PP 315
LITTLE PENGUINS
REPORT
“Away with the fairies”
FIFTY NINTH REPORT
OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Tabled in the House of Assembly and ordered to be published, Wednesday 28 September 2011
First Session, Fifty Second Parliament
28 September 2011
-i-
PRESIDING MEMBER’S FOREWORD
The Committee’s interest in Little Penguins was instigated by Committee Member Hon Robert
Brokenshire MLC in December 2010 in response to a request from Mr John Ayliffe; Manager of the
Kangaroo Island Penguin Centre in Kingscote. This report is not the result of a formal Inquiry; rather
the Committee has taken evidence from Mr Ayliffe and others with an interest in the plight of Little
Penguins and also sought a departmental perspective from the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and the Kangaroo Island NRM Board. A number of other individuals with
relevant expertise were contacted and a preliminary literature review undertaken. This is a summary of
the evidence gathered.
There are approximately 80 colonies of Little Penguins (also known as Fairy Penguins) in SA most of
which are small but including larger ones such as Pearson Island (60km from Elliston) with 12,000
birds. Most of the colonies are genetically isolated, having had no contact with each other for 100
years or more. Both Kingscote and Penneshaw populations on Kangaroo Island are genetically
separate meaning that if either of these colonies becomes extinct then they are unlikely to be replaced.
Overall Little Penguins are not considered endangered in South Australia or nationally.
Of particular concern to Members was a recent rapid decline in penguin numbers on Granite Island at
Victor Harbor 80 kilometres south of Adelaide. Members were shocked to hear that Little Penguin
numbers on Granite Island have declined from 1,548 in 2001 to 146 birds remaining in 2010 and
possibly as few as 100 left in 2011. There are similar circumstances on nearby West Island, where
numbers have dropped from around 2,000 in early 2000-01 to less than 50 individuals under the latest
census estimate. The most likely causes of this decline is believed to be a combination of increased
predation by New Zealand Fur Seals who are enjoying a population boom after cessation of
commercial sealing last century, and predation by dogs, cats and rats. Fluctuating fish stocks (food
resources for both penguins and seals) may also play a part.
While New Zealand Fur Seals are clearly implicated in declining penguin numbers it appears that
different mechanisms are at work in different locations around the State and the overall picture
remains unclear. For example, Little Penguin numbers have declined on islands that do not have seal
colonies or are not known as haul out locations for seals. In other locations large penguin colonies are
thriving in close proximity to large seal colonies. This suggests there is a need for more research to
ensure an appropriate response.
Mr Ayliffe was particularly concerned that the Kingscote Little Penguin colony may suffer the same
fate as Granite Island and pointed to a small number of young male seals targeting the penguins. The
Department for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) position was that the Kingscote colony
numbers appeared stable for the time being. In contrast the colony at Penneshaw was reported to be in
terminal decline with numbers claimed to have collapsed from approximately 200 birds three years
previously to “less than half a dozen” remaining, according to Simone Somerfield, who runs the
Penneshaw Penguin Centre.
Mr Ayliffe predicted that within three to five years there will be no commercially exploited penguin
colonies in South Australia unless there is some management of the New Zealand Fur Seals identified
to be contributing to the problem. This it was feared would impact not only on the ecological diversity
of species of seabirds living on the Island, but also its economy due to the loss of the tourist ventures
at Penneshaw and Kingscote. These ventures have taken many years to be established and have been
supported by State and Local Government.
In contrast the Department for Environment and Natural Resources sees the decline of Penguin
colonies used as tourism assets as essentially a tourism rather than an NRM issue. DENRs position
was that numbers of Penguins had become artificially inflated in recent decades in response to the
reduced numbers of seals and that what we were now seeing with declining penguin numbers was a
return to the status quo. DENR said that it expected penguin numbers to stabilise once fur seal
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
-iinumbers had returned to pre-European levels and that Little Penguins would continue to exist although
in smaller numbers and mainly in colonies un-impacted by seals.
It was also hypothesised that Little Penguins on Kangaroo Island may be modifying their colonising
behaviour by scattering along the southern coastline at lower densities unattractive to seals and also
choosing to inhabit places distant from New Zealand Fur Seal colonies. If correct, such mechanisms
will hopefully ensure the survival of the species in South Australia even if some colonies which may
have opportunistically increased in numbers under a regime of seal harvesting last century, are now
suffering serious declines and potentially localised extinctions.
Mr Ayliffe proposed a small trial targeting the individual seals identified to be impacting on penguin
tourism assets. Suggestions involved bleach marking and tagging ‘problem’ seals to better keep track
of them, harassing seals away from penguin colonies used for tourism using non-lethal deterrents.
Relocating ‘problem’ seals away from penguins was suggested as a last resort.
In response DENR (and much of the published literature) countered that attempts to manage seals in
other jurisdictions have proven ‘fairly ineffectual, incredibly resource hungry and expensive to
deliver’. DENR suggested instead that the best course of action was to undertake a community
education program to tell people that the process of decline was a natural one.
In July 2011, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board released a report Conservation
management priorities for little penguin populations in Gulf St Vincent prepared by the SA Research
and Development Institute (SARDI). This document includes detailed proposals together with budgets
and is intended to guide the work of the Board and its partners (the A&MLR NRM Board, the
Kangaroo Island and Northern and Yorke NRM Boards).
