Content uploaded by Lars Bejder
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lars Bejder on Feb 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale
populations: Evaluating the case for downlisting their conservation
status in Australia
Michelle Bejder
a
, David W. Johnston
b,c
, Joshua Smith
c
, Ari Friedlaender
d
, Lars Bejder
b,c,
n
a
BMT Oceanica, PO Box 462, Wembley, Western Australia 6913, Australia
b
Division of Marine Science and Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Marine Laboratory,135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort,
NC 28516, USA
c
Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia
d
Marine Mammal Institute, Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University, 2030 SE, Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365, USA
article info
Article history:
Received 16 February 2015
Received in revised form
18 May 2015
Accepted 18 May 2015
Keywords:
Humpback whale
Recovery
Conservation status
Downlisting
Australia
abstract
Optimism and hope in conservation biology are supported by examples of endangered species recovery,
such as the population growth observed in humpback whales in several of the world's oceans. In
Australia, monitoring data suggest rapid recovery for both east and west coast populations, which are
now larger than 50% of their pre-whaling abundance. The measured growth rates exceed known species
trends worldwide and have no indication of diminishing. Under Australian Commonwealth legislation
and regulations, these populations should be considered for downlisting, as they are not eligible for
listing as a threatened species against all statutory criteria. A change in conservation status will produce
new challenges for the conservation and management of a recovered species, especially with the
Australian economic landscape experiencing large-scale growth and development in recent years. More
importantly, a recovered humpback whale population may bring a positive shift in the research goals
and objectives throughout Australia by ensuring other endangered species an equal chance of recovery
while delivering hope, optimism, and an opportunity to celebrate a conservation success.
&2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Marine mammals exhibit many of the characteristics of Ehren-
feld's [1] hypothetical most endangered animal, including large
size, long lifespans, late reproductive age, few offspring, commer-
cial value, distributions that cross international boundaries, and
behaviors that place them at risk from a number of anthropogenic
activities [2,3]. These vulnerabilities manifested in historic extinc-
tions (e.g. Steller's sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas)[4]), modern
extinctions (e.g. Yangtze river dolphin or baiji (Lipotes vexillifer)
[5–7]), and the plight of critically endangered species that may go
extinct within a generation (e.g. vaquita (Phocoena sinus); [8–10]).
Despite the vulnerability of marine mammals to negative human
impacts (intentional or otherwise), there is room for optimism.
Optimism and hope in conservation biology will always be
important factors for species recovery and success [11–14] . While
some debate the semantic differences between hope and opti-
mism [12], we purposely conflate the two, as one can lead to the
other regardless of initial state. Optimism and hope in conserva-
tion biology are essential, as the relentless communication of
conservation problems does not always encourage politicians,
policy makers, and the public to solve them [15]. The plight of
many marine mammal populations remains of concern globally,
and conservation biologists should not detract from these cases.
However, opportunities to illustrate and promote success must
also be highlighted, thus providing hope and optimism that
ongoing conservation actions can prevail. Ultimately, conservation
biologists seek to juxtapose the long litany of sobering conserva-
tion concerns with inspirational examples that motivate people to
use resources wisely and take sustainable and effective actions.
Presented here is an argument to revise the conservation status
of the population of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangilae)
that inhabit Australian waters under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), thus providing a
sensible and suitable opportunity to celebrate the recovery of an
iconic species, without dismantling existing legislative protections
from new and existing threats. Downlisting their conservation
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Marine Policy
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.007
0308-597X/&2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: michelle.bejder@gmail.com (M. Bejder),
david.johnston@duke.edu (D.W. Johnston), j.smith@murdoch.edu.au (J. Smith),
Ari.friedlaender@oregonstate.edu (A. Friedlaender),
l.bejder@murdoch.edu.au (L. Bejder).
Please cite this article as: Bejder M, et al. Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale populations: Evaluating the
case for downlisting their conservation status in Australia. Mar. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.007i
Marine Policy ∎(∎∎∎∎)∎∎∎–∎∎∎
status is consistent with recent decisions made internationally by
government agencies and conservation organizations to re-assess
the status of other humpback whale populations worldwide.
