raising indigenous community awareness and promoting on ... · in both hammond island and the trawq...

1

Raising Indigenous community awareness and promoting on-ground recovery activities for marine turtle and dugongs in Torres Strait Final project report prepared for the Department of Environment and Heritage November 2005 (revised February 2006) Mark Hamann1, Jillian Grayson1 and Helene Marsh1

1. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook

University, Townsville, Q4811, Australia

2

Copyright This report nor any part may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming or recording without prior written permission from the Traditional Owners (Kaurareg Traditional Aboriginal Elders Corporation). This permission can be obtained through the Torres Strait Regional Authority. Permission to place this document on the internet has been provided by the Traditional Owners.

3

Executive summary

The purpose of this project was to raise Indigenous community awareness and promote on-ground recovery activities for marine turtles and dugongs in Torres Strait. We successfully completed the project through working with communities on Hammond and Thursday Islands to establish (1) a marine turtle project and (2) a marine turtle and dugong catch monitoring project. Additional financial support for the project came from James Cook University, CRC Torres Strait and Ocean Park Conservation Foundation. The project achieved all of its stated objectives, and the project’s results have greatly enhanced our knowledge of marine turtles and dugongs in Torres Strait. Four breeding turtles were tracked using satellite telemetry from October 2005 until February 2006. The three females tracked are nested on islands in the northern Great Barrier Reef and all three have begun their return migration. Community support for the satellite tracking component was strong; two schools were actively involved in the attachment, naming, release and subsequent tracking of the turtles. The satellite tracking website has received over 2500 hits. Two articles were published in the Torres News about satellite tracking of Torres Strait turtles. Five rodeo trips were conducted in the Kaiwalagal region (Inner Islands). 106 turtles (71 green turtles) were caught, tagged and released. Over 90% were laparoscope examined. Two workshops were held to train hunters. Hunters were successfully trained in turtle tagging, ovary assessment and in the measurement of turtles and dugongs. Hunters are now self assessing ovaries, and measuring hunted turtles. An Indigenous research counterpart was employed at each of Hammond Island and Thursday Island (TRAWQ). These Indigenous research counterparts were trained in, and involved with, all aspects of the project. Catch monitoring of turtles and dugongs is running successfully on Hammond Island and with the TRAWQ community on Thursday Island. At Hammond Island 17 hunters registered and 92% of registered hunters participated in the survey. At Thursday Island 63 hunters registered and 25% participated in the survey. In both Hammond Island and the TRAWQ community, the participating hunters included the main hunters from the community. At Hammond Island two hunters accounted for 90% of the dugongs and three hunters accounted for 40% of the turtles caught. On Thursday Island two hunters reported 56% of the dugongs and four hunters reported 52% of the turtles caught. For both Hammond Island and the Thursday Island group, more turtles than dugongs were caught. Fifty seven percent of the animals caught at Hammond Island were turtles and 43% were dugongs and for the Thursday Island group 64% of the animals caught were turtles and 36% were dugongs.

4

Table of Contents Executive summary........................................................................................................3 Objectives ......................................................................................................................6 Outcomes .......................................................................................................................6 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................10

1.1 Aims of the project.............................................................................................11 2. Background ..............................................................................................................12

2.1 Why monitor dugongs and turtles? ....................................................................12 2.2 Interactions between the dugong and turtle fisheries.........................................13 2.3 Attempts to monitor the harvest of dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait...........13 2.4 Chronology of community-based monitoring of dugongs and marine turtles in Torres Strait .............................................................................................................15 2.5 Scientifically robust monitoring ........................................................................16 2.6. Sampling bias....................................................................................................17

3. Methods...................................................................................................................17 3.1 Study communities.............................................................................................17 3.2 Provide a workshop in the Kaiwalagal region for Torres Strait Islander hunters which train hunters in the measurement of harvested turtles and dugongs, recognition of age class, maturity and breeding status and the collection of biological samples (Consultancy Service 4). ...........................................................20 3.3 Employ an Indigenous research counterpart at a minimum of 75% of a full time position for 12 months (Consultancy Service 6)......................................................20 3.4 Train the Indigenous research counterpart and involve him/her in all aspects of the project as shown in the table titled “responsibilities of the project team” (Consultancy Service 7) ...........................................................................................22 3.5 Monitor the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait (Annexure A) ...................................................22 3.6 Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles (Consultancy Service 5) ...........................................................................................25 3.7 Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the Kaiwalagal region using laparoscopic examination (at least 3 trips; Consultancy Service 3) .................................................................................................................26 3.8 Conduct a satellite tagging/tracking of Hawksbill and green turtles program in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait.....................................................................27 3.9 Provide information and feedback through community meetings (Annexure A)..................................................................................................................................28 3.10 Write and submit reports on the above activities, including the findings satellite tracking, laparoscope examination and information collected on turtle and dugong catches from hunters in the inner islands of Torres Strait (Consultancy Service 8) .................................................................................................................28