I wish to thank all those who gave their time to assist the Committee with this inquiry. I commend the
members of the Committee, Mr Geoff Brock MP, the Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon John
Dawkins MLC, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, Mr Dan van
Holst Pellekaan MP, the Hon Russell Wortley MLC, the Hon Paul Holloway MLC and the Hon Gerry
Kandelaars MLC, for their contributions. All members of the Committee have worked cooperatively
throughout the course of the inquiry. Finally, I thank the Committee staff for their assistance.
28 September 2011
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
-iii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRESIDING MEMBER’S FOREWORD............................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................ iii
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE .................................................................. 4
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.................................................................................. 4
REFERRAL PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 5
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 6
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE ..................................................................................... 7
Witnesses........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Background.................................................................................................................................................... 7
Seal Populations .................................................................................................................................... 7
Little Penguin populations .................................................................................................................... 7
Penguin and Seal Interactions ............................................................................................................... 8
AMLR NRM – Conservation management priorities for little penguin populations in Gulf St Vincent
.................................................................................................................................................... 8
Little Penguin Conservation and Tourism........................................................................................... 10
Evidence regarding predation of Little Penguins (and seabirds generally) by Fur Seals..................... 10
Cape Gantheaume colony.................................................................................................................... 10
Kingscote colony................................................................................................................................. 10
Penneshaw colony............................................................................................................................... 11
Granite Island and West Island (Encounter Bay) colonies.................................................................. 11
Troubridge Island ................................................................................................................................ 12
Dyer Island Study (South Africa)........................................................................................................ 12
Other South African studies regarding predation of seabirds by Cape Fur Seals................................ 13
Efficacy of intervention in seal attacks...................................................................................................... 14
DENR Position.................................................................................................................................... 14
Little Penguin protectionist position ................................................................................................... 14
Tasmanian policy in relation to seals and aquaculture ........................................................................ 15
Possible survival mechanisms of Little Penguins ..................................................................................... 15
Small numbers spread over wider areas and locations remote from seal colonies.............................. 15
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 16
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 17
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ 19
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
4
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
The Natural Resources Committee was established pursuant to the Parliamentary Committees Act
1991 on 3 December 2003.
Its membership for the duration of this report was:
The Hon Stephanie Key MP, Presiding Member
Mr Geoff Brock MP (from 30 June 2010)
Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC
Hon John Dawkins MLC
Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP
Mr Lee Odenwalder MP
Mr Don Pegler MP (from 30 June 2010)
Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP
Hon Russell Wortley MLC (to 22 June 2011)
Hon Paul Holloway (22 June 2011 to 15 August 2011)
Hon Gerry Kandelaars (from 13 September 2011)
Executive Officer to the Committee:
Mr Patrick Dupont
Research Officer to the Committee:
Mr David Trebilcock, from 11 September 2010
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
Pursuant to section 15L of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the functions of the Committee are:
(a)
to take an interest in and keep under review—
(i)
the protection, improvement and enhancement of the natural resources of the State;
and
(ii)
the extent to which it is possible to adopt an integrated approach to the use and
management of the natural resources of the State that accords with principles of
ecologically sustainable use, development and protection; and
(iii)
the operation of any Act that is relevant to the use, protection, management or
enhancement of the natural resources of the State; and
(iv)
without limiting the operation of a preceding subparagraph—the extent to which
the objects of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 are being achieved;
and
(b)
without limiting the operation of paragraph (a), with respect to the River Murray—
(i)
to consider the extent to which the Objectives for a Healthy River Murray
are being achieved under the River Murray Act 2003; and
(ii)
to consider and report on each review of the River Murray Act 2003
undertaken under section 11 of that Act by the Minister to whom the
administration of that Act has been committed; and
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
5
(c)
(2)
(iii)
to consider the interaction between the River Murray Act 2003 and other
Acts and, in particular, to consider the report in each annual report under that
Act on the referral of matters under related operational Acts to the Minister
under that Act; and
(iv)
at the end of the second year of operation of the River Murray Act 2003, to
inquire into and report on—
(A)
the operation of subsection (5) of section 22 of that Act, insofar as it
has applied with respect to any Plan Amendment Report under the
Development Act 1993 referred to the Governor under that subsection;
and
(B)
the operation of section 24(3) of the Development Act 1993; and
to perform such other functions as are imposed on the Committee under this or any
other Act or by resolution of both Houses.
In this section—
natural resources includes—
(a)
soil;
(b)
water resources;
(c)
geological features and landscapes;
(d)
native vegetation, native animals and other native organisms;
(e)
ecosystems.
REFERRAL PROCESS
Pursuant to section 16(1) of the Act, any matter that is relevant to the functions of the Committee may be
referred to it in the following ways:
(a)
(b)
(c)
by resolution of the Committee's appointing House or Houses, or either of the
Committee's appointing Houses;
by the Governor, or by notice published in the Gazette; or
of the Committee's own motion.
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Natural Resources Committee recommends that the Minister for Environment and
Conservation should direct DENR to:
Recommendation 1: undertake additional research and monitoring of Little Penguins and New
Zealand Fur Seals in South Australia in order to determine with a high degree of certainty current
population pressures and trends. Results of research to be used to develop strategies to mitigate any
problems identified.
Recommendation 2: consider a scientifically robust trial targeting individual ‘problem’ predators
identified as impacting on Little Penguin tourism assets at Kingscote and Penneshaw. Suggestions
include marking and tracking New Zealand Fur Seals, harassing seals away from Little Penguin
tourism assets with non-lethal technologies. Relocating ‘problem’ seals to be considered only as a last
resort.
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
7
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE
This report is based on evidence collected by the Natural Resources Committee regarding the decline
of Little Penguin numbers in South Australia. The evidence includes witness statements and literature
sourced from researchers employed by South Australian Research & Development Institute (SARDI)
and the Department for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) currently involved in Little
Penguin research and management.
