Montague Island Nature Reserve
Plan of Management
NSW NPWS
PO Box 282
NAROOMA NSW 2546
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
MONTAGUE ISLAND NATURE RESERVE
PLAN OF MANAGEMENT
First we request an extension of time for submissions. While the exhibition of the plan over the holiday period may meet legal requirements it could also be regarded as a cynical exercise timed to minimise input.
Our Association welcomes some of the amendments but objects strongly to the proposals to --
Page 20 Sect 4.3.1
The number of visitors on the island will not exceed 200 visitors
in any given 24 hour period (midnight to midnight) unless altered
in accordance with the consideration below in Action 2
This amendment cannot be justified by Criterion One - No deleterious impacts on the wildlife, tracks and historic places
Dr Shaughnessy's work (1998) was done when visitor numbers were low. Was it completed before 1999 when visitor numbers reached a peak of 7000? Since his surveys the wildlife, especially the penguins, has been badly affected by wildfire and by reduced food supplies when pilchards were killed by disease.
The primary purpose of the Nature Reserve must be to protect wildlife. Montague Island, already so important as a refuge and breeding area, will become even more so as our mainland coast increasingly suffers the results of urbanisation and feral predation.
Tours pass through seal colonies, nesting areas for penguins, shearwaters and crested terns. If there are more than double the number of tourists each day there will have to be increased development of facilities. The island will be doubly affected by more people, more waste and litter, and less natural habitat.
We are particularly concerned that increased numbers of people wanting to view penguins will worsen the current decline in the penguin population. We understand that already "Penguin Tours" have been renamed "Evening Tours" because there are often no penguins to be seen. There are certainly precedents elsewhere in Australia for increased visitor numbers resulting in fewer penguins. Martin Fortescue ("The little penguin on Bowen Island", Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Jervis Bay National Park) gives two examples -- Summerland Beach in Victoria and Penguin Island southwest of Perth in WA. He also says "recent unpublished research has revealed a significantly lower breeding success in areas visited by the public compared to protected areas"
In discussing Criterion three your paper says that the purpose of the increase is "to allow more tour groups on the island during the same period thus allowing the NPWS to meet tour demand, increase profits during peak visitation periods….."
Naturally most tourists will want to visit the island when they have most chance of seeing penguins. Thus tour demand is probably in direct opposition to what is best for penguin breeding success.
There needs to be a clause in the Plan of Management limiting the maximum number of people on the island at any one time to 80 (two vessels) and the maximum number of visitors per day should remain at 90 until the penguin colony fully recovers. If and when this happens increases in visitor numbers should be gradual - say a 10 per day increase - with the impact of each increase properly assessed before more are considered.
As for increasing profits, we are concerned that this could become a guiding principle for NSW NPWS. It has been a very disturbing aspect of recent changes to legislation and policies. When the dollar takes precedence then the primary object of protecting fauna, flora, historic and cultural sites will suffer. There are plenty of examples in America and Australia that we could cite but are sure you are already aware of them.
Page 20. Sect 4.3.2 To reinforce a remote recreation experience and to ensure that visitors do not feel crowded a maximum persons/guide ratio of 40:1 will be specified within licence conditions
Judging on our experiences of guiding groups 40 is too large for giving visitors the best experience and, depending on the people, for guides to adequately control.
Page 17 Section 4.2.2 and Page 20, first paragraph …"research based tourism accommodation"
This activity needs careful definition in the Plan of Management to ensure that research is the prime purpose and to ensure that the research does no harm. Since the paying customer "researchers" will need facilities, food, waste disposal and services, and they will be allowed on parts of the Island denied to other visitors they could have much more impact even though they may be few in number.
Page 23 A new sewerage system will be installed…. to cater for the increased visitation
The system should be designed to cope with visitor numbers allowed under the existing system (maximum of 90 per day ) with capacity to expand if needed at some time in the future.
Given the shortage of water composting toilets should be considered as they could also dispose of organic waste from the kitchen, etc.
We welcome the amendments designed to protect aboriginal heritage .
CONCLUSION
Under the present policy of a maximum of 90 visitors per day
the yearly visitor pressure
(90 X 365) has never been close to its potential maximum. However,
according to Dene Moore of Eurobodalla Tourism, tourism in the
region is growing rapidly with greater numbers in the "shoulder
seasons".
There is more than enough opportunity for tourists to visit
the Island without changing the maximum allowed per day. There
should be no increase in daily numbers until the impact of growth
in annual tourism is studied and until penguin numbers have fully
recovered. Meanwhile, the Plan should ensure that no more than
80 people are allowed on the Island at any one time.