4. Results.....................................................................................................................29 4.1 Provide a workshop in the Kaiwalagal region for Torres Strait Islander hunters which train hunters in the measurement of harvested turtles and dugongs, recognition of age class, maturity and breeding status and the collection of biological samples (Consultancy service 4).............................................................29 4.2 Monitor the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait (Annexure A) ...................................................32

5

4.3 Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles (Consultancy service 5)............................................................................................37 4.4 Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the Kaiwalagal region using laparoscopic examination (at least 3 trips; Consultancy service 3) ..................................................................................................................38 4.5 Conduct a satellite tagging/tracking of hawksbill and green turtles program in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait.....................................................................44

5. Discussion ...............................................................................................................52 5.1 Monitor the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait...........................................................................52 5.2 Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles (Consultancy Service 5). ..........................................................................................55 5.3 Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the Kaiwalagal region using laparoscopic examination (at least 3 trips; Consultancy Service 3) .................................................................................................................59

6. Key areas for research and management focus........................................................60 6.1 Research needs...................................................................................................60 6.2 Management needs (as identified by the Hammond Island Community)..........62

7. Lessons learned.......................................................................................................63 7.1 Lessons for community-based monitoring of dugongs and turtles ....................63 7.2 Lessons for management of dugong and turtle harvests ....................................64

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................66 Literature cited .............................................................................................................67

Appendix 1 data sheet for catch monitoring ............................................................71 Appendix 2: Relevant section of the Research MoU...............................................72 Appendix 3: Practical sampling exercise.................................................................73 Appendix 4: Story in the Torres News promoting and upcoming meeting .............74 Appendix 5: Article in Hammond Island Newsletter ..............................................75 Appendix 6: Article in CRC Reef Newsletter.........................................................76 Appendix 7: Torres News article May 2005...........................................................77 Appendix 8: Article in Torres News – satellite tracking ........................................78 Appendix 9: TSRA Newsletter – satellite tracking.................................................79 Appendix 10: Logo on Polo-shirts worn by Indigenous counterparts ....................80 Appendix 11: Example of a story on animal cruelty ..............................................81

6

Objectives

1. Provide information on which recovery actions can be based by: a. conducting a satellite tagging/tracking of hawksbill and green turtles

program in the Inner Islands of Torres Strait b. rodeo catching and monitoring the reproductive status of green turtles on

the reefs of Inner Islands of Torres Strait on at least three occasions during the year

c. monitoring the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Inner Islands.

2. Engage communities in the recovery actions by: a. employing Indigenous counterpart(s), b. providing a training workshop for hunters, and c. providing information and feedback through community meetings.

Outcomes

Milestone Date Outcomes Status of milestone at end of project

Section(s) of report

GENERAL ACTIVITIES Staff Relevant scientists engaged in the project

30 November 2004

• Mark Hamann: November 10 2004; • Jillian Grayson: moved to live on Thursday

Island on November 4 2004

Milestone achieved

Permits Permits for collecting data on live turtles and satellite tracking granted

30 November 2004

• The James Cook University Animal Ethics Committee approved the project (Project numbers A957 and A932)

• Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Scientific Purposes Permit (Project numbers WISP02742305 and WISP02582304)

Milestone achieved

PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHICH RECOVERY ACTIONS CAN BE BASED Satellite tracking/tagging program Turtles caught for satellite tracking

August 30 2005 (permission granted by DEH for later satellite tracking to increase the opportunity of utilising breeding turtles).

• 1Attempted to catch breeding turtles for satellite tracking during the early September rodeo trip, but few turtles were mating at this time;

• 1Four breeding green turtles were caught (3 females and 1 male) and had satellite tags attached in early October 2005;

• 2School presentations given on the 2 and 6 September 2005.

• 2School children from the OLSH School on Hammond Island and the Thursday Island High School named the turtles, helped release them and continue to track their movements.