Witnesses
The following witnesses appeared before the Committee:
11 March 2011 – Balcony Room, Parliament House
Bill Haddrill, Regional Manager, DENR
Richard Trethewey, Presiding Member, Kangaroo Island NRM Board
6 May 2011 – Balcony Room Parliament House
John Ayliffe, Owner/Manager, Kangaroo Island Penguin Centre, Kingscote
Background
Seal Populations
There are an estimated 100,000 Australian Fur Seals (Figure 8) in Australia and 57,000 New Zealand
Fur Seals (Figure 9). Both Fur Seals and Little Penguins (Figure 6) are found across the south of
mainland and surrounding Tasmania (see Figures 1-2). Historical records point to 100,000 to 300,000
skins being taken by sealers around Kangaroo Island when sealing was prevalent in South Australia
from 1803 until the population crashed in the 1960s. These figures may significantly under-represent
the actual population of seals at time of European contact due to under reporting. New Zealand fur seal
populations are now rapidly recovering and studies suggest that number may continue to increase over
the next 15 to 30 years.
Figure 2: New Zealand fur seal distribution
Figure 1: Australian fur seal distribution
(source: www.sealimages.com/Info-Australian-Seals.html)
Little Penguin populations
Copley (1996 in Wiebkin 2011b, p31) estimated the population of Little Penguins in South Australia
at somewhere between 40,000 and 90,000 breeding birds in 1996. Similarly, Robinson et al (1996, in
DSEWPC 2011, p6) estimated the population to be between 20,000 and 50,000 breeding pairs in
1996. However, the estimated population has since declined to 36,600 breeding penguins (Wiebkin
2011b, p31). This represents a decline of between 8.5% and 60%, depending on whether the lower or
higher figure is used for the 1996 population estimate.
The South Australian population comprises less than 20 per cent of Australia’s entire Little Penguin
population (Wiebkin 2011b, p32); however, the South-west Marine Region covers about half their
distribution in Australia (SD Goldsworthy, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, pers. comm., 29 July 2008, in
DSEWPC, 2011, p6).
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
8
Figure 3: Little Penguin distribution (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Penguin_Distribution.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Penguin_Distribution.png)
Penguin and Seal Interactions
Predation on Little Penguins, African Penguins and other seabirds by Fur Seals has been well
documented. The evidence is clear from examination of seal scats and
a nd from the bird carcases washed
up onshore. Little Penguins make up
u between 5% and 30% of Fur Seals’’ diets
diets, though this varies
depending on the age, sex and species of seal.
seal . Most of the seals’ food comes from feeding on fish and
squid. However, adult male New Zealand Fur Seals have a penchant for Little Penguins, which make
up some 30% of their diet. Larger seals can eat about 10-15
10 15 kg of food per day. Whether seals
consume penguins by choice or through necessity is not fully understood: some researchers bbelieve the
behaviour may be copied, others believe that a lack of preferred prey (fish) may be implicated
implicated.
While there
here is a positive correlation between
between the increase in seal numbers and decl
declining populations of
Little Penguins in a number of locations,
locations in South Australia Little Penguin numbers have also declined
on islands that do not have seal colonies or are not known as haul out locations for seals (Wiebkin
2011b, p43). Furthermore, volunteer counts of Emu Bay penguins (on the north coast of the Island)
and Vivonne Bay (south coast) and have not reported any seal attacks (Wiebkin 2011
2011a, pers. comm.)
The correlation is therefore not proof of a definite causal relationship.
There is good evidence that land-based
land based predators are contributing to the decline of Little Penguins,
either through direct predation or indirect disturbance. Large populations of invasive black rats on
Granite Island are implicated in the population decline there (Flaherty, 2011, p4).. Rats are prevalent at
most other Little Penguin colonies except for a few offshore islands,
islands , and have been observed to prey
on chicks in burrows. Native water rats,
rats cats, dogs and humans also impact on Little Penguins in urban
areas although the extent is unquantified.
AMLR NRM – Conservation management priorities for little penguin populations in Gulf St
Vincent
The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board released a report setting out management
priorities for Little Penguins in Gulf St Vincent in July 2011. The report,, prepared by Annelise
Wiebkin of the SA Research and Development Institute (SARDI),
(SA
aims to assess and highlight the
conservation status of populations of Little Penguins in the Gulf St Vincent region; assist de
decision
making, prioritising investment and management to conserve populations; guide investment of limited
resources to maximise outcomes; and provide a prospectus for seeking funding support for
conservation management and research (Wiebkin 2011b, p4).
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
9
The main message of the report is that more robust research and monitoring is needed to determine the
main threats to Little Penguin numbers. Unfortunately it appears that in some instances research itself
may be partly to blame for penguin deaths. Prior to the use of micro-chipping, penguins were tracked
using metal bands attached to their flippers. It was subsequently found that this caused reduced
survival rates compared to unbanded penguins (Wiebkin 2011b, p24). Whilst this problem has been
eliminated by the preferential use of micro-chipping (though banded penguins continue to be observed
and recorded) there is always a risk associated with handling by humans.
