

Elliott, G. Lamontagne, J. Schaeffer, S. Atkinson, D. 

Clark, E. Bowden, and B. Doidge. 1998. Polar bear 

management in Canada 1993-1996. Pages 51-66 in A.E. 

Derocher, G.W. Garner, N.J. Lunn, and Ø. Wiig, eds., 

35 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Polar bears: Proceedings of the twelfth working meeting 

of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 2-7 

February 1997, Oslo, Norway. IUCN Species Survival 

Commission Occasional Paper No. 19. 159 pp. 

MacGarvin, M., and M. Simmonds. 1996. Whales and 

climate change. Pages 321-332 in M.P. Simmonds and 

J.D. Hutchinson, eds, The Conservation of Whales and 

Dolphins: Science and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 

Ltd., Chichester. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 1984. Habitat protection 

needs for the subpopulation of West Indian manatees in 

the Crystal River area of northwest Florida. Report of 

the Marine Mammal Commission in consultation with 

its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine 

Mammals. 46 pp. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 1992. Annual Report to Congress 1991. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, 

D.C. 227 pp. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 1994. Annual Report to Congress 1993. Marine Mammal Commission, Washington, 

D.C. 240 pp. 

Marine Mammal Commission. 1998. Annual Report to Congress 1997. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, 

Maryland. 239 pp. 

Marsh, H., and L.W. Lefebvre. 1994. Sirenian status and 

conservation efforts. Aquatic Mammals 20:155-170. 

Mate, B.R. 1995. A report to the Marine Mammal 

Commission on Proposed Salt Production Facilities at 

San Ignacio Lagoon, Baja California. 13 pp. typescript. 

May, R.M., J.R. Beddington, C.W. Clark, S.J. Holt, and R.M. 

Laws. 1979. Management of multi-species fisheries. 

Science 205:267-277. 

Mayo, C. A., and L. Goldman. 1992. Right whale foraging 

and the plankton resources in Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays. Pages 43-44 in J. Hain, ed., The Right Whale 

in the Western North Atlantic: A Science and Management Workshop. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 92-05. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center, Conservation and Utilization Division, Woods 

Hole, MA. 

Mayo, C.A., and Marx, M.K. 1990. Surface foraging 

behaviour of the North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena 

glacialis, and associated zooplankton characteristics. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 68:2214-2220. 

McArdle, D.A. 1997. California marine protected areas. 

California Sea Grant College System, University of 

California, La Jolla. 268 pp. 

Mondor, C. 1985. An historical overview of the national 

marine park concept in Canada. Pages 9-42 in J. Lien 

and R. Graham, eds., Marine parks & conservation 

challenge and promise, Vol. 1. National and Provincial 

Parks Association of Canada. 

Morales-Vela, B., D. Olivera-Gómez, J.E. Reynolds III, and 

G. B. Rathbun. 2000. Distribution and habitat use by 

manatees (Trichechus manatus manatus) in Belize and 

Chetumal Bay, Mexico. Biological Conservation 95:67-

75. 

Murison, L.D. 1986. Zooplankton distributions and feeding 

ecology of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis glacialis) 

in the outer Bay of Fundy, Canada. M.Sc. thesis, 

University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 

Murison, L.D., and Gaskin, D.E. 1989. The distribution of 

right whales and zooplankton in the Bay of Fundy, 

Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67:1411-1420. 

Neves, H.C., and R. Pires. 1998. The recuperation of a monk 

seal pup, Monachus monachus, in the Ilhas Desertas - 

the conditions for its success. Monachus Guardian 

1(2):45-48. 

Nikiforov, V., and V. Mescherskaya. 1999. Protected areas 

across the Russian Arctic. WWF Arctic Bulletin 

4.99:12-14. 

O’Shea, T.J. 1999. Environmental contaminants and marine 

mammals. Pages 485-563 in J.E. Reynolds, III, and S.A. 

Rommel, eds., Biology of Marine Mammals. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Perrin, W.F., and R.L. Brownell, Jr., eds.. 1989. Report of the 

workshop. Pages 1-22 inW.F. Perrin, R.L. Brownell, Jr., 

K. Zhou, and J. Liu, eds., Biology and conservation of 

the river dolphins. Occasional Papers of the IUCN 

Species Survival Commission No. 3. 

Perrin, W.F., G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow, eds.. 1994. 

Gillnets and cetaceans. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK. Report of the International Whaling Commission, (Special Issue 15). 

Petersen, Æ., G. Þorvarðardóttir, J. Pagnan, and S. Einarsson. 

1998. Breiðafjörður, West-Iceland: an arctic marine 

protected area. Parks 8(2):23-28. 

Phillips, C. 1996. Conservation in practice: agreements, 

regulations, sanctuaries and action plans. Pages 447-465 

in M.P. Simmonds and J.D. Hutchinson, eds., The 

Conservation of Whales and Dolphins: Science and 

Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. 

Power, M.E., D. Tilman, J.A. Estes, B.A. Menge, W.J. Bond, 

L.S. Mills, G. Daily, J.C. Castilla, J. Lubchenco, and 

R.T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. 

BioScience 46:609-620. 

Prestrud, P., and I. Gjertz. 1990. The most northerly harbor 

seal, Phoca vitulina, at Prins Karls Forland, Svalbard. 

Marine Mammal Science 6:215-220. 

Prestrud, P., and I. Stirling. 1994. The International Polar 

Bear Agreement and the current status of polar bear 

conservation. Aquatic Mammals 20:113-124. 

Prokosch, P. 1999. All of Svalbard - one national park! WWF 

Arctic Bulletin 4.99:16-17. 

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population 

regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661. 

Ragen, T.J., and D.M. Lavigne. 1999. The Hawaiian monk 

seal: biology of an endangered species. Pages 224-245 

in J.R. Twiss, Jr., and R.R. Reeves, eds., Conservation 

and Management of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Reeves, R., and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 1998. Cetacean 

Specialist Group. Species 30:46-47. 