• 7The Indigenous research counterparts from Hammond Island and TRAWQ participated

Milestone achieved

3.8, 4.5

7

in this part of the project. Turtle rodeo and reproductive monitoring Turtle rodeo and reproductive monitoring commences

April 30 2005 • Turtle rodeos and reproductive monitoring conducted 6-17 April 2005.

• 35 turtles caught, tagged, examined using the laparoscope and released.

• 7Indigenous counterparts involved in all activities undertaken during the rodeo field trip;

• 7Indigenous counterparts taught how to tag and measure marine turtles and are gradually being shown how to work out maturity from gonads.

Milestone achieved

3.7, 4.4, 5.3

Turtle rodeo and reproductive monitoring continue

June 15 2005 • Turtle rodeos and reproductive monitoring conducted 6 – 17 April, 17-25 May, 14-21 June.

• 353 turtles caught, tagged, examined using the laparoscope and released.

• 7Training and involvement of Indigenous counterparts continued.

Milestone achieved

3.7, 4.4, 5.3

Turtle rodeo and reproductive monitoring continued until end of DEH project

October 31 2005

• Additional turtle rodeos and reproductive monitoring conducted 1-9 September and 2 – 14 October

• A total of 53 turtles were caught, tagged and released. Over 90% were laparoscope examined.

• 7Training and involvement of Indigenous counterparts continued –hunters have started to self assess ovaries for breeding status.

• 7Plan to continue at Hammond Island.

Milestone exceeded

3.7, 4.4, 5.3

Catch-monitoring Harvest monitoring commenced from November 1 2004

1 November 2004

• Commenced on 14th July 2004 but then suspended due to factors beyond control of the project

Milestone achieved

3.5, 4.2, 5.2

Harvest monitoring continues

April 30 2005 • Participation stalled on 8th November 2004 • Participation recommenced on 25th

February 2005 • 5Data collected from hunters on Hammond

Island since February 2005. • 7Indigenous counterparts distributing and

collecting datasheets • 7Indigenous counterparts taught how to

measure marine turtles and dugongs, collect biological samples from marine turtles and gradually shown how to work out maturity from gonads.

• 9Indigenous counterparts verifying information collected using datasheets by keeping an independent record of catches.

Milestone achieved

3.5, 4.2, 5.2

Harvest monitoring continues

June 15 2005 • Harvest monitoring continued on Hammond Island since February 2005.

• Harvest monitoring recommenced on TI from 6th May.

• 5Data collected from hunters on Hammond Island since February 2005.

• 7Training and involvement of Indigenous

Milestone achieved

3.5, 4.2, 5.2

8

counterparts continued; • 9Verification of information from datasheets

continuing. Harvest monitoring continued until end of DEH project

October 31 2005

• Harvest monitoring continued on Hammond Island since February 2005.

• Harvest monitoring recommenced on TI from 6th May 2005.

• 5Plan to continue at both Hammond and Thursday Islands.

• 7Plan to continue at both Hammond and Thursday Islands.

• 9Plan to continue verification of information from datasheets.

Milestone achieved and ongoing

3.5, 4.2, 5.2

Field work completed October 31 • Field work on DEH project concluded on this date. Field work on CRC projects conducted by Grayson and Hamann to continue until June 2006.


ENGAGE COMMUNITIES IN THE RECOVERY ACTIONS Indigenous communities engaged in the project

30 November 2004

• Engaged since 14th July 2004; • Participation stalled on 8th November 2004 • Participation recommenced on 25th

February 2005

Milestone achieved

3.1

Employ Indigenous counterparts 6Employ an Indigenous research counterpart at a minimum of 75% of a full time position for 12 months

October 31 2004

• An Indigenous research counterpart employed at Hammond Island and Thursday Island.

• A greater level of employment achieved with supplementary funding from other sources.


3.3

Provide training workshops for hunters Training workshop conducted

April 30 2005 • 4Training workshops conducted on 25 February and 8 April 2005.

• 4Training workshops offered on 26 February and 7 April 2005.

Milestone exceeded

3.2, 4.1

Provide information and feedback 10Provide information and feedback through community meetings and the media

• 16th April 2005 – public meeting at Hammond Island;

• 11th May 2005 – article in Torres News; • June – “Dugong for our children” video

updated; • 8th June – article in CRC Reef newsletter. • 12th October - Article in Torres News re

Satellite tracking • November - Article in TSRA Newsletter re

Satellite tracking. • Feedback meeting at planned at Hammond

Island for early December 2005.