Figure 4: Damaged Little Penguin flipper banks (Boersma and Rebstock 2010, in Atkins 2010, p27)
The number of Little Penguin colonies in South Australia is currently estimated at 80 (Wiebkin 2011b,
pp 11-13). Most colonies are small, but there are some larger ones such as the Pearson Island colony
(see Figure 5) which has an estimated 12,000 penguins (Wiebkin 2011b, p12). Most colonies,
including the Kingscote (approximately 700 penguins) and Penneshaw (approximately 200 penguins)
populations on Kangaroo Island are genetically isolated; that is, they have had no contact with each
other for 100 years or more (Page 2011, pers. comm.). This means that if colonies become extinct they
are unlikely to be replaced. Until recently Little Penguins have not been considered endangered in
South Australia or nationally. However, the AMLR report recommends that their current status
warrants upgrading to ‘vulnerable’ under IUCN population trend criteria (Wiebkin 2011b, p30).
Figure 5: Locations of main penguin colonies in South Australia (Wiebkin 2011b, p6)
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
10
Little Penguin Conservation and Tourism
The Committee received evidence from people involved in Little Penguin conservation and tourism
about the impacts of fur seal predation on penguin colonies at Kingscote and Penneshaw. John Ayliffe
and Graham Trethewey appeared before the Committee on 6th May 2011 and spoke about the growth
of business in the area of penguin tours and the benefit this has for Kangaroo Island. In particular, they
claimed that ‘visitation had grown from 6,000 visitors annually to 12,000 visitors’ until numbers
started to decline, and that between 2002 and 2009 $50,500 was spent on structural improvements to
visitation sites on the Island by private tourist operators (Trethewey 2011). Mr Ayliffe argued that
tourist investment was threatened by the declining numbers of birds:
“We are looking at something pretty serious with the penguin colonies, because the government tried to sell
land at the wharf at Kingscote for a major development—I might say a much needed one, because airfares are
very high, and until we get critical mass and better loadings, we will price ourselves out of the tourism market.
One of the things that is really important about penguin tours is that they balance the planes, because people
have to stay overnight. Instead of doing a day trip—fly in, fly out in a day—they stay overnight. Everyone who
does a penguin tour at Kingscote will essentially spend $200 in the local economy. That's a lot of money. If we
lose them, we lose an iconic attraction, and it makes the development much more difficult.”
(Committee Hansard, 6 May 2011, p9)
Mr Ayliffe said that it is “probably only two or three seals that are causing the colonies real grief”
(Committee Hansard, 6 May 2011, p9). Culling of seals would likely be considered unacceptable from
a tourism perspective, however by marking the offending seals it might be possible to determine
whether there are a few repeat offenders who could be encouraged to leave the area or possibly
relocated as a last resort in an effort to prevent localised extinctions of Little Penguins as appears to be
occurring in Penneshaw, Granite Island and West Island.
Evidence regarding predation of Little Penguins (and seabirds generally) by
Fur Seals
Cape Gantheaume colony
Page et al (2005) studied a New Zealand fur seal breeding colony at Cape Gantheaume on Kangaroo
Island in 2005, located in close proximity to a colony of Little Penguins that has since become extinct
(Wiebkin 2011b, p43). The number of Fur Seals in the colony was estimated at 9,100. There were also
a number of Australian Fur Seals at the location, but their total number could not be estimated because
it was a haul out area rather than a breeding colony for that species. However, on average 40
Australian Fur Seals were observed at any particular time.
From examining the scats of individual seals the researchers concluded that adult male New Zealand
Fur Seals were the main predators of Little Penguins. Adult Australian Fur Seals did not eat seabirds
(including penguins) to any great degree. The researchers concluded that the end of seal hunting (and
to a lesser extent possibly whale hunting [Page et al 2005, p301]) was likely to be the main cause of
the decline in Little Penguin numbers.
Kingscote colony
Annual population counts of Little Penguins at Kingscote on Kangaroo Island were carried out by
volunteers between 2006 and 2008. There were an estimated 400 active burrows and 800 birds, with
some fluctuations due to food availability and predation. There did not appear to be any evidence of a
decline in numbers (Kangaroo Island NRM Board, undated). However, more recent advice from the
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board suggests that numbers are indeed declining at both
Kingscote and Penneshaw:
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
11
‘Four annual Kingscote penguin censuses between 2007 and 2010 indicate a 14% drop in breeding adult
penguin numbers over the period (Kinloch et al, unpubl. data) and there are reports of increasing fur seal
predation at the Penneshaw colony resulting in decreases in nightly penguin counts (pers, comm. Simone
Somerfield, Penneshaw Penguin Centre).’
(Flaherty, 2011, p5)
The population of Little Penguins at Kingscote was reported to be 706 in 2010 (Wiebkin 2011b,
p911). This would represent an 11% decline compared to 2006-2008.
Penneshaw colony
Attacks by New Zealand Fur Seals on Little Penguins at Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island were reported
in March 2011 in a national newspaper. It was claimed in the article that numbers of Little Penguins
had collapsed from approximately 200 birds1 three years previously to “less than half a dozen” at the
time the article appeared. Simone Somerfield, who runs the Penneshaw Penguin Centre, witnessed
several such incidents whilst taking visitors on tours of the colony, and believed that attacks were
increasing:
"Every now and again you would see one penguin being taken and I would say, 'Gee, that's amazing, it's
like David Attenborough," Ms Somerfield said. "But then it was more and more and more, and then mass kills in
which the seals were not even eating them. It was happening within 100m and you have a complete view, it was
like watching a horror movie."