Furthermore, under the current management rationale, the Aus-
tralian humpback whale populations would unquestionably sur-
pass the justification to warrant downlisting. Taken collectively,
these decisions provide evidence of successful marine mammal
conservation that will encourage and justify future management
actions, and the allocation of future funding to species and
ecosystems at greater risk of extinction.
2. International context
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
downlisted the global status of humpback whales from a Red List
Category of Vulnerable to Least Concern. This decision was based
on trends in data and the likelihood that current abundance
estimates (460,000 whales worldwide) are greater than 50% of
the species' abundance in 1940 [16]. However, the IUCN acknowl-
edge a global concern for discrete and smaller sub-populations of
humpback whales from the Arabian Sea, western North Pacific,
west coast of Africa, and South Pacific subpopulations in portions
of Oceania [16]. While these smaller populations remain data
deficient and potential threats to recovery still exist, the IUCN
determined that the humpback whale global status is not sig-
nificantly impacted by current levels of anthropogenic mortality,
but rather is recovering strongly.
Humpback whale recovery has also led to downlisting in other
regions. In April 2014, the Canadian government reclassified the
North Pacific population of humpback whales in British Columbia
from threatened to species of special concern [17]. Based on an annual
rate of increase of 4.9–6.8% [18] with no signs of declining, this
population was determined to be recovering, despite the current
population estimate (2145 whales) being less than pre-exploitation
abundance (4000 whales) in 1905. In the USA, humpback whales
are listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act and
Depleted under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act [19].Based
on 2004–2006 data, the best available abundance estimate for the
entire North Pacific region included 20,800 humpback whales [19].
While still considered to be an under-estimate of actual abundance,
the estimate exceeds pre-exploitation population values of 15,000
humpback whales throughout the North Pacific[20].In2010,theUSA
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) initiated a global humpback
whale status review to ensure that the species conservation listing is
accurate and based on the best scientific and commercial data
available [21],andafinal report was published in March 2015 [22].
Based on distribution, ecological situation, genetics, and other factors,
15 humpback whale distinct population segments worldwide were
identified, among which nine were determined to not be at risk of
extinction with high certainty: the West Indies, Hawaii, Mexico, west
Australia, east Australia, Colombia, Brazil, Gabon/Southwest Africa,
and Southeast Africa/Madagascar [22].Consequently,in2013and
2014, petitions requested that NMFS reclassify and remove two of the
three North Pacific humpback whale populations from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Species. NMFS responded with a positive
finding that the petitions warranted action [23].
3. Exploitation and recovery of Australian humpback whales
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognizes seven
major breeding populations of humpback whales in the Southern
Hemisphere [24], of which two (D and E1) have their primary
calving areas in waters off north-western and north-eastern
Australia, respectively [25,26]. The historical exploitation of these
populations began in the 19th century, with whaling logbook
records of humpback whales sighted and caught along northern
and southern coasts of Western Australia [27]. Modern whaling in
Australian waters began in 1912 [28,29]. Although right and sperm
whales (Eubalaena australis and Physeter macrocephalus, respec-
tively) were the preferred species, humpback whales that calved in
Australian waters were killed at both ends of their geographic
range: on their Antarctic feeding grounds and along their migra-
tory pathways to their breeding grounds. The modernization of
whaling techniques resulted in industrial advancements (e.g.
steam powered boats and explosive harpoons), and catches were
achieved efficiently from the Australian, shore-based whaling
stations [28,29]. From 1935–1939, whaling records listed more
than 12,000 humpback whales taken from Breeding Stock D
(Group IV), with substantially less ( 200 whales) from Breeding
Stock E1 (Group V). The catch levels from 1949 to 1962 reported
higher catch numbers, including greater than 18,000 and 15,000
whales from Breeding Stocks D and E1, respectively [28].