Milestone achieved

3.9

REPORTING Brief interim report outlining progress to date and detailed plans

November 30 2004

• Submitted on time Milestone achieved

Brief interim report outlining progress to date

April 30 2005 • Submitted on time; supplementary material supplied at request of DEH

Milestone achieved

Brief interim report June 15 2005 • Submitted on time Milestone

9

outlining progress to date

achieved

Project complete: Final report submitted to DEH outlining the number and groups of Indigenous people engaged in the recovery actions and outcomes of the project

November 30 2005

• Final report submitted Milestone achieved

8Write and submit reports on the above activities, including the findings satellite tracking, laparoscope examination and information collected on turtle and dugong catches from hunters in the inner islands of Torres Strait

November 30 2005

• Reports detailing the findings of this project will be prepared as individual aspects of the project completed. Full details will be provided on all animals satellite tracked and, rodeo caught and examined using laparoscope. Details will be provided on sex, size and maturity of dugongs and turtles caught by hunters. Only information not disclosed under terms of research agreements will be total number caught.

Pending as appropriate

3.10

8 Continued February 2006 • Final report revised as per the comments by DEH. The satellite tracking sections were also updated.

1Catch four turtles (preferably two hawksbill turtles and two green turtles) in the Kaiwalagal region (Inner Islands) of Torres Strait, attach satellite transmitters to each and monitor the movements of these turtles using satellite telemetry; 2Involve at least two schools in the area in the satellite tracking program where students are to undertake activities which include the monitoring of the turtles movements by the internet or other means; 3Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the inner islands using laparoscopic examination (at least three trips); 4Provide a workshop in the Kaiwalagal region for Torres Strait Islander hunters which train hunters in the measurement of harvested turtles and dugongs, recognition of age class, maturity and breeding status and the collection of biological samples; 5Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles; 6Employ an Indigenous research counterpart at a minimum of 75% of a full time position for 12 months; 7Train the Indigenous research counterpart and involve him/her in all aspects of the project as shown in the table titled “responsibilities of the project team”; 8Write and submit reports on the above activities, including the findings satellite tracking, laparoscope examination and information collected on turtle and dugong catches from hunters in the inner islands of Torres Strait; 9Catch monitoring of marine turtles and dugongs; 10Provide information and feedback through community meetings and the media

10

1. Introduction

The six species of sea turtles that occur in Australian waters are all listed as threatened by the IUCN Red List 2003, the Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999(C’wealth) and the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. Dugongs are listed as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List 2003, and the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. They are listed as Migratory and Marine species under the Australian EPBC Act 1999. The Indigenous fisheries for turtles and dugongs are listed as Article 22 fisheries under the Torres Strait Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people of Torres Strait assign dugongs and marine turtles great cultural, social, spiritual and dietary significance (Smith and Marsh, 1990; Johannes and MacFarlane, 1991; Bradley 1997). Dugongs and turtles also form the basis of subsistence economies in most Indigenous communities in Torres Strait (Kwan et al., in press). As a signatory to international conventions and adoption of their principles in legislation, Australia has obligations to balance the conservation of dugongs and turtles and the conservation of Indigenous culture of dugong and turtle hunting. The availability of data required for a robust scientific assessment of the sustainability of dugongs and marine turtles in Torres Strait are limited. Data limitations include, catch rates of dugongs and turtles, geographic ranges of stocks and population sizes in Torres Strait. In addition to data limitations, the dugong and turtle fisheries are currently essentially unregulated. Limited efforts have been made by research groups or Government agencies to engage Torres Strait Islanders in the collection of the data required to manage the fisheries under both western scientific and traditional ecological knowledge frameworks. Such engagement is vital to the preparation of culturally and ecologically sensitive management strategies for marine turtles and dugongs in Torres Strait and is especially relevant to a successful implementation of Commonwealth Policy as outlined in Sustainable Harvest of Turtles and Dugongs in Australia – a National Approach. In Torres Strait, Indigenous people have considerable traditional knowledge of sea turtles and dugongs at a local scale. However, most Islanders do not appreciate the larger spatial and temporal scales at which these animals operate, because they have not been exposed to the tools and techniques employed by western scientists (e.g. aerial surveys, satellite telemetry). In addition, experience elsewhere shows that the results of western scientific research are more likely to be accepted if Indigenous people are involved in actual collection of the data (e.g. Kennett et al., 2004). Active involvement in monitoring their traditional harvest also helps Indigenous people to: (1) understand the implications of their level of harvest, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of their management strategies, and (3) help design changes as necessary. Thus monitoring has the potential to provide important feedback to communities about the value and effectiveness of managing their turtle and dugong fisheries.