(The Australian, 2011)
Granite Island and West Island (Encounter Bay) colonies
Little Penguin numbers declined from 1,548 in 2001 to 146 in 2010 at Granite Island (Haddrill, 2011,
p3 and Wiebkin 2011b, p11). Researchers have observed water rats (native) and black rats
(introduced) as well as cats and foxes on the island, all of which and are believed to predate on Little
Penguin chicks (Bool et al, 2007, p5). West Island on the other hand is free of land-based animals. On
West Island, Little Penguin numbers dropped from an estimated 2,000 birds in 2001 to less than 50 in
2011 (Haddrill, 2011, p3).
The most recent census at Granite Island was carried out in late August 2011 by volunteers including
University of Adelaide students under the supervision of penguin ecologist Natalie Gilbert. The
population had already declined by 30% compared to the previous census carried out in 2010:
‘A total of 102 little penguins were counted in this year's annual census, compared to 146 at the same time
last year. More than 1500 little penguins were recorded in 2001. Penguin conservationist and researcher Natalie
Gilbert said the result was expected to be down on last year, based on results from other surveys on the island
and observations from the penguin tour guides. She said it is hoped the penguin population will stabilise, but
there is a possibility that the penguin colony on Granite Island may become extinct. The exact reasons for their
decline is still unclear, however it is thought some contributing factors may include New Zealand Fur Seals,
habitat destruction, feral rats and cats on the island and climate change.’
(Victor Harbour Times, 2011)
West Island is also a ‘haul out’ area for New Zealand Fur Seals (but not a breeding colony).
Researchers observed in 2007 that Little Penguins at both islands appeared to be eating the same food
and to have overlapping foraging areas, though the West Island colony travelled much further out to
sea and parallel to the coast towards the east (Bool et al, 2007, p26). This indicates they may be having
difficulty finding enough food, and could be the reason for their dramatic decline in numbers.
Examination of seal scats in 2007 showed that Little Penguins from both Granite and West Islands
were the second most prevalent prey of New Zealand Fur Seals (Bool et al, 2007, p37). At that time
the estimated population of seals on West Island was 20 (Bool et al, 2007, p37). (Less than 20 remains
the estimated population [Wiebkin 2011b, p11]). Researchers estimated that the rate of predation of
1
The population was 216 in 2008 (Wiebkin 2011b, p11).
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
12
penguins by the seals was one per month by each seal, resulting in 240 deaths per year. This was
clearly an unsustainable rate of predation given the total number of penguins (Bool et al, 2007, p37).
Poor breeding success was evidenced in 66% (Granite Island) and 25% (West Island) of the years
presented in the 2007 study. The higher rate for Granite Island was attributed to predation of
hatchlings by rats or other land-based predators. The researchers noted that tourism impact might also
have been a cause of reduced breeding success on Granite Island (Bool et al, 2007, p43). However,
penguin researcher Natalie Gilbert contradicted this suggesting tourism impacts may be positive:
‘On a positive note, Ms Gilbert said the results showed pockets of active penguin burrows had strong
numbers. "The highest number of penguins co-exist in the areas with the highest density of tourists," she said.
"This is great to see that tourism is not impacting on the wild penguin numbers, and that tourism is being
managed responsibly. "Structures such as the boardwalks and viewing platforms overlooking penguin habitat
are great protection from visitors for the penguins, and a pat on the back to the island's visitors. "It is a measure
of success that the tourist behaviour is very responsible as the penguins are successful in this location." Ms
Gilbert said tourists are not likely to be the reason for the birds' decline, as penguin numbers are dropping in
areas where there is no tourism or little human activity, for example West Island, where the birds are "extremely
close" to extinction.’ (Victor Harbour Times 2011)
The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board has prepared two coastal action plans for its
region together with the Department for Environment and Natural Resources in liaison with local
councils. The Southern Fleurieu Coastal Action Plan outlines a proposed action of high priority to
support research to clarify causes of penguin population decline. It suggests that as an interim
measure, the Granite Island causeway could be fenced against foxes, dogs and cats and a rat control
program could be implemented (Flaherty 2011, p2). The Board has also recently installed cameras at
nesting sites to monitor rate of predation by foxes, cats, rats and dogs (Good 2011).
Troubridge Island
A long term monitoring program of the Little Penguin colony on Troubridge Island found that the
population is stable, but the colony is genetically isolated (Wiebkin, 2010). This is a common feature
of most Little Penguin colonies in South Australia, caused by the remote location of each colony
(mainly found on offshore islands) and the foraging limit of the birds. The physical isolation of the
colonies makes them vulnerable to population decline because the only way they can increase their
numbers is through improved breeding success within their colony and improved chick survival.
Breeding success for the colony on Troubridge Island was found to be better than average, but chick
survival was poor (Wiebkin, 2010). The population on Troubridge Island was estimated in 2009 to be
3,010 (Wiebkin 2011b, p11).
The isolation of the Troubridge Island colony could be its saviour, in that it is (presently) remote from
fur seal colonies. It has also been suggested that long sandy beaches (a characteristic of the island) are
unattractive to Fur Seals as haul out areas (Ayliffe, in Atkins 2010, p31).
Dyer Island Study (South Africa)
John et al (2005) sought to determine the comparative importance of predation by White sharks and
Cape Fur Seals 2 on resident seabird populations at Dyer Island in South Africa. Observation and
collection of seabird carcases, including African penguins (Figure 7), washed up on the island were
undertaken between August 1999 and February 2001. The African penguin is the only endemic
penguin in South Africa and is listed as ‘vulnerable’ by the World Conservation Union.
The African penguin breeding population was estimated at 5,080. One hundred and thirty four penguin
carcases were collected between January 2000 and December 2000. One hundred and one penguin
carcases showed evidence of fur seal attack; i.e. 2% of the breeding population 3 . The researchers
2
Actocephalus pusillus pusillus, also known as ‘South African fur seal’
This figure may be higher because not all carcases end up on the island, and the count is obtained by examining
dead penguins, not by examining seal scats or counting live penguins in the colony over time.