36 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Resources Agency of California. 2000. Improving 

California’s system of marine managed areas. Final 

report of the State Interagency Marine Managed Areas 

Workgroup. Resources Agency of California, January 

15, 2000. Available at 

http://ceres.ca.gov//ocean/final_mmas.html. 

Reyes, J.C. 1992. Informe nacional sobre la situación de los 

mamíferos marinos en Perú. Informes y Estudios del 

Programa de Mares Regionales del PNUMA No. 145. 

21 pp. 

Reynolds, J.E., III, and C.J. Gluckman. 1988. Protection of 

West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) in Florida. 

Report to Marine Mammal Commission (Available from 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

VA. PB88-222922.) 85 pp. 

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. 

Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic 

Press, San Diego. 

Roberts, C.M. 1995. Rapid build-up of fish biomass in a 

Caribbean marine reserve. Conservation Biology 9:815-

826. 

Robinson, A.C., and T.E. Dennis. 1988. The status and management of seal populations in South Australia. Pages 

87-110 in M.L. Augee, ed., Marine Mammals of 

Australia: Field Biology and Captive Management. 

Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, 

Mosman. 

Rogan, E., and S.D. Berrow. 1995. The management of Irish 

waters as a whale and dolphin sanctuary. Pages 671-681 

in A.S. Blix, L. Walløe, and Ø. Ulltang, eds., Whales, 

Seals and Man. Developments in Marine Biology, 4. 

Proceedings of the International Symposium on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals in the North East Atlantic. 

Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. 

Rössler, M., P. Rosabal, R. Reeves, C. Marin, L. Rojas, H. 

Perez-Cortez, and V. Marin. 1999. Report on the 

mission to the Whales Sanctuary of El Vizcaino 

(Mexico) from 22 to 28 August 1999. Information 

document provided to the Bureau of the World Heritage 

Committee, Paris. WHC-99/CONF.208/INF.6. 

Salm, R.V., and J.R. Clark. 1984. Marine and coastal 

protected areas: a guide for planners and managers. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature and 

Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. 302 pp. 

Salm, R.V., and J.R. Clark. 2000. Marine and coastal 

protected areas: a guide for planners and managers. 

Third edition. International Union for Conservation of 

Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. 370 

pp. 

Scheffer, V.B., C.H. Fiscus, and E.I. Todd. 1984. History of 

scientific study and management of the Alaskan fur seal, 

Callorhinus ursinus, 1786-1964. NOAA Technical 

Report NMFS SSRF-780. 70 pp. 

Sellars, R. 1997. Preserving nature in the national parks. Yale 

University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 380 pp. 

Selzer, L.A., and P.M. Payne. 1988. The distribution of 

white-sided (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and common 

dolphins (Delphinus delphis) vs. environmental features 

of the continental shelf of the northeastern United 

States. Marine Mammal Science 4:141-153. 

Simard, Y., and D. Lavoie. 1999. The rich krill aggregation 

of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park: 

hydroacoustic and geostatistical biomass estimates, 

structure, variability, and significance for whales. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

56:1182-1197. 

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is 

single-species management passé in the landscape era? 

Biological Conservation 83:247-257. 

Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of 

conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63-71. 

Sipilä, T., and H. Hyvärinen. 1998. Status and biology of 

Saimaa (Phoca hispida saimensis) and Ladoga (Phoca 

hispida ladogensis) ringed seals. NAMMCO Scientific 

Publications 1:83-99. 

Smith, B.D., A.K.M. Aminul Haque, M.S. Hossain, and A. 

Khan. 1998. River dolphins in Bangladesh: conservation 

and the effects of water development. Environmental 

Management 22:323-335. 

Smith, B.D., B. Bhandari, and K. Sapkota. 1996. Aquatic 

Biodiversity in the Karnali and Narayani River Basins - 

Nepal. IUCN Nepal, Kathmandu. 59 pp. 

Sonntag, R.P., H. Benke, A.R. Hiby, R. Lick, and D. Adelung. 1999. Identification of the first harbour porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) calving ground in the North Sea. 

Journal of Sea Research 41:225-232. 

Stirling, I. 1986. Research and management of polar bears 

Ursus maritimus. Polar Record 23:167-176. 

Tanzer, J. 1998. Fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef Marine 

Park – seeking the balance. Parks 8(2):41-46. 

Taylor, B.L., and T. Gerrodette.1993. The uses of statistical 

power in conservation biology: the vaquita and northern 

spotted owl. Conservation Biology 7:489-500. 

Tønnessen, J.N., and A.O. Johnsen. 1982. The History of 

Modern Whaling. University of California Press, Berkeley. 798 pp. 

Twiss, J.R., Jr. 1985. Letter from Executive Director, Marine 

Mammal Commission, to Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Secretary, Florida Department of Natural 

Resources. 2 October. 

VanBlaricom, G.R., and J.A. Estes, eds.. 1988. The Community Ecology of Sea Otters. Spring-Verlag, Berlin. 247 

pp. 

Walls, K. 1998. Leigh Marine Reserve, New Zealand. Parks 

8(2):5-10. 

Weber, M.L. 1988a. Should the kohol~ be given pu’uhonua? 

Oceanus 31(1):59-65. 

Weber, M. 1988b. Marine sanctuaries: a forgotten cause? 

Defenders May/June:16-23. 

Weber, M.L. 1997. Are National Marine Sanctuaries 

protecting marine wildlife? Can they? Unpubl. report 

submitted to Center for Marine Conservation, 

Washington, D.C. 44 pp. 

Weinrich, M., M. Martin, R. Griffiths, J. Bove, and M. Schilling. 1997. A shift in distribution of humpback whales, 

37 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

Megaptera novaeangliae, in response to prey in the 

southern Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 95:826-836. 

Wells, S., S.N. Dwivedi, S. Singh, and R. Ivan. 1995. Central 

Indian Ocean. Pages 13-37 in G. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, 

and S. Wells, eds., A Global Representative System of 

Marine Protected Areas. Volume III: Central Indian 

Ocean, Arabian Seas, East Africa and East Asian Seas. 

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, World Bank, 

and IUCN, Washington, D.C. 

Whitehead, H., A. Faucher, S. Gowans, and S. McCarrey. 

1997a. Status of the northern bottlenose whale, 

Hyperoodon ampullatus, in the Gully, Nova Scotia. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:287-292. 

Whitehead, H., S. Gowans, A. Faucher, and S.W. McCarrey. 

1997b. Population analysis of northern bottlenose 

whales in The Gully, Nova Scotia. Marine Mammal 

Science 13:173-185. 

Whitehead, H., R.R. Reeves, and P.L. Tyack. 2000. Science 

and the conservation, protection, and management of 

wild cetaceans. Pages 308-332 in J. Mann, R.C. Connor, 

P.L. Tyack, and H. Whitehead, eds., Cetacean societies: 

field studies of dolphins and whales. University of 

Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 

Wishner, K.F., J.R. Schoenherr, R. Beardsley, and C. Chen. 

1995. Abundance, distribution and population structure 

of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus in a springtime 

right whale feeding area in the southwestern Gulf of 

Maine. Continental Shelf Research 15:475-507. 

Zacharias, M., and D. Howes. 1998. An analysis of marine 

protected areas in British Columbia, Canada, using a 

marine ecological classification. Natural Areas Journal 

18(1):4-12. 

38 
Glossary 

Biosphere Reserve: Criteria for selection are 

representativeness, naturalness, biological 

diversity, and effectiveness as a conservation unit 

(Agardy 1993). “Biosphere Reserves are not 

analogous to national parks, sanctuaries, or other 

traditionally managed forms of protected area. 

Their design and operation is rooted in sustainable 

use rather than protectionism and promotes 

stewardship by human beings rather than their 

exclusion” (Agardy 1993). 

Cetacean Sanctuary: A place where no cetacean is 

allowed to be killed, taken alive, or harassed; the 

environmental qualities necessary for cetaceans to 

perform their biological functions (e.g., breeding, 

calving, migrating, feeding) are not impaired by 

human activities; only benign scientific research 

and observations by the public are allowed, and 

then only under appropriate controls; and public 

awareness of the significance of cetaceans in the 

natural environment can be enhanced 

(Anonymous 1979). 

Ecological Reserve: An area where all extractive 

activities are prohibited (Anonymous 

1999/2000b). 

Marine Life Reserve: Used in California to denote 

an area where all extractive activities are 

prohibited (Anonymous 1999/2000b). 

Marine Managed Area: A named, discrete marine 

or estuarine area (in California) designated using 

legislative, administrative or voter-initiative processes, and intended to protect, conserve, or otherwise manage a variety of resources and their uses 

(Resources Agency of California 2000). 

Marine Protected Area: Any area of inter-tidal or 

sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying waters 

and associated flora, fauna, and historical and 

cultural features, which has been reserved by 

legislation to manage or protect part or all of the 

enclosed environment (Kelleher and Kenchington 

1992). 

Marine Reserve: Some authors consider this term 

synonymous with “no-take zone,” i.e., an area 

where the removal of specified resources such as 

marine mammals, fish, shellfish, and sea-grasses is 

prohibited (e.g., Bohnsack 1996). 

National Marine Sanctuary (US): An area with 

resource or human use values of “special national 

significance” (to include conservation, ecological, 

research, recreational, commercial, educational, 

aesthetic, cultural, historical, archaeological, or 

paleontological values) that is managed primarily 

to protect those values (paraphrased from Weber 

1997). 

National Park (US): Generally a large natural area 

with a wide variety of attributes, sometimes 

including significant historical assets, where 

hunting, mining, and “consumptive activities” are 

not authorized (Weber 1997). 

National Preserve (US): An area with characteristics associated with national parks but in which 

public hunting, trapping, and hydrocarbon 

development are allowed (Weber 1997). 

National Seashore (US): A segment of coastline 

that is managed in the same manner as a National 

Park following passage of the Redwood National 

Park Act of 1988 (16 USC 79A-79Q). 

The following definitions are slightly paraphrased from IUCN (1994; objectives from 

Kelleher 1998). Taken together, they constitute 

the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories: 

Strict Nature Reserve: An area with outstanding or 

representative ecosystems, geological or 

physiological features, or species, available 

39 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

primarily for scientific research or environmental 

monitoring. Objective: strict protection. 

Wilderness Area: A large, unmodified or only 

slightly modified area that retains its natural 

character and influence, without permanent or 

significant human habitation, protected and 

managed so as to preserve its naturalness. 

National Park: An area designated to protect the 

“ecological integrity” of one or more ecosystems, 

exclude exploitation or occupation that would 

compromise the purposes of designation, and 

provide spiritual, scientific, educational, and recreational opportunities, all of which must be “environmentally and culturally compatible.” 

Objective: ecosystem conservation and recreation. 

Natural Monument: An area with one or more 

specific natural or natural/cultural features, of 

outstanding or unique value due to their inherent 

rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities, or 

cultural significance. Objective: Conservation of 

natural features. 

Habitat/Species Management Area: An area 

subject to active intervention for management 

purposes intended to maintain habitat or to meet 

the requirements of particular species. (Agardy 

[1997:102] regards the IWC whale sanctuaries in 

the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean as examples 

of this type of protected area.) Objective: 

conservation through active management. 

Protected Seascape: An area of distinct character 

and significant esthetic, ecological, or cultural 

value, managed to preserve “traditional 

interaction” between humans and the coastal 

environment. Objective: seascape conservation 

and recreation. 

Managed Resource Protected Area: An area containing predominantly unmodified natural 

systems, managed to maintain biological diversity 

but also provide for “sustainable use.” Objective: 

sustainable use of natural ecosystems. 

40 
Appendix 1: Selected Examples of Protected Areas Outside North America 

That Contribute to Marine Mammal Conservation 

International Whaling Commission (IWC) 

Whale Sanctuaries 

Although the creation of whale sanctuaries by the 

International Whaling Commission is often regarded as a recent development, the sanctuary 

concept was present long before the IWC came 

into existence. In 1913-14, the authorities in 

Western Australia declared a sanctuary offshore of 

Norwegian Bay, aimed at preventing Norwegian 

whalers from hunting whales on their calving 

grounds (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982:224). 

Under an international whaling agreement in 

1938, the area of the Antarctic (south of 40ES) 

between the South Shetland Islands (70EW) and 

the eastern Ross Sea (160EW) was declared a 

sanctuary, initially for two years. According to 

Tønnessen and Johnsen (1982:461), this decision 

was uncontroversial because “very few whales 

were known to be found in this area, and no 

expedition would consider catching there.” The 

sanctuary was not opened to whaling until 1955, 

when it was opened provisionally for three years. 

It quickly became evident that the density of 

whales in sanctuary waters had been 

underestimated, and the area remained open to 

whaling thereafter. Again, as Tønnessen and Johnsen (1982:563) succinctly explain, “The opening 

of the Sanctuary was a sacrifice made by science 

to whaling in the (feeble) hope that this would 

correspondingly ease pressure on stocks in other 

sectors.” 

The Indian Ocean Sanctuary, extending from the 

Asian land mass in the north, southward to 55ES, 

was established in 1979 for ten years, and it has 

been extended twice since then. It is scheduled for 

review in 2002. The Southern Ocean Sanctuary, 

established in 1994, has its northern border along 

40ES latitude except in the Indian Ocean, where it 

is along 55ES, and the Pacific Ocean, where it is 

along 60ES. This sanctuary is also scheduled for 

reconsideration at 10yr intervals. In both 

instances, management consists of a ban on 

commercial whaling by IWC member states. 

Because the IWC does not officially consider most 

toothed cetaceans other than the sperm whale as 

being within its competence, the sanctuary 

provides no benefit to them. Also, every year since 

the worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling 

began in 1986, Japan has taken hundreds of minke 

whales inside the Southern Ocean Sanctuary as 

part of a scientific research program. 

Wadden Sea National Park of 

Schleswig-Holstein (Germany) 

In 1999, the parliament of the North German state 

of Schleswig-Holstein established a sanctuary for 

small cetaceans off the islands of Sylt and Amrum 

in the North Sea. The main purpose of the 

sanctuary is to restrict human activities, such as 

gillnet fishing, jet skiing, and high-speed motor 

boating, to the benefit of harbor porpoises (Reeves 

and Notarbartolo di Sciara 1998). Aerial surveys 

and stranding programs indicate that these waters 

are used by porpoises to give birth and nurse their 

young (Sonntag et al. 1999), and therefore that the 

sanctuary may protect a “source habitat” (sensu 

Pulliam 1988) for the North Sea’s harbor porpoise 

population. 

International Sanctuary for 

Mediterranean Cetaceans 

A sanctuary for cetaceans was initially declared in 

the northwestern Mediterranean Sea by ministers 

from Italy, France, and Monaco in 1993 (Gordon 

et al. 2000). In 1995, the Barcelona Convention 

Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and 

Biodiversity was revised to facilitate the establishment of protected areas on the high seas within the 

Mediterranean Basin, where all national jurisdictions extend only 22.2 km offshore rather than the 

41 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

global standard Exclusive Economic Zone width 

of 200 n.mi (G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, pers. 

comm. 3 Dec. 1999). Accordingly, the 96,000 km2 

sanctuary, centered in the Ligurian Sea, was 

formally established in 1999. Most of the area of 

the sanctuary is on the high seas. Although the 

sanctuary was initially intended to protect both 

monk seals and cetaceans, seals no longer occur in 

the area, so it is essentially a cetacean sanctuary. 

Striped dolphins and sperm whales occur regularly 

and are relatively abundant within the sanctuary, 

and both species are threatened throughout the 

Mediterranean by entanglement in driftnets, 

pollution, and possibly reduced prey due to 

overfishing (Aguilar 2000; Gordon et al. 2000). 

Irish Whale and Dolphin Sanctuary 

(Ireland) 

Ireland itself was declared a whale and dolphin 

sanctuary in 1991 (Rogan and Berrow 1995). The 

boundaries of the sanctuary encompass the Irish 

state=s entire 200n.mi. exclusive economic zone. 

Its legal status hinges solely on three legislative 

instruments – the Whale Fisheries Act of 1937, the 

Wildlife Act of 1976, and an amendment to the 

Whale Fisheries Act in 1982 which extended full 

protection to all cetaceans, not just the baleen 

whales. The main significance of the Wildlife Act 

is that it protects cetaceans, and their habitat to 

12n.mi. offshore, from “willful interference.” Although calling the Irish EEZ a sanctuary may be a 

misnomer in some respects, the declaration is said 

to have had a number of ramifications, including 

enhancement of research, public education and 

awareness, and development of dolphin watching 

(E. Rogan, pers. comm., 15 April 2000). 

Svalbard (Spitsbergen) 

The marine mammals in and around the Svalbard 

archipelago in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean 

were plundered from the early 1600s (bowhead 

whales and walruses) to the mid-1900s (white 

whales). As a result, the bowhead and walrus 

populations there were essentially extirpated, and 

the white whale population greatly reduced. 

Norway acquired Svalbard after the First World 

War. In 1973, approximately half of the 

archipelago was declared (by royal decree) to be 

within nature reserves or national parks. The 

borders of these protected areas extend to 4nmi 

offshore, and hunting and trapping are entirely 

prohibited within them. At present, some 72% of 

Svalbard’s territorial waters are inside protected 

areas. 