11

1.1 Aims of the project The aims of the project were: 1) To raise awareness in Indigenous communities of Torres Strait about: • the biology of marine turtles and dugongs, especially their tendency to undertake

large-scale movements; and • the need for the Indigenous harvest to be sustainable by involving community members in harvest monitoring, studies of turtles on home reefs and satellite tracking. 2) To involve Indigenous communities in on-ground recovery actions by: • employing Indigenous counterparts; and • training members of the community to monitor their catches of dugongs and green

turtles. In particular to:

1. Catch four turtles (preferably two hawksbill and two green turtles) in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait, attach satellite transmitters to each and monitor the movements;

2. Involve at least two schools in the area in the satellite tracking program where students are to undertake activities which include the monitoring of turtles movements by the internet or other means;

3. Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the inner islands using laparoscopic examination (at least three trips);

4. Provide a workshop in the inner islands for Torres Strait Islander hunters which train hunters in the measurement of harvested turtles and dugongs, recognition of age class, maturity and breeding status and the collection of biological samples;

5. Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles;

6. Employ and Indigenous research counterpart at a minimum of 75% of a full time position for 12 months;

7. Train the Indigenous research counterpart and involve him/her in all aspects of the project as shown in the table “responsibilities of the project team”;

8. Write and submit reports on the above activities, including the findings of satellite tracking, laparoscope examination and information collected on turtle and dugong catches from hunters in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait.

12

2. Background

2.1 Why monitor dugongs and turtles? The status of an animal population can be determined by several techniques including: (1) monitoring trends in abundance and (2) various modelling techniques especially population viability analysis (Taylor and Gerrodette, 1993). Both of these methods require data sets on life history parameters, mortality, survivorship, growth and behaviour. In general, monitoring changes in abundance is not the most reliable way to evaluate whether management intervention is needed because the change has to be very large, or occur quickly to be detected (Taylor and Gerrodette, 1993; Wade, 1998). Furthermore, for long-lived animals such as sea turtles and dugongs, by the time significant changes in abundance have occurred it is often hard to re-build population levels (e.g. green turtles in South-East Asia (Seminoff 2002), hawksbills (see Special edition of Chelonian Conservation Biology Vol 3; No. 2)). In Australia, the dugong, Dugong dugon, has a panmictic genetic structure (Brenda McDonald personal communication). Individuals move large distances (hundreds of kilometres) with high spatial and temporal variability. Therefore the abundance of dugongs in any given region is naturally variable through time, further complicating the detection of population trends (Marsh et al., 2004a,b; Gales et al., 2004). Therefore declines in dugong abundance are unlikely to be detected until a population is seriously depleted and population census work in one foraging area is unlikely to provide accurate estimates of population abundance (Heinsohn et al., 2004; Marsh et al., 2004a, b). For dugongs the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) technique has been used to estimate a sustainable level of anthropogenic mortality from all causes including Indigenous hunting (Marsh et al., 2004b). The PBR is the maximum number of animals, excluding natural mortality, which may be removed sustainably from a marine mammal population (Wade, 1998). A PBR evaluation of the sustainability of anthropogenic morality requires at least three sets of data: (1) an accurate estimate of population size, which for dugongs is typically estimated using aerial surveys, (2) the rate of increase for the population, which can be obtained from demographic information (see Marsh et al., 2004b) and (3) the level of anthropogenic mortality. For turtles, it is difficult to estimate a sustainable catch rate because of the difficulties associated with estimating population size (Limpus, 2002). Marine turtles show strong site fidelity to particular foraging areas, only migrating for breeding (Plotkin, 2003). However, studies that address population characteristics such as sex ratios and breeding rates over a series of foraging areas can provide valuable data from which to estimate population trends (Hamann et al., 2002; Limpus and Limpus, 2003). For example, population modelling can be used to derive estimates of growth functions, age estimates, annual survivorship and recruitment rates and rates of change in population size. These sets of data can provide valuable information on population status, such data are not available for the northern Great Barrier Reef (GBR)/Torres Strait green turtle population.

13

While some of the data sets necessary for assessing population status are available, such as life history parameters and behaviour, effective assessment and monitoring of the status of dugong and marine turtle populations will require estimation of anthropogenic mortality, baseline data on catch statistics and, for turtles, foraging area population dynamics and hatchling production (nest success). The former can be boosted by including data on turtles that are harvested. With appropriate training Indigenous hunters can collect valuable data on species, sex, size, maturity and breeding history from the turtles they hunt. Monitoring harvested turtles can, therefore, provide a better understanding of the biological characteristics of the turtle population as well as the size of the catch.