3
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
13
observed that most penguins were attacked by seals during foraging movements to or from the island,
at twilight. They were not attacked on the island itself.
The study concluded that continual decrease in penguin numbers in South Africa requires management
to attempt to address all factors contributing to the decline, including seal predation. Active removal of
‘rogue seals’ at Malgas Island saw significant declines in attack rates in 1999 and 2000.
(John et al 2005)
Other South African studies regarding predation of seabirds by Cape Fur Seals
Crawford et al (1989) reported that Cape Fur Seals re-colonised Mercury Island off South West Africa
in the early 1980s. By 1986, many endemic seabirds, including endangered and scarce species, had
been displaced from their breeding sites. The seabirds, already stressed because food resources had
been depleted by fishing, appeared unable to compete for space against the seals. The study found that
Guano4 scraping was causing a loss of potential refuges for seabirds and, by lessening the availability
of nesting material and the attractiveness of nest sites, may also have weakened the inclination of birds
to defend territories. It concluded that as depleted seal populations recover worldwide, competition
between seals and seabirds for breeding space is likely to increase.
Makhado et al (2009) reported that predation by Cape Fur Seals on seabirds had previously been
attributed to a few individuals; mainly male seals. Scat samples were collected at three mainland
breeding colonies of seals in Namibia to determine the extent of seabird predation. Mainly female
seals were sampled. No scats from the van Reenen Bay and Atlas-Wolf Bay seal colonies, and only
two from the Cape Cross colony contained feather remains, giving an overall frequency of occurrence
of feathers in scats of 0.1%. The feathers found were of African penguin and a species of cormorant.
In a separate study, Mahkado (2009) conducted research on the efficacy of culling Fur Seals as a
means of reducing the impact on penguins. The hunting behaviour of Cape Fur Seals feeding on
seabirds at Malgas and Dyer Islands was investigated between 2003 and 2007. Mahkado found that the
removal of 61 Cape Fur Seals that preyed on gannet fledglings at Malgas Island significantly reduced
the mortality rate of the fledglings in the short term. However, because seals learned to avoid the boat
used for their removal, it was not possible to remove all the seals that killed gannet fledglings and
some mortality continued.
Figure 6: Little Penguin, also known as ‘Fairy
Penguin’ or ‘Little Blue’ (source:
www.ehow.com/info_8206741_fairy-penguinskids.html)
Figure 7: African Penguin (source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Penguin)
4 Guano is a substance composed chiefly of the dung of sea birds or bats, accumulated along certain coastal
areas or in caves and mined for use as fertiliser.
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
14
Figure 8: Australian fur seal (source:
www.sealimages.com/AUFSGallery.html)
Figure 9: New Zealand fur seal (source:
www.ozanimals.com/Mammal/New-Zealand-FurSeal/Arctocephalus/fosteri.html)
Efficacy of intervention in seal attacks
DENR Position
DENR’s position is that the decline of Little Penguin numbers is a natural process caused by the return
of Fur Seals to their pre-European numbers, following the cessation of seal hunting in the 1960s.
Regional Manager Bill Haddrill , said:
“It is very likely that little penguin numbers in South Australian waters will return to pre-European levels.
You might ask what those pre-European levels are. We don't necessarily know but it's a fair assumption to make
that, as a result of the harvesting of New Zealand Fur Seals, little penguins took the opportunity to move into
and inhabit areas of South Australian waters which were primarily a no-go zone as a result of the level of
predation from New Zealand Fur Seals. As the New Zealand fur seal population increases, it is very likely that
the little penguin population will decrease as a result of that increased predation and, again, little penguins will
likely return to pre-European levels—that is, pre-harvesting levels.”
(Committee Hansard, 11 March 2011, p3)
Little Penguin protectionist position
People actively involved in the protection of Little Penguins are concerned about their decline,
particularly where they have a close relationship with the colonies, whether commercial or not. They
believe that the evidence is clear that Fur Seals are predating penguins. This is based both on
observation and research of penguin and seal interactions in Australia and South Africa. They also
argue the philosophical point that if humans are prepared to intervene where other vulnerable species
are involved, for example moving on fruit bats from botanical gardens to protect rare species of plants,
then there is a good reason to act where seals are endangering the existence of Little Penguin colonies.
The protectionists are not asking for a culling program, but a trial involving identification of the seals
observed to attack penguins (by marking them), and the humane relocation of repeat offenders. In the
words of John Ayliffe:
“Seals are managed in other parts of the world and logic suggests that it is inevitable that, in future, some
form of seal management will occur in South Australia, as it has in other parts of the world. In other words, if
we are eventually going to be forced to manage seals, it does not make sense to let the penguin colonies die out
and then start worrying about managing seals afterwards. This management may only have to be on a small
scale to protect the penguin tourism assets. The government should have been advised earlier that the
commercial colonies are declining at an alarming rate.”
(Committee Hansard, 6 May 2011, p6)
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
15
Tasmanian policy in relation to seals and aquaculture
The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (undated) has put in
place a protocol for deterring and relocating Fur Seals that impact on aquaculture enterprises. Three
non-lethal deterrents are allowed under the protocol; capsicum spray, bean bags shot from a shotgun
and ‘crackers’ (small explosive devices thrown into the water). The Department issues permits to
aquaculture operators to use these deterrents and a strict reporting and monitoring regime has been
established that requires permit holders to provide feedback on each incident.