Protection of polar bear denning habitat was one 

of the main reasons for establishing the vast 

(19,030 km2

) Northeast Svalbard Nature Reserve, 

which contains one of the most important polar 

bear denning sites (for birth and early nursing) in 

the world (I.L.B. Gjertz, pers. comm., 10 Dec. 

1999). All access to this site is prohibited yearround. 

Moffen Nature Reserve is a small (16 km2

) island 

north of Spitsbergen. It is inside the Northwest 

Spitsbergen National Park (3560 km2

) and is specially protected from 15 May to 15 September 

when all access to within 300m of the shoreline is 

prohibited. The reserve was established as a bird 

and walrus sanctuary in 1983, by which time it 

had become clear that Svalbard’s walrus 

population was coming back from virtual 

extinction (Born 1984). Moffen remains the bestknown walrus haul-out site in Svalbard because of 

its accessibility and frequent visitation by tourists 

and others (Gjertz and Wiig 1984; Gjertz, 

pers.comm. 10 Dec. 1999). 

Close to 99% of the haul-out habitat presently 

used by walruses in Svalbard is within protected 

areas. All extractive (=consumptive) economic 

activity, apart from shrimp trawling in waters 

deeper than 100m, is forbidden within the 

boundaries of these protected areas, so a large part 

of the hauling and feeding habitat for walruses in 

Svalbard is legally protected. Importantly, 

however, intensive trawling for Icelandic scallops 

(Chlamys islandica) has taken place since the mid1980s in Svalbard waters, at depths of 20-70m, 

and there is reason to believe that this has 

damaged benthic communities on which walruses 

depend (Born et al. 1995). Moffen Nature Reserve 

is located in the center of the richest scallop banks 

42 
The Value of Sanctuaries, Parks, and Reserves (Protected Areas) as Tools for Conserving Marine Mammals 

in Svalbard. According to Norwegian biologist Ian 

Gjertz (in Born et al. 1995:80): “In the mid-1980s 

this led to a siege of Moffen by a fleet of trawlers 

that, whenever given a chance, violated the 

protected area. This activity occurred in spite of 

the increased surveillance by the coastguard and 

police.” 

Another important consideration in regard to walruses and protected areas in Svalbard is that most 

of the animals hauling out there are males. The assumption is that they are part of a population 

whose distribution includes Franz Josef Land in 

Russia. Presumably, females and calves occur 

mainly in the latter archipelago and to some extent 

in the extreme northeastern parts of Svalbard 

(Gjertz and Wiig 1994). Thus, it could be argued 

that the protected areas in Svalbard benefit 

primarily the male component of the population, 

and that therefore a vital component of the 

population is left out of the protected area 

network. Franz Josef Land was declared a federal 

zakasnik (nature reserve; 42,000km2

) in 1994 and 

is contained within the proposed Russian Arctic 

National Park, which was approved by Arkhangelsk District in 1999 (Nikiforov and Mescherskaya 

1999). 

The world’s northernmost population of harbor 

seals lives along the west coast of Prins Karls 

Forland, off the central west coast of Spitsbergen 

(Prestrud and Gjertz 1990). Some of this population’s feeding areas and most its known haul-out 

and pupping sites are within Forlandet National 

Park (540km2

) (I.L.B. Gjertz, pers. comm., 10 

Dec. 1999). 

An initiative is underway to expand the protected 

area network in Svalbard (Prokosch 1999). The 

polar bear is the marine mammal species most 

likely to benefit from such expansion (the 

proposed Hopen Island Nature Reserve contains 

denning habitat). 

Greenland National Park and 

Melville Bugt Nature Reserve (Greenland) 

Greenland National Park, established in 1974, 

covers the northeastern third of the country 

(972,000km2

, mostly land). Initially, polar bears 

and walruses were to be completely protected 

within the park’s borders, but since 1976 hunting 

by Greenlanders has been allowed. The only 

special restrictions are that the hunters do not 

settle permanently in the area and that they do not 

rely on assistance from park maintenance facilities 

(Born 1995). Melville Bugt Nature Reserve, 

established in 1980, exists explicitly for the 

benefit of Greenlandic hunters. Special permits 

from the Home Rule Government are required for 

entry into the reserve. In addition to being open to 

hunting, both the park and the reserve are open to 

mineral exploration and exploitation, under permit 

(Born 1995). 

Bouvetøya (Bouvet Island), 

Antarctica (Norway) 

The Antarctic island of Bouvet was officially 

designated as a Norwegian dependency in 1930. A 

principal reason for making the claim was Norway=s interest in Antarctic whaling (B. Njastad, 

Norwegian Polar Institute, pers. comm., 15 Dec. 

1999). The island had been one of the many sites 

of industrial sealing in the early 1800s, and it can 

be assumed that the population of Antarctic fur 

seals (Arctocephalus gazella) using the island as a 

pupping and breeding site was rapidly depleted (if 

not exterminated) by mid-century (Bonner 1982). 

Sealing was prohibited in 1929, and in 1935 the 

Norwegian government declared all seals on the 

island to be protected species. In 1971, the entire 

island and its territorial waters (to 4n.mi. from 

shore) were declared a nature preserve. Access to 

the island and human activities within the reserve 

are strictly regulated under both the royal decree 

of 1971 and the “Management Plan for CEMP – 

Bouvetøya.” Only authorized scientific activities 

and a certain amount of tourism are allowed at 

Bouvet Island. 

The fur seal population increased from about 4000 

in 1978-79 (Haftorn et al. 1981) to 7900 in 1990 

and 64,000 in 1997 (B. Njastad, Norwegian Polar 

Institute, pers. comm., 15 Dec. 1999). Southern 

elephant seals haul out regularly in the Nyrøysa 

area but are not known to use Bouvet as a pupping 

or breeding site (Ibid.). 

43 
Table 1. Protected areas outside North America intended (at least in part) to benefit 

marine mammals (also see Appendix 1). 1 

Name of Area Location or Marine Year Comments 

Country Mammals Established 

Affected 

INTERNATIONAL 

IWC Indian Ocean Indian Ocean, 20-130EE Mainly baleen 1979 Commercial whaling banned 

Sanctuary and north of 55ES whales and sperm 

whale 

IWC Southern Ocean Antarctic to 40°S except Mainly baleen 1994 Commercial whaling banned 

Sanctuary in Indian Ocean (55°S) whales and sperm 

and Pacific Ocean (60°S) whale 

OCEANIA 

Flinders Chase National Cape du Couedic, New Zealand fur ? Visitation managed to protect seals 

Park Kangaroo Island, South seal from disturbance 

Australia 

Point Labatt Conservation 

Park 

South Australia mainland Australian sea lion 1973 Protects haul-out beach as well as 

waters to 1nmi offshore 

Seal Bay Conservation Kangaroo Island, South Australian sea lion 1971 (having Intensively managed to promote 

Park Australia (New Zealand fur existed in other tourism and maintain the sea lion 

seal also present) forms since 1954), population 

expanded 1974 

Banks Peninsula Marine East coast of South Hector’s dolphin 1988 Prohibits commercial gillnetting, 

Mammal Sanctuary Island, New Zealand limits recreational gillnetting 

Great Barrier Reef Marine 

Park 

Australia Dugong, 

humpback whale, 

Indo-Pacific 

hump-backed 

1975 Intensively and complexly 

managed area, with dugong as a 

major focus of conservation efforts 

dolphin, pygmy 

minke whale 

Great Australian Bight 

Marine National Park 

Approx. 300km of 

coastline in South 

Australia, incl. waters to 

Southern right 

whale, Australian 

sea lion 

1996 Includes year-round exclusion zone 

in Head of the Bight where right 

whales congregate in winter (with 

3nmi offshore their calves), and six prohibited 

areas, each 1nmi in radius, around 

sea lion breeding colonies 

Maza Wildlife Western Province, Papua Dugong 1978 Intended to protect dugong habitat 

Management Area New Guinea (184,230 ha) and manage continued hunting; 

effectiveness uncertain (Asigau 

1991) 

EUROPE 

Northeast Greenland 972,000 sq. km of land in Walrus, polar bear 1974, expanded Prevents commercial hunting but 

National Park NE Greenland 1988 allows “subsistence” hunting; 

restricts (but does not prohibit) 

mineral development 

1

This list is illustrative rather than comprehensive; many more protected areas with relevance to marine mammals exist 

throughout the world. 

44 
Name of Area Location or Marine Year Comments 

Country Mammals Established 

Affected 

Wadden Sea National Park 

of Schleswig-Holstein 

German Wadden Sea, 

east side of North Sea 

Harbor porpoise 1999, national park 

jurisdiction 

extended to include 

coastal waters 

Bans high-speed watercraft, 

industrial fishing, etc. in porpoise 

“nursery” area 

around isles of Sylt 

and Amrum 

International Sanctuary for 

Mediterranean Cetaceans 

Ligurian Sea, 

Northwestern 

Mediterranean Basin 

(96,000 sq. km) 

Fin, sperm, 

Cuvier’s beaked, 

and long-finned 

pilot whales; 

Risso’s, striped, 

bottlenose, and 

1999, by agreement 

of Italy, France, and 

Monaco 

Only in initial stages; whale 

watching regulated, high-speed 

offshore competitions to be 

regulated or prohibited, monitoring 

of cetacean populations 

short-beaked 

common dolphins 

National Marine Park of Greece Mediterranean 1986 Awareness and enforcement have 

Alonnissos Northern monk seal been effective in reducing monk 

Sporades seal mortality 

Nature Reserve of Las Madeira Natural Park, Mediterranean 1990 Protection has been effective, and 

Desertas Islands Madeira monk seal the small local population of seals 

has increased 

Foça Specially Protected 

Area 

Turkish Black Sea coast Mediterranean 

monk seal 

199? Uncertain 

Valaam Archipelago Lake Ladoga, Karelian Ladoga ringed seal 1992 Further restrictions needed to 

Nature Reserve Republic of Russia reduce disturbance of hauled-out 

seals by campers (Sipilä and 

Hyvärinen 1998) 

Franz Josef Land State NE Russia (42,000 sq. Arctic seals, 1994 Nominal protection from 

Nature Reserve km, of which 62% is whales, polar disturbance 

marine) bears 

White Sea Nature Reserve NE Russia Arctic seals and 

belugas 

? Nominal protection from 

disturbance 

Kara Sea Nature Reserve Central Russian Arctic Arctic seals and 

whales 

? Nominal protection from 

disturbance 

ASIA 

Sha Chau and Lung Kwu 

Chau Marine Park 

Hong Kong Indo-Pacific 

hump-backed 

dolphin (locally 

called Chinese 

1996 Prohibits high-speed watercraft and 

some kinds of fishing 

white dolphin) 

National Chambal Chambal River, India Ganges river 1978 Primary purpose: protection of 

Sanctuary (157km) dolphin gharial (Gavialus gangeticus) 

Vikramshila Gangetic 50km segment of Ganges Ganges river 1991 Nominal protection to dolphins; 

Dolphin Sanctuary River in Bihar state, India dolphin monitoring abundance 

Sind Dolphin Reserve Segment of Indus River 

between Sukkur and 

Indus river 

dolphin 

1974 Nominal protection to dolphins 

Guddu barrages, Pakistan 

(170km?) 

45 
Name of Area Location or Marine Year Comments 

Country Mammals Established 

Affected 

AFRICA 

Djoudj National Park NW Senegal, includes West African ? Unclear if still effective for this 

Senegal River delta manatee species 

Saloum Delta National 

Park 

Central Senegal West African 

manatee, Atlantic 

1976? Poaching and bycatch in fisheries 

occurs, but these and other harmful 

hump-backed activities would be worse without 

dolphin the protection provided by park 

staff (K. Van Waerebeek, 

pers.comm.) 

Niumi National Park Gambia Atlantic humpbacked dolphin, 

? Poaching and bycatch in fisheries 

occurs, but these and other harmful 

probably West activities would be worse without 

African manatee the protection provided by park 

staff (K. Van Waerebeek, 

pers.comm.) 

Kiang West National Park Gambia Bottlenose 

dolphin, probably 

West African 

? Poaching and bycatch in fisheries 

occurs, but these and other harmful 

activities would be worse without 

manatee the protection provided by park 

staff; some commercial dolphin 

watching (K. Van Waerebeek, 

pers.comm.) 

National Park of Banc 

d’Arguin 

Mauritania; ca. 12,000 sq. 

km, including coastal 

Mediterranean 

monk seal, 

1976 Artisanal fishing is allowed within 

the park and probably involves 

waters mainly <5m deep Atlantic humpbacked dolphin, 

substantial bycatch of marine 

mammals, but exclusion of 

bottlenose dolphin industrial fishing and other general 

protection given to wildlife and fish 

probably benefits marine mammals 

to some extent. 

SOUTH AMERICA 

Galápagos Islands Marine Ecuador Galápagos fur National Park Full protection for all wildlife 

Resources Reserve and seal, Galápagos established 1979, 

Whale Sanctuary sea lion, coastal whale sanctuary 

cetaceans 1990 

National Marine Park of 

Fernando de Noronha 

345 km off coast of Rio 

Grande do Norte state, 

Spinner dolphin 1988 Dolphin-watching is a major 

feature, and the local spinner 

Brazil dolphin population is closely 

monitored; a primary purpose of 

the park designation was to 

facilitate and regulate dolphinwatching. 

Abrolhos Marine National 

Park 

Bahia State, Brazil Humpback whale ? ? 

National Park Natural Isla Near Guapi, NW Humpback whale 1985 See Flórez-González (1991) 

Gorgona Colombia (ca. 49,200ha) (calving area) 

Lobos Island Ecological Near border between South American 1983 Protected haul-out site 

Reserve states of Santa Catarina sea lion and fur 

and Rio Grande do Sul, seal 

Brazil 

46 
Name of Area Location or Marine Year Comments 

Country Mammals Established 

Affected 

Environmental Protection Florianópolis, Santa Tucuxi (marine 1992 Nominal protection from 

Area of Anhatomirim / Bay Catarina, Brazil (3000 ha type) harassment 

of Dolphins of marine and contiguous 

terrestrial area) 

Golfo San José Whale Peninsula Valdés, Southern right 1974 Popular sight for whale watching 

Sanctuary (Marine Argentina whale and research, whale population 

Provincial Park) closely monitored, continuing need 

for restrictions on industrial activity 

Provincial Wildlife Peninsula Valdés, Southern elephant ? Protects breeding haul-out beach 

Reserve of North Point Argentina seal 

(Punta Norte) 

Provincial Wildlife Peninsula Valdés, Southern sea lion ? Protects breeding haul-out beach 

Reserve of Punta Argentina 

Pirámides 

Pacaya-Samiria National Peruvian Amazon Boto, tucuxi, 1972 Nominal protection to animals, 

Reserve (2,080,000 ha) Amazon manatee some limitation of industrial 

activity 

Estaçao Ecológica do Lago Western Brazilian Boto, tucuxi, 1990 May provide some benefits by 

Mamirauá Amazon (1,124,000 ha) Amazon manatee excluding commercial fishing and 

hunting but allows “subsistence” 

hunting of manatees to continue 

CENTRAL 

AMERICA 

Silver Bank National 

Humpback Whale 

Sanctuary 

Dominican Republic 

(bank is about 35km2

) 

Humpback whale 1986 (presidential 

decree) 

Prohibits whaling, waste disposal, 

and alteration of the sea bottom on 

the bank; this is a major breeding 

ground for humpbacks 

Biotopo para la NE shore and West Indian 1979 First manatee reserve in Central or 

Conservación del Manatí surrounding habitat of El manatee South America (Lefebvre et al. 

Chocon-Machacas Golfete, Guatemala 1989; Marsh and Lefebvre 1994) 

Corozal Bay Wildlife Belize Antillean manatee 1998 Created specifically to protect 

Sanctuary manatees (Morales-Vela et al. 

2000) 

Miskito Coast Protected Atlantic coast, Nicaragua West Indian 1991 Established primarily to protect sea 

Area manatee, tucuxi turtle nesting grounds 

Tortuguero National Park Atlantic coast, Costa Rica West Indian 

manatee 

1970 Benefits to manatees incidental 

Coppename River Nature Surinam (10,000 ha) West Indian ? Benefits to manatees incidental 

Reserve manatee 

47 
Table 2. The 13 National Marine Sanctuaries in the United States and their relevance 

to the conservation of marine mammals [data from Center for the Economy 

and the Environment 1999 or http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov] 

Sanctuary 

(Year of 

Designation) 

Location (Size) Marine 

Mammals 

Regulations and other 

Relevant Features 

Evaluation * 

Monitor Cape Hatteras, Not relevant None Of no importance to 

(1975) North Carolina marine mammals 

(shipwreck site 

only) 

Channel 

Islands (1980) 

22n.mi. off Santa 

Barbara, CA; 

Numerous 

mysticete and 

Prohibitions on dumping 

and discharging, alteration 

Of major importance 

to numerous marine 

includes all waters 

within 6n.mi. of 

odontocete 

cetaceans; 

of the seabed, and cargo 

ships within, respectively, 

mammal populations; 

supplements 

mean high tide on 

Anacapa, Santa 

phocid and 

otariid pinnipeds 

6, 2, or 1n.mi. of any 

island; extensive visitor 

regulations applying 

to Channel Islands 

Cruz, Santa Rosa, 

San Miguel, and 

support, public education, 

and resource inventory 

National Park; 

recreational and 

Santa Barbara 

islands (1658n.mi2

) 

programs; active in 

facilitating research 

commercial fishing 

and kelp harvesting 

are allowed 

Gulf of the Immediately north Numerous Prohibitions on mineral Of major importance 

Farallones 

(1981) 

and west of San 

Francisco 

(948n.mi. 2

) 

mysticete and 

odontocete 

cetaceans; 

phocid and 

exploration and 

exploitation, dumping and 

discharging, alteration of 

the seabed, and cargo ships 

to numerous marine 

mammal populations; 

supplements 

regulations applying 

otariid pinnipeds within 2mi around Farallon 

Islands, Bolinas Lagoon, 

to Point Reyes 

National Seashore and 

and other specified areas Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area 

Gray=s Reef 

(1981) 

17.5n.mi. off 

Sapelo Island, GA 

 (23mi2

) 

Right whale Managed mainly to 

accommodate sport fishing 

and diving; education 

program raises awareness 

about right whales 

Despite claimed 

importance as right 

whale Acalving@ 

habitat, original 

designation was 

unrelated to this 

feature, and the claim 

itself is questionable; 

main purpose is to 

protect a sandstone 

reef ecosystem (Alive 

bottom habitat@) 

48 
Sanctuary 

(Year of 

Designation) 

Location (Size) Marine 

Mammals 

Regulations and other 

Relevant Features 

Evaluation * 

Fagatele Bay 

(1986) 

American Samoa, 

South Pacific 

Ocean (0.25mi2

) 

Humpback 

whale, several 

dolphin species 

Emphasis on Acommunity 

outreach@ and education; 

some biophysical 

monitoring; restrictions on 

fishing methods 

No direct importance 

for marine mammal 

conservation; main 

purpose is to protect a 

tropical coral reef 

ecosystem 

Cordell Bank 

(1989) 

45n.mi. northwest 

of Golden Gate 

Bridge, San 

Francisco 

(397n.mi. 2

) 

Dall=s porpoise, 

humpback whale 

Prohibitions on oil, gas, or 

mineral exploration and 

exploitation, dumping and 

discharging, and taking 

benthic invertebrates or 

algae from the bank or 

within 50-fathom isobath 

surrounding it 

Main purpose is to 

protect a major 

upwelling area; 

sanctuary status has 

little or no effect on 

fishing, which is 

probably the most 

significant threat to 

marine mammals on 

the bank 

Florida Keys 

(1990) 

Southern Florida 

(221mi-long 

archipelago; 

3674mi.2

) 

Primarily 

common, 

bottlenose, and 

Atlantic spotted 

dolphins, Florida 

manatee 

Management is complex 

and involves 

accommodation for 

multiple use (especially 

recreational diving, 

snorkeling, and fishing, 

and commercial fishing); 

zoning; some no-take 

Probably contributes 

at least indirectly to 

conservation of some 

odontocete cetaceans, 

and possibly 

manatees, by 

supporting their food 

base; main purpose is 

zones to protect a 

subtropical coral reef 

ecosystem 

Stellwagen Off Cape Cod, Mysticete Prohibition on any Has had difficulty 

Bank (1992) Massachusetts 

(842mi2

 or 

2181km2

) 

whales, 

particularly 

humpback, fin, 

right, and minke; 

alteration of the seabed 

(e.g., sand and gravel 

mining); agreement with 

the U.S. Coast Guard 

establishing its 

relevance to 

conservation, but there 

is potential for 

several 

odontocetes; 

provides enhanced 

enforcement capability 

regulating harmful 

activities and raising 

harbor seal awareness 

Monterey Bay 

(1992) 

348n.mi. along the 

central California 

Sea otter; 

numerous 

Prohibitions on oil, gas, 

and mineral exploration 

Of major importance 

to numerous marine 

coast, average 

width 30n.mi. 

(5328mi.2

) 

mysticete and 

odontocete 

cetaceans; 

phocid and 

and exploitation, dumping 

and discharging, and 

alteration of the seabed; 

some restrictions on vessel 

mammal populations; 

recreational and 

commercial fishing 

are allowed 

otariid pinnipeds and aircraft traffic 

49 
Sanctuary 

(Year of 

Designation) 

Location (Size) Marine 

Mammals 

Regulations and other 

Relevant Features 

Evaluation * 

Hawaiian Areas bordering all Humpback No regulations specific to Main purpose is to 

Islands 

Humpback 

the main Hawaiian 

Islands (1300mi2

) 

whale, many 

odontocete 

the sanctuary; primarily 

engaged in education and 

enhance protection 

and public enjoyment 

Whale (1992) species, 

Hawaiian monk 

monitoring of human 

activity 

of humpback whales, 

but of no evident 

seal (occasional) regulatory benefit to 

marine mammals 

Flower 110mi off None known None of relevance Main purpose is to 

Garden Banks Louisiana and protect northernmost 

(1992; Stetson 

Bank added 

Texas coast 

(56mi.2

); Stetson 

coral reef in US; of 

little direct relevance 

1996) Bank 70n.mi. S of to marine mammal 

Galveston, TX conservation 

Olympic Coast 

(1994) 

Washington coast 

from U.S.-Canada 

Numerous 

mysticete and 

Prohibitions on oil, gas, 

and mineral exploration 

Of major importance 

to numerous marine 

border southward 

for 117n.mi., 

odontocete 

cetaceans; 

and exploitation, dumping 

and discharging, and 

mammal populations; 

recreational and 

average width, 

30n.mi. 

(2500n.mi. 2

) 

phocid and 

otariid pinnipeds 

alteration of the seabed; 

some restrictions on 

aircraft traffic 

commercial fishing 

are allowed; Indian 

treaty rights to hunting 

and fishing are 

honored 

Thunder Bay Lake Huron (Great None None Of no importance to 

(2000) Lakes), Michigan marine mammals 

(shipwreck site) 

* In all sanctuaries where marine mammals are present, there may be indirect benefits in the form of education 

programs and support for research administered through the sanctuary. 

50