2.2 Interactions between the dugong and turtle fisheries Monitoring the catch of both dugongs and green turtles is necessary because both species are hunted together in the western islands of Torres Strait, using similar equipment. When a single species is targeted, hunting pressure should decline with the density of the prey species because it takes longer to find animals when the density is low. Thus hunting per se is unlikely to drive a species to extinction except when hunting targets more than one species (Bomford and Caughley, 1996) or the desired species is of substantial economic or cultural importance. In the first case, hunting of any target species is expected to cease only when the combined density of all target species is so low that hunting is not worthwhile. In the second case, the density at which hunting is not worthwhile is likely to be very low because of the substantial economic and/or cultural rewards associated with catching the target species. Turtles are considered to be naturally more abundant than dugongs in the Western Islands of Torres Strait. Therefore, unregulated opportunistic hunting of dugongs would be likely to continue until the abundance of turtles became low because dugongs could still be found while hunting for turtles despite their numbers declining (Marsh et al., 1997). Hence the two species need to be managed simultaneously. Similarly, either species may be caught incidentally during fishing activities targeting the other species. For example, Kwan (1991, 2002) reported a negative relationship between landings of crayfish and dugong hunting at Mabuiag Island and Kwan et al. (in press) suggested that the hybrid nature of the local economy influenced this relationship. The hybrid economy consists of subsistence, state and commercial sectors (Altman and Cochrane 2003). When the amount and/or price of crayfish are low, greater subsistence hunting of dugongs may be necessary. In addition, when crayfish are abundant and/or prices are high, the resultant income may be used to buy better or additional dinghies and/or fuel, which can be used to hunt dugongs and turtles (Kwan et al., in press). The interaction between dugong and turtle hunting and fishing for crayfish warrants further investigation in other Torres Strait communities.

2.3 Attempts to monitor the harvest of dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait Projects to estimate the traditional catch of turtles first began in the 1970s (Kowarsky 1982). However the most detailed surveys of dugong and turtle harvests in the Torres Strait Protected Zone (TSPZ) were started by CSIRO (funded by Australian Fisheries

14

Management Authority (AFMA)) in 1991-1993 and continued by AFMA in each of 1993-1996 and 1996-2000/01. A survey method in which local Indigenous roving observers, based on Thursday Island, systematically monitored the 14 different island communities in the TSPZ for periods of 3-7 days throughout the year was used (Dews et al., 1993). Sampling was stratified according to the contribution of the community to the total catch landed each year (Harris et al., 1997). The number of sampling days for the TSPZ was doubled during the 1996-2000/01 survey (to 250 days in 2000/01) because of concerns about the low precision of the catch estimates. The observers collected information on the fishing activities (method, catch, composition, effort, location, boats, fishers, weather and tide), which was used to estimate the catch, effort and participation for the year (Harris et al., 1997; Skewes et al., 2002). AFMA also ran a school based catch-monitoring project for dugongs and turtles from 1990-1999. School children from the various communities recorded dugong and turtle catches on calendars. This project had an excellent educational and extension role and the data were useful for comparisons amongst islands and identifying changes through time. However, the provision of reliable annual catch estimates was limited because of problems with precision and bias (Skewes, et al., 2002), which were improved through time with more emphasis on extension visits. Kwan (2002) was based on Mabuiag Island in 1998 and 1999, and conducted a census of the catch of dugongs from 1 January 1998 – 31 October 1999 (except for the month of February in 1998 and 31 January – 1 March 1999). Kwan interviewed hunters and collected biological samples from dugongs caught by Mabuiag hunters. Hunters provided information on: the duration of their hunting trips; the location of hunting; the number in the hunting party; the number and sex of dugongs caught and, how the catch was used or distributed. Kwan’s study at Mabuiag Island (Kwan 2002) showed that continuous monitoring within a community produced more reliable data than periodic sampling in individual communities in Torres Strait. The reliability of periodic sampling is reduced because many factors influence hunting effort and success, making catches very variable through time. For example, the frequency distribution of catches of both dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait is very skewed towards days with no hunting or zero catches and there are relatively few days when large numbers of animals are caught (Kwan, 2002; Skewes et al., 2002). Such variability makes it very difficult to obtain reliable estimates of total catch from periodic sampling. For example, in 1998 at Mabuiag Island, different catch-estimates of dugongs were obtained from sampling compared with continuous counts. CSIRO/AFMA estimated that 0.14 dugongs per day were caught based on 29 days of sampling (Skewes et al., 2002) and in contrast Kwan (2002) estimated that 0.40 dugongs per day were caught based on 324 days of sampling. It would be prohibitively expensive to employ independent government-funded observers to sample every community every day, as in Kwan’s (2002) study. Furthermore, in some communities, where landing sites are dispersed, like on Thursday Island, it would also be logistically very difficult for independent observers to obtain a continuous count of catches of dugongs and turtles.