Furthermore, unreported and illegal whaling operations by the
former USSR removed substantial numbers of humpback whales
from the Southern Hemisphere [30]. After the 1961 IWC Antarctic
restrictions, unreported catches of humpback whales from the
Antarctic area were suggested as a likely explanation of high
mortality rates observed [28]. Later revealed in 1993, illegal Soviet
whaling operations continued throughout the Southern Hemi-
sphere until 1972 and caused the greatest decline to humpback
whale populations inhabiting Australian waters, as more than
48,000 whales were taken [31–33]. Without whaling competition
and disregarding IWC regulations, the illegal catches dramatically
impacted the already depleted populations from the east coast of
Australia and New Zealand [33].
Despite the devastation caused by whaling, recent monitoring
data suggest a rapid recovery of both Australian humpback whale
populations. Early abundance estimates indicated that Breeding
Stock E1 (Group V) was reduced to approximately 500 humpback
whales by the end of 1962 [28]. However, recent population
assessments incorporated a more comprehensive catch dataset,
including the illegal catches from Soviet Antarctic whaling opera-
tions, and those models presented a likely minimum estimate of
1230 (median) humpback whales in 1968 [34]. Since 1986, annual,
shore-based observations documented population estimates with
consistent rates of increase from 9.7% in 1987 (1100 whales) to
11.7% in 1992 (1896 whales [35,36]). In 2004, land-based surveys
determined that the population recovered to 7090 whales (95% CI
6430–7750 [37]) and to 9683 whales (95% CI 8556–10,959) in
2007 [38]. The corresponding long-term rate of increase was
estimated at 10.9% per year. In 2010, the same stock was estimated
at 14,552 whales (95% CI 12,777–16,504) with no evidence of a
decline in the growth rate [39].
The lowest population estimate for Breeding Stock D was 268
whales in 1968 [29]. From 1982 to 1994, Bannister [40] estimated
this stock increased to 4000–5000 whales. In 1999, 2005 and
2008, three surveys were undertaken on this population on their
migratory route near Dirk Hartog Island. These surveys suggested
a 9.7% (CV¼0.25) rate of increase [41]. Unlike the surveys off
eastern Australia, the necessary corrections for availability and
perception bias were difficult to estimate due to challenges in
establishing a suitable land-based observation platform [41].
Therefore, absolute abundance estimates for Breeding Stock D
were difficult to derive and considered to be highly speculative by
the authors [41]. Mindful of the data limitations, Hedley et al. [42]
reported 11,500 whales (95% CI 9200–14,300) in 2006 and 33,850
whales (95% CI 27,340–50,260) in 2008. Similarly in 2008,
Salgado-Kent et al. [43] conducted an aerial survey off the North
West Cape and reported 26,100 whales (95% CI 20,152–33,272).
Again, the final results did not include reliable estimates of
M. Bejder et al. / Marine Policy ∎(∎∎∎∎)∎∎∎–∎∎∎2
Please cite this article as: Bejder M, et al. Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale populations: Evaluating the
case for downlisting their conservation status in Australia. Mar. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.007i
availability bias and were also likely to be adversely affected by
north and southbound milling whales overlapping in their migra-
tion paths [44].
Using these and other survey data, the IWC Scientific Commit-
tee continually assesses the recovery of the Australian populations
based on various techniques, such as Bayesian logistic population
dynamic models that require information on life history para-
meters, catch history, feeding, and breeding ground mixing and
distribution, as well as absolute or relative abundance estimates
[34]. These models also assume that the carrying capacity of the
population has not changed since before exploitation [45]. While
the general understanding of some of these parameters and
assumptions remains poorly documented, the modeling process
accommodates uncertainty and includes sensitivity runs to assess
how changes to certain parameters affect the outcome. The results
of the ‘base model’suggested that the abundance of Breeding
Stock D was 19,200 (17,553–24,012; 90% probability interval PI),
while Breeding Stock E1 contained 16,366 whales (14,674–18,034;
90% PI). In addition, the model suggested that in 2012, western
and eastern Australian populations were increasing at 9% and 10%
per year, and were 90% (74–98; 90% PI) and 63% (56–73; 90% PI) of
the pre-whaling population sizes, respectively [46].
Both available survey data and modeling predictions are
limited by the knowledge of certain biological parameters. As
such, maximum rates of increase may never be accurately or
reliably estimated, and the most realistic, theoretical values based
on the best available scientific data may not include maximum
values. Life history parameters will modify as humpback whales
respond to environmental changes, such as reduced exploitation
levels and inter-specific competition. Abundance estimates and
observations collected from breeding areas may present different
birth and mortality rates than those measured from feeding
grounds [47]. While estimating population abundance can be
inherently difficult, it is apparent that both the east and western
Australian populations are recovering rapidly and are now larger
than 50% of their pre-whaling abundance.
Scientific evidence continues to reveal that Australian hump-
back whale populations are increasing at remarkable rates. For the
Southern Hemisphere humpback whales, the IWC set an upper
limit for growth rate at 12.6% [48], very similar to the 12.7% rate of
increase from 2008 [42], which the authors acknowledge to be
biologically implausible but sufficiently robust. Thus, the observed
rates of increase for Breeding Stock D meet the IWC maximum
limit. For Breeding Stock E1, the long-term rate of increase (10.9%
from 1984 to 2010 [39]) was under the IWC limit but still
sufficiently high. Based on biological parameters of humpback
whales from the Northern Hemisphere, the maximum annual rate
of increase was estimated at 11.8%, with accepted limitations in
demographic parameters, environmental changes and other nat-
ural factors [47].
While some of the documented species trends (e.g. survival
rate, calving rate, age at sexual maturity) from the Northern
Hemisphere populations are not applicable, the Australian hump-
back whale populations' growth near maximum net productivity
was expected for depleted stocks [49,50], providing optimism for
future recovery. Recent population assessment models submitted
to the IWC attempted to clarify the high growth rates observed for
these populations of humpback whales. The results revealed
further uncertainty regarding customary Antarctic stock bound-
aries [50] as well as absolute abundance estimate [51], and
provided initial platforms on which further discussion and analysis
will be developed.
Additionally, it has been proposed that recent shifts in the
species' biological parameters are a possible explanation for
observed rapid population growth, which is reasonable to presume
when exploitation and competition are removed. Currently, the
density-dependent calving interval is accepted as a minimum
possible value of two years and was used to calculate the Breeding
Stock D 12% rate of increase from 1982 to 1994 [52]. If this interval
decreased to one year between calves, a possible 14% rate of
increase would be expected [52]. Therefore, if Breeding Stock D is
in fact experiencing a 12.7% rate of increase [42], it would seem
probable that the calving interval may be reduced and that a
change in the species biological characteristics may be occurring.
Finally, another recent explanation for the recovery of the
Australian humpback whale populations introduced the possibility
that observed rates of increases may be overestimated and
influenced by immigrations to the breeding grounds in response
to social mating behaviors and natural instincts to aggregate [53].
However, confirming the actual and true biological forces that are
driving the growth of these populations will never be resolved
without more demographic data.
4. Revising the conservation status of humpback whales in
Australia
In Australia, the primary legislation that protects humpback
whales is the EPBC Act, which conserves the biodiversity of the
environment and promotes ecologically sustainable development.
The EPBC Act protects all cetaceans within the Australian Whale
Sanctuary that encompasses all Commonwealth waters, from the
state limit (three nautical miles) to the Australian Exclusive
Economic Zone boundary (200 nautical miles). Killing, injuring
or interfering with a cetacean within the Australian Whale
Sanctuary is a criminal offense and subject to severe penalties.
Currently, humpback whales are a threatened species (vulnerable
status) as well as a migratory species, both of which are identified
by the EPBC Act as a Matter of National Environmental Significance
(MNES). Any action that is likely to have an environmental impact
on an MNES must be assessed for approval under the EPBC Act.
Thus, any activity within Australian waters that is likely to have an
impact on a humpback whale requires government approval and
permits.