The Tasmanian protocol also allows for the trapping and relocation of seals by permit holders and
departmental officers. There are strict requirements to ensure that the seals are not harmed and that if
they are in a weakened state a veterinarian is called to assist. Trapped and relocated seals must be
micro-chipped and weighed.
From 1990 to 2005, 4517 relocations of 1,124 seals were undertaken on salmon aquaculture farms in
Tasmania, peaking at 1,203 relocations in 2003. Of the relocations, 56% were recaptured seals. Most
seals had less than 10 captures (46%), with 3% trapped more than 20 times. Relocations were mostly
seasonal, occurring in winter and spring with a peak in August. Seal recapture intervals were highly
variable, ranging from days to years. Within the same year, recapture intervals per seal ranged from
four to 258 days, with a mean interval of 36 days (Robinson et al, 2008).
A review of the trapping and relocation program concluded that relocation provides short-term relief
from seal interactions but does not mitigate the interaction problem in the longer term. The core of the
seal interaction problem is the current inability to exclude seals from pens and fish stock. Salmon
farms are providing a predictable, accessible food source for seals (Robinson et al, 2008).
Furthermore, it has been suggested that deterrents such as ‘crackers’ may have a negative off-target
impacts on Little Penguins in the vicinity (Wiebkin 2011a, pers. comm.).
The National Strategy to Address Interactions between Humans and Seals (Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, 2006) does not support an interventionist approach to seals:
‘Fish farm operators have tried a variety of methods to discourage and repel seals from their operations.
Deterrents such as chasing seals with boats, capture and relocation of troublesome individual seals, strategic
lighting, seal crackers (and other aversive noises) and the use of emetic agents in baits help reduce the number of
seal interactions in the short term. The only effective protection is to exclude seals from the immediate vicinity
of fish pens by strategic site placement, regular gear maintenance and physical barriers using appropriate net
designs and construction materials.’
(Kemper et al, 2003, in Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2006, p9).
Possible survival mechanisms of Little Penguins
Small numbers spread over wider areas and locations remote from seal colonies
Simon Goldsworthy, Principal Scientist, Pelagic Ecology at SARDI (in Atkins, 2010, p31) suggests
that penguins may be modifying their colonisation behaviour in the face of fur seal attacks favouring
smaller more widely distributed colonies less attractive to seals and also locations more remote from
fur seal colonies. He suggests that if these adaptations are successful then current mortality pressure
placed on penguins by Fur Seals has the potential to reach long term sustainable levels.
If Goldsworthy is correct then it is possible that Granite Island, Penneshaw, and other Little Penguin
colonies exposed to large (and increasing) New Zealand fur seal populations may become extinct
while other colonies more suited to cohabitation with increased seal populations survive and prosper.
While this scenario would have negative implications for penguin tourism, Little Penguins as a species
endemic to South Australia may not be threatened.
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
16
CONCLUSIONS
The decline of Little Penguin numbers in South Australia is a complex issue. There are a number of
issues that require further research before definitive conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness
of policies aimed at protecting Little Penguin colonies:








Little Penguins numbers are declining in South Australia. A recent report prepared for the
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board concluded that there is sufficient evidence to
recommend that their conservation status should be amended from ‘common’ to ‘vulnerable’.
However, due to possible data inaccuracies further monitoring of population numbers is
needed before making a final determination. The A&MLR NRM Board report also mentions
degradation of the marine environment as a possible threat to penguins, including impacts
from trawling, agricultural and stormwater runoff, sewage and dust storms. Loss of seagrass
is impacting on the survival of baitfish (including sardines), the main prey of penguins. Large
numbers of Little Penguin deaths have been linked to sardine mass mortalities caused by over
fishing and disease. It recommends that the link between fisheries and penguin survival be
further investigated and that the foraging areas of little penguins be included in Marine Parks
(currently under review) to protect their food source.
There is conflicting evidence about the impact of land-based predators and humans through
both tourism interaction and deliberate interference. At Granite Island it is understood rats
and other predators reduce the numbers of chicks reaching maturity. However, numbers are
also rapidly declining at nearby West Island which does not have these predators.
Several studies based in South Australia and South Africa confirm that Fur Seals (in
particular New Zealand, adult males) predate on Little Penguins. However, penguin numbers
have also declined in colonies not impacted by seals, suggesting other factors may be
involved as well. Further research is needed to better understand why this is the case. It has
also been observed that Little Penguins have relocated to areas remote from Fur Seals as a
survival strategy and are establishing smaller, more scattered colonies which are harder for
Fur Seals to target.
A number of researchers conclude that trapping and relocating seals is ineffective in the long
term in reducing impacts on aquaculture facilities. However, if owners/managers of tourism
ventures were prepared to resource ongoing management of ‘rogue predators’ effectiveness
may be improved. Animal welfare issues would need to be considered in any intervention
strategy. In addition, seal deterrents such as ‘crackers’ may have the potential to harm Little
Penguins and other wildlife in the vicinity.
Further research is needed to confirm if seals are eating penguins (and other seabirds) as a
consequence of shortages of preferred prey, e.g. fish, cuttlefish and octopus. It has also been
suggested that penguins may be stressed due to food shortages: Little Penguins at West Island
travel much greater distances than at other colonies (e.g. Philip Island, Victoria) to feed.
Greater travel time means chicks are without parents for longer increasing their exposure to
various hazards. Similarly, increased numbers of whales due to the cessation of whale hunting
could potentially be having an impact on the availability of food generally for fish, seabirds
and mammals.
Some evidence suggests that seals ‘learn’ to hunt penguins by copying each other. Further
research is needed to confirm this. If confirmed then relocating ‘rogue seals’ before others
begin to mimic their behaviour may stop it spreading.
Evidence has shown that human interaction with penguins, even with the best of intentions,
can be harmful.
Whilst there is a need to resolve conflicting observations about the causes of Little Penguin
population decline through more robust and long term research, this does not necessarily
mean that management actions should not be taken in the meantime, particularly where
immanent local extinctions of colonies is likely to take place.
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
17
REFERENCES
Atkins, B (2010) To Interfere or Not to Interfere? Internship Report for Hon Mark Parnell MLC,
Parliamentary Leader, Australian Greens (SA), October 2010. Copy held in SA Parliamentary
Research Library.
Bool N M, Page B, and Goldsworthy S A (2007) What is causing the decline of Little Penguins on
Granite Island, South Australia? SA Research and Development Institute (SARDI) July 2007
Crawford, R J M, David, J H M, Williams, A J and Dyer, B M (1989) Competition for space:
Recolonising seals displace endangered, endemic seabirds off Namibia, as published in Biological
Conservation (journal), Volume 48, Issue 1, 1989
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2008) Science for Decision Makers –
Managing Interactions between Humans and Seals Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences,
February 2008
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania) (undated)
Combined Protocols for the Mitigation of Seal Interactions with Aquaculture Staff and Infrastructure
Government of Tasmania
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2006), National Strategy to Address
Interactions between Humans and Seals, Australian Government, November 2006:
www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/.../seal-strategy.pdf
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011), Species
group
report
cards
–
sea
birds,
Commonwealth
of
Australia,
2011:
www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-east/index.html
Flaherty, Tony (2011), Manager Coast and Marine Services, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges
NRM Board, Memorandum to Natural Resources Committee, 8th June 2011
Good, Kym (2011), Presiding Member Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, Interview
with Ian Henschke - ABC Radio 891, 29 August 2011
Haddrill, Bill (2011) PowerPoint presentation to Natural Resources Committee, 11th March 2011
John R L, Venter A, Bester M N and Oosthuizen W H (2005) Seabird predation by White shark
(Carcharodon carcharias) and Cape fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus at Dyer Island, Mammal
Research Institute, Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of Pretoria, 10 November 2005
Kangaroo Island NRM Board (undated), Working with the community for Little Penguins, Oceans
of Blue Fact Sheet (see: www.kinrm.sa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hHfF1FhZ5MQ%3D)
Makhado, A. B., Meÿer, M. A., Crawford, R. J. M., Underhill, L. G. and Wilke, C. (2009), The
efficacy of culling seals seen preying on seabirds as a means of reducing seabird mortality. African
Journal of Ecology, 47: 335–340.
Makhado, A B (2009), Investigation of the impact of Fur Seals on the conservation status of seabirds
at islands off South Africa and at the Prince Edward Islands, Thesis Presented for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Zoology, University of Capetown, February 2009
Page B, Mckenzie J and Goldsworthy S (2005), Dietary resource partitioning among sympatric New
Zealand and Australian Fur Seals, Marine Ecology Press Series Vol. 293: 283-302, 2005
Parliament of South Australia (2011), Natural Resources Committee, Committee Hansard,
Penguins, 11 March 2011.
Parliament of South Australia (2011a), Natural Resources Committee, Committee Hansard,
Penguins, 6 May 2011.
Robinson S, Terauds A, Gales R and Greenwood M (2008), Mitigating fur seal interactions:
relocation from Tasmanian aquaculture farms, Aquatic Observation: Marine and Freshwater
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
18
Ecosystems
Volume
18
Issue
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.971/abstract
7,
pages
1180-1188:
Robinson, Tony et al (1996), South Australia’s Offshore Islands, Australian Heritage Commissions,
1996
Shaughnessy, Peter (1999), The Action Plan for Australian Seals, Environment Australia, April 1999
Shaughnessy, Peter (1996), Changes in the Abundance of New Zealand Fur Seals, Arctocephalus
forsteri,
on
the
Neptune
Island,
South
Australia,
CSIRO
1996:
www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9960697.htm
The Australian (2011), Fate of island penguins as hunted become hunters, 26 March 2011 (see:
www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/fate-of-island-penguins-appears-sealed-as-hunted-becomehunters/story-e6frg6nf-1226028346271)
Victor Harbour Times (2011), Shining a light on little penguins, 24 August 2011 (see:
www.victorharbortimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/shining-a-light-on-littlepenguins/2270111.aspx?storypage=0)
Wiebkin, A S (2010), Little Penguins at Troubridge Island: establishing a monitoring program for
the future, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, March 2010
Wiebkin (2011a) Seabird Researcher, South Australian Research and Development Institute
(SARDI), pers. comm. 25th May 2011
Wiebkin, A. S. (2011b) Conservation management priorities for little penguin populations in Gulf St
Vincent - Report to Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, South
Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide, SARDI Publication No.
F2011/000188-1 SARDI Research Report Series No. 588. 97pp. June 2011
Parliament of South Australia
Natural Resources Committee
19
ABBREVIATIONS
AMLR
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges
DENR
Department for Environment and Natural Resources
DSEWPC
Department of Sustainability,
Communities (Commonwealth)
PIRSA
Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Department of)
SARDI
South Australian Research and Development Institute
Parliament of South Australia
Environment,
Water,
Population
and
Natural Resources Committee