15

Essentially the CSIRO/AFMA projects, conducted over ten years, were not as successful as they could have been because they did not completely engage the community in the collection of data, rather sending independent observers to islands on sampling days. This approach was both financially expensive and limited the time and effort spent collecting data. These problems could have been overcome through the development of community-based catch-monitoring programs, which are not new for marine turtles and have been used around the world for many decades (see Kinan, 2002). In addition, by staging specific sampling days the CSIRO/AFMA studies had no mechanism to ensure that the data they collected was representative and free from the bias associated with hunters changing behaviour on sampling days. In fact, the project was discontinued after 2000/01 because of the expense and difficulty in running the observer program and problems of precision, bias and coverage of the catch estimates it produced. Focus was shifted to establishing effective community-based monitoring programs (Skewes, et al., 2002). AFMA held a technical catch-monitoring workshop in May 2003 to work out one or more appropriate community-based monitoring methods as discussed below (Turtle and dugong catch monitoring workshop, 2003). The costs of community-based catch-monitoring programs will vary depending on the design and the number of people in the community. As an example, based on CDEP wages of about $13 per hour, employing eight monitors to work one day per week in a community would cost $5408 per monitor per year. The number of monitors required and the number of days worked would depend on the size of the community. Additional costs would depend on, the capacity of the communities to undertake the work, a regional coordinator, training and infrastructure. However, communities view opportunities to be involved with catch monitoring projects positively because these projects can make substantial contributions towards employment of islanders and improvements of social systems.

2.4 Chronology of community-based monitoring of dugongs and marine turtles in Torres Strait The need for community-based approaches to dugong and turtle monitoring and management were stressed at the workshop Towards Community-based Management of Dugongs and Turtles in Torres Strait held on Thursday Island by AFMA in June 1998. The workshop was attended by Islander leaders, government management agency staff (from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Environment Australia, the Department of Environment, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Queensland Fisheries Management Authority) and technical experts and the following mission statement was developed: “Effective community-based management of dugongs and turtles (should be) conducted in a way which maintains Ailan Kastom and ensures the long-term survival of those species as an essential component of Torres Strait Culture, Identity and sea life”. Workshop participants agreed that achieving the above vision would involve:

1) empowering Torres Strait Islanders to manage their dugong and turtle resources effectively;

16

2) providing Torres Strait Islanders with the authority and capacity to manage their own affairs with respect to the management of dugongs and turtles;

3) clarifying the roles and responsibilities of community members of the Torres Strait Community with respect to the management of their dugong and turtle resources; and

4) ensuring that communities outside the region recognise the need for and commitment of Torres Strait communities to manage the dugong and turtle resources of Torres Strait.

Actions were recommended to achieve these objectives, but there was little progress. In May 2003 a technical catch-monitoring workshop was run by AFMA on Thursday Island to discuss methods to monitor catches of dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait. The objectives of the workshop were to: develop at least one method to monitor the traditional catch of dugongs and turtles that would:

• provide the information required by the communities and management, • be cost effective, • provide accurate statistics, • be culturally appropriate, and • have a budget and staff to ensure its continuation.

At the workshop, the main information needs for dugongs and turtles were prioritised and the need for community involvement in the program was highlighted. For example, it was recognised that:

• greater community ownership was likely to lead to higher levels of involvement, more complete and accurate information gathering and greater uptake of program outcomes;

• local monitors needed to be trained and employed; • monitors need to be adequately compensated for their time in order to provide

good data and ensure some continuity of personnel to the program; • catch-monitoring needs to be developed and implemented in a holistic way in

the broader context of Indigenous management of marine resources, and • monitors need to be involved in more activities than just monitoring of their

own catch.