Assessments of the conservation status of native species under
the EPBC Act are made against statutory criteria, which are
established under the EPBC Regulations 2000 [Table 1]. A species
may be considered for removal or downlisting if eligible against all
five criteria. First, the Australian populations of humpback whales
have undergone substantial abundance reductions during the last
century but are not likely to undergo similar reductions in the
immediate future (Criterion 1). Criterion 2 requires that the
population's geographic distribution is precarious for the survival
of the species, with the extent of occurrence estimated to be less
than 20,000 km
2
or an area of occupancy estimated to be less than
2000 km
2
. The current geographic distributions of Australian
humpback whale populations exceed these limits, is not severely
fragmented, does not exist at limited locations, and is not
observed, inferred or projected to be declining. Extreme fluctua-
tions do not exist in terms of occurrence, occupancy, locations,
subpopulations or number of mature individuals of Australian
humpback whales. In reference to an estimate of mature indivi-
duals (Criterion 3), the population's total number is unknown but
presumed to be not ‘limited’(o10,000 individuals), and all
scientific evidence to date suggests that these populations are
not in decline but rather recovering strongly. The estimated
number of mature individuals is substantially greater than the
low value for a vulnerable species ( o1000 individuals; Criterion
4). Finally, while quantitative analysis on the probability of
extinction in the wild for the Australian humpback whale popula-
tions has not been published, the available data do not support or
suggest that these populations have a 10% chance of extinction
M. Bejder et al. / Marine Policy ∎(∎∎∎∎)∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3
Please cite this article as: Bejder M, et al. Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale populations: Evaluating the
case for downlisting their conservation status in Australia. Mar. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.007i
within 100 years (Criterion 5). In fact, recent abundance assess-
ments submitted to the IWC (as stated above) demonstrate that
the chance of extinction within 100 years is highly unlikely.
Based on the criteria above [Table 1], available scientific
evidence does not support the listing of humpback whale popula-
tions on the EPBC Act list of Threatened species. However, it is
important to remember that irrespective of the Australian hump-
back whale populations' presence on or absence from the Threa-
tened species list, they are still protected under the EPBC Act as an
MNES based on their qualification as a migratory species.
5. Conclusions
A change in recovery status will inevitably produce new
challenges for species conservation and management. A marine
environment with recovered humpback whale populations will
present new and diverse management challenges and require
alternative approaches to ecological sustainability. The Australian
humpback whales are an exemplary model of recovery, especially
within a marine environment experiencing rapid and concurrent
expansion in industrial and exploration activities. The economic
landscape for Western Australia experienced large-scale growth
and development in recent years, for which environmental assess-
ments and baseline surveys were routinely dedicated to humpback
whales and dugongs [54]. The most probable concerns for future
environmental management will be sustaining the recovery in a
viable marine ecosystem in the midst of human and economic
expansion around Australia and possible fishery expansion in the
Southern Ocean, neither of which presents signs of imminent
population decline. An increase in humpback whale interactions
with maritime users is an expected consequence of recovery,
including acoustic disturbance from anthropogenic noise, colli-
sions with vessels, entanglements in fishing gear, habitat destruc-
tion from coastal development, and cumulative interactions with
the whale-watch industry.
Scientific data present justifiable evidence to support down-
listing the level of legislative protection of humpback whales that
breed in Australian waters. The recovery of Australian humpback
whales demonstrates conservation and management success for a
species that was severely over-exploited. While this success rests
ultimately upon the ongoing moratorium on commercial whaling
and the limited expansion of special permit whaling, the recovery
of humpback whales in Australian waters would not be evident
without the support of conservation science directed at establish-
ing the species' modern range, abundance, and demography. A
recovered humpback whale population could bring a positive shift
in the research goals and objectives throughout Australia. Should
reclassification occur for humpback whales, one of the most
beneficial consequences for conservation biology would be to
continue research and management funding to enhance the
survival of other species and ecosystems that are in danger of
extinction and to ensure an equal chance of success as demon-
strated by the humpback whales.
The recovery of the iconic humpback whales of Australia and
elsewhere delivers both hope and optimism, as well as an
opportunity to celebrate success at two levels: (1) the successful
implementation of contentious international management actions
to protect marine species; and (2) the wise and significant
investment in conservation science, illustrating how human activ-
ity can respond to strong conservation interventions to achieve
outcomes that are not simply for immediate, human material
gains. Worldwide, humpback whale numbers appear to be increas-
ing across a range of populations. While significant (and often
times seemingly insurmountable) obstacles stand in the face of
conserving many marine species and ecosystems, humpback
whales provide an opportunity to embrace a conservation success.
Acknowledgment
We thank Dr Michael C. Double for his contributions to the
discussion and provision of information.
References
[1] Ehrenfeld DW. Biological conservation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston;
1970.
[2] Nowacek DP, Johnson MP, Tyack PL. North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena
glacialis) ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B:
Biol Sci 2004;271(1536):227–31.
[3] Robbins J, Mattila DK. Estimating humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
entanglement rates on the basis of scar evidence. Woods Hole, Massachusetts:
Northeast Fisheries Science Center; 2004 Final report.
[4] Rice DW. Marine mammals of the world: systematic and distribution. Kansas:
The Society for Marine Mammalogy, Allen Press, Inc.; 1998 Special Publication
Number 4.
[5] Wang D, Zhang X, Wang K, Wei Z, Wursig BW, Braulik GT, et al. Conservation
of the baiji: no simple solution. Conserv Biol 2006;20(3):623–5.
[6] Yang G, Bruford MW, Wei FW, Zhou KY. Conservation options for the baiji
(Lipotes vexillifer): time for realism? Conserv Biol 2006;20:620–2.
[7] Turvey ST, Pitman RL, Taylor BL, Barlow J, Akamatsu T, Barrett LA, et al. First
human-caused extinction of a cetacean species? Biol Lett 2007;3:537–40.
[8] D'Agrosa CD, Lennert-Cody CE, Vidal O. Vaquita bycatch in Mexico's artisanal
Gillnet Fisheries: driving a small population to extinction. Conserv Biol
2000;14(4):1110–9.
[9] Jaramillo-Legorreta A, Rojas-Bracho L, Brownell Jr. RL, Read AJ, Reeves RR, Ralls
K, et al. Saving the vaquita: immediate action, not more data. Conserv Biol
2007;21(6):1653–5.
[10] Gerodette T, Taylor BL, Swift R, Rankin S, Jaramillo-Legorreta AM, Rojas-Bracho
L. A combined visual and acoustic estimate of 2008 abundance, and change in
abundance since 1997, for the vaquita, Phocoena sinus. Mar Mamm Sci 2011;27
(2):E79–100 .
Table 1
Eligibility criteria for removing a species from any category in the list of threatened species under the EPBC Act.
Criterion Description
Criterion 1 Population size reduction (reduction in total numbers) Population reduction (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations)
Criterion 2 Geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy
Criterion 3 Small population size and decline
Criterion 4 Very small population (mature individuals):
Critically Endangered (extremely low) o50
Endangered (very low) o250
Vulnerable (low) o10 0 0
Criterion 5 Quantitative analysis indicating the probability of extinction in the wild:
Critically Endangered (immediate future)Z50% in 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is longer (100 years max)
Endangered (near future)Z20% in 20 years or 5 generations, whichever is longer (100 years max)
Vulnerable (medium term future)Z10% in 100 years
M. Bejder et al. / Marine Policy ∎(∎∎∎∎)∎∎∎–∎∎∎4
Please cite this article as: Bejder M, et al. Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale populations: Evaluating the
case for downlisting their conservation status in Australia. Mar. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.007i
[11] Beever E. The role of optimism in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 2000;14
(3):907–9.
[12] Orr DW. Optimism and hope in a hotter time. Conserv Biol 2007;21
(6):1392–5.
[13] Kapos V, Balmford A, Aveling R, Bubb P, Carey P, Entwistle A, et al. Outcomes,
not implementation, predict conservation success. Oryx 2009;43(3):336–42.
[14] Swaisgood RR, Sheppard JK. The culture of conservation biologists: Show me
the hope!. BioScience 2010;60(8):626–30.
[15] Garnett ST, Lindenmayer DB. Conservation science must engender hope to
succeed. Trends Ecol Evolut 2011;26(2):59–60.
[16] Reilly SB, Bannister JL, Best PB, Brown M, Brownell Jr. RL, Butterworth DS, et al.
Megaptera novaeangliae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2008;2014:2.
[17] Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Order amending Schedule 1 to the Species at
Risk Act. Canada Gazette 2014;148(16):971–98.
[18] Calambokidis J, Falcone EA, Quinn TJ, Burdin AM, Clapham PJ, Ford JKB, et al.
SPLASH: Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of Hump-
back Whales in the North Pacific, Final report to the U.S. Washington, D.C.:
Department of Commerce; 2008.
[19] Allen BM, Angliss RR. Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2013. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-277. Seattle, Washington: National Ocea-
nic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska
Fisheries Science Center; 2014.
[20] Rice DW. The humpback whale in the North Pacific: distribution, exploitation
and numbers. Appendix 4. In: Norris KS, Reeves RR, editors. Report on a
workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
in Hawaii. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information
Service PB, 280. Virginia: Springfield; 1978. p. 794.
[21] NMFS. Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review for
the Humpback Whale and Request for Information. . National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Federal Register; 2009. p. 40568.
[22] Bettridge S, Baker CS, Barlow J, Clapham PJ, Ford M, Gouveia D, et al. Status
Review of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) under the Endan-
gered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. NOAA-TM-NMFS-
SWFSC-540. California: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest
Fisheries Science Center; 2015.
[23] NMFS. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To
Identify the Central North Pacific Population of Humpback Whale as a Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) and Delist the DPS Under the Endangered Species
Act. . National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Federal
Register; 2014. p. 36281.
[24] Findlay, K, Bannister, JL, Cerchio, S, Jackson, J, Loo, J, Paton, D, et al., Allocations
of catches of humpback whales (1904–1973) for the IWC comprehensive
assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales. Report of an IWC
intersessional email group; 2009. p. 33.
[25] Jenner KCS, Jenner M-N, McCabe KA. Geographical and temporal movements
of humpback whales in Western Australian waters. APPEA J 2001:749–65.
[26] Smith JN, Grantham HS, Gales N, Double MC, Noad MJ, Paton D. Identification
of humpback whale breeding and calving habitat in the Great Barrier Reef.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2012;447:259–72.
[27] Smith TD, Reeves RR, Josephson EA, Lund JN. Spatial and seasonal distribution
of American whaling and whales in the age of sail. Plos One 2012;7(4):e34905.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034905.
[28] Chittleborough RG. Dynamics of two populations of the humpback whale,
Megaptera novaengliae (Borowski). Aust J Mar Freshw Res 1965;16:33–128.
[29] Bannister JL, Hedley SL. Southern Hemisphere Group IV humpback whales:
their status from recent aerial survey. Mem Qld Mus 2001;47(2):587–98.
[30] Rocha R, Clapham P, Ivaschenko Y. Emptying the oceans: a summary of
industrial whale catches in the 20th century. Mar Fish Rev 2014;76(4):37–48.
[31] Yablokov AV. Validity of whaling data. Nature 1994;367:108.
[32] Clapham PJ, Baker CS. Modern whaling. In: Perrin WF, Wursig B, Thewissen
JGM, editors. Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 239–1. New York: Academic
Press; 2009. p. 1.
[33] Ivashchenko YV, Clapham PJ. Too much is never enough: the cautionary tale of
soviet illegal whaling. Mar Fish Rev 2014;76(1–2):1–21.
[34] Jackson JA, Zerbini A, Clapham PJ, Constantine R, Garrigue C, Hauser N, et al.
Progress on a two-stock catch allocation model for reconstructing population
histories of east Australia and Oceania. SC/60/SH14, presented to the IWC
Scientific Committee. Chile: Santiago; 2008.
[35] Paterson R, Paterson P. The status of the recovering stock of humpback whales
Megaptera novaeangliae in East Australian waters. Biol Conserv 1989;47:33–48.
[36] Paterson R, Paterson P, Cato DH. The status of humpback whales Megaptera
novaeangliae in East Australia thirty years after whaling. Biol Conserv
1994;70:135–42.
[37] Noad MJ, Paton DA, Cato DH. Absolute and relative abundance estimates of
Australian east coast humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). SC/A06/
HW27 Paper submitted to the International Whaling Commission sub-
committee for the assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales,
Hobart, Tasmania; 2006.
[38] Noad MJ, Dunlop RA, Paton D, Cato DH. An update of the east Australian
humpback whale population (E1) rate of increase. Paper submitted to the
International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee SC/60/SH31. San-
tiago: Chile; 2008.
[39] Noad, MJ, Dunlop, RA, Paton, D, Kniest H. Abundance estimates of the east
Australian humpback whale population: 2010 survey and update. SC/63/SH22
Report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission;
2011.
[40] Bannister JL. Report on aerial survey and photoidentification of humpback
whales off Western Australia, 1994. Report to the Australian Nature Conserva-
tion Agency; 1995.
[41] Hedley SL, Bannister JL, Bravington M, Double M, Du Fresne S, Dunlop RA, et
al., Survey plans to estimate absolute abundance of Breeding Stock D hump-
back whales off Western Australia. SC/64/SH28. Paper to the International
Whaling Commission; 2012.
[42] Hedley SL, Bannister JL, Dunlop RA. Abundance estimates of Southern Hemi-
sphere Breeding Stock ‘D’Humpback Whales from aerial and land-based
surveys off Shark Bay, Western Australia, 2008. J Cetacean Res Manag (Special
Issue) 2011;3:209–21.
[43] Salgado Kent C, Jenner KCS, Jenner M-N, Bouchet P, Rexstad E. Southern
Hemisphere Breeding Stock D humpback whale population estimates from
North West Cape, Western Australia. J Cetacean Res Manag 2012;12(1):29–38.
[44] IWC. Annex H –Other Southern Hemisphere Whale Stocks (SH). Panama City:
Panama; 2012 Report of the Scientific Committee IWC/64/Rep 1.
[45] Baker CS, Clapham PJ. Modelling the past and future of whales and whaling.
Trends Ecol Evolut 2004;19:365–71.
[46] IWC. Annex H: Report of the Sub-Committee on Other Southern Hemisphere
Whale Stocks. Bled: Slovenia; 2014 Report of the Scientific Committee IWC/
65/Rep01.
[47] Zerbini AN, Clapham PJ, Wade PR. Assessing plausible rates of population
growth in humpback whales from life-history data. Mar Biol 2010;157:
1225–36.
[48] IWC. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of Southern
Hemisphere humpback whales. J Cetacean Res Manag (Special Issue) 2011;3
Hobart, Tasmania.
[49] Best PB. Increased rates of severely depleted stocks of baleen whales.
ICES J Mar Sci 1993;50:169–86.
[50] Ross-Gillespie, A, Butterworth, DSSJ. Johnston Initial exploration of single-
stock, two-stock and three-stock population models for humpback breeding
stocks D, E1 and Oceania under different Antarctic stock boundaries assump-
tions. SC/65a/SH01, presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, Korea; 2013.
[51] Ross-Gillespie, A, Butterworth, DS, Johnston SJ. Assessment results for hump-
back breeding stocks D, E1 and Oceania following recommendations from SC
65a. SC/65b/SH04rev, presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, Slovenia;
2014.
[52] Brandao A, Butterworth DS. Concerning demographic limitations on the
population growth rate of West Australian (Breeding Stock D) humpback
whales. J Cetacean Res Manag (Special Issue) 2011;3:201–8.
[53] Clapham P, Zerbini A. Are social aggregation and temporary immigration
driving high rates of increase in some Southern Hemisphere humpback whale
populations? Mar Biol 2015;162:625–34.
[54] Bejder L, Hodgson A, Loneragan N, Allen S. Coastal dolphins in north-western
Australia: the need for re-evaluation of species listings and short-comings in
the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Pac Conserv Biol 2012;18:
22–5.
M. Bejder et al. / Marine Policy ∎(∎∎∎∎)∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5
Please cite this article as: Bejder M, et al. Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale populations: Evaluating the
case for downlisting their conservation status in Australia. Mar. Policy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.007i