2.5 Scientifically robust monitoring It is also important that monitoring of the dugong and turtle fisheries is scientifically robust so that balanced decisions can be based on reliable information using techniques such as potential biological removal and population viability analysis (Heinsohn et al., 2004; Marsh et al., 2004b). Moreover, it is important that hunters have confidence in the scientific advice they receive. For example, hunters are unlikely to accept management strategies reducing their catch if they are not convinced that the catch-estimate and the calculation of a sustainable catch rate are correct (Honneland, 2000). Furthermore, failure to accept the accuracy of scientific estimates is likely to lead to fewer hunters participating in catch-monitoring and/or future under-reporting of catch; consequently the accuracy of fishery-based data will decline resulting in further degradation of confidence in the scientific advice about the dugong and turtle resources (Anderson, 1984; Honneland, 2000).

17

2.6. Sampling bias Scientifically robust monitoring requires catch estimates to be both accurate (close to the real value) and precise (repeatable). Precise estimates are required to track temporal changes in the catch; accurate estimates are required to determine the sustainability of the catch (Wade 1998). The precision and accuracy of a catch-estimate depends on the size of the sample. Therefore the more hunters that participate in the catch-monitoring program, the more likely the catch-estimate will be repeatable. If not all hunters participate, or they only participate some of the time, then catch-estimates can be biased. Bias can also occur if the sample of participating hunters is not representative of the community or there is under- or over-reporting of the catch by participating hunters. Bias can be more problematic than a lack of precision because it can lead to inaccurate and misleading conclusions rather than uncertain ones (Skewes et al., 2002). The representativeness of the sample affects whether the catch-estimate obtained from the sample can be legitimately extrapolated to the entire community. The group of hunters that participate may not be a representative sample if they differ in some important characteristic from non-participating hunters. This factor is particularly important if a few hunters are responsible for most of the catch as at Mabuiag in 1998-99 (Kwan, 2002; Kwan et al., in press). If a sample of hunters is found not to be representative, then differences between the participants and non-participants may be measured to provide a more accurate catch-estimate. In addition, under- or over-reporting by participants may lead to the catch being under- or over-estimated. If under- or over-reporting is consistent it could be measured and corrected. However, inconsistent misreporting is problematic because bias in the catch estimates fluctuates in an unknown way through time.

3. Methods

3.1 Study communities We based the study in the Kaiwalagal traditional sea country (Inner Islands) of Torres Strait (Figure 2), which includes the administrative centre, Thursday Island, and the smaller communities of Hammond Island, Horn Island and Prince of Wales Island. Prior to this study most dugong and turtle catch-data have been collected from the Torres Strait Protected Zone (TSPZ) and it was recognised that the Kaiwalagal communities will need a record of catches to be included in any future management arrangements developed at the community level such as catch-sharing arrangements. Furthermore, the dugong and turtle catch in the Kaiwalagal region is potentially significant compared with the TSPZ communities because of the large population centred on Thursday Island (>2000 people). It is potentially more difficult to monitor the catches of dugongs and turtles in such a large, diverse community than in smaller communities and it was therefore important for the Kaiwalagal communities to develop strategies to help them meet the potential challenges of catch-monitoring associated with their demographics.

18

The study communities, Thursday Island and Hammond Island, were chosen with the assistance of the Marine Research Liaison Officer for CRC Torres Strait and the task associates from TSRA and AFMA. These task associates were appointed as a result of the partial funding from CRC Torres Strait. Thursday Island has two main communities (Figures 1 and 2). The TRAWQ community has a population of 1049 people living in the suburbs of Tamwoy, Rose Hill, Aplin, Waiben and Quarantine. The TRAWQ community is administered by the TRAWQ Community Council and many members of the community work via the CDEP scheme1. The Port Kennedy community has a population of 1631 people and is administered by the Torres Shire Council. Members of the Waiben (Thursday Island), Ngurapai (Horn Island) and Muralug (Prince of Wales Island) Community Fisher Group (WNM) mainly live in the Port Kennedy area; many are crayfishers. The Thursday Island group is diverse, comprising hunters from the WNM Community Fisher Group, the Prince of Wales Community Fisher Group (POW), the TRAWQ community on Thursday Island and some hunters from Horn Island. All these groups were involved in the project to varying degrees at various times. The landing sites on Thursday Island are dispersed. Hunters process dugongs and turtles at many different locations, not always in view of the community.

Figure 1. Map of Thursday Island showing the Port Kennedy area and TRAWQ suburbs of Tamwoy, Rose Hill, Aplin, Waiben and Quarantine. Hammond Island (Figure 2) is a small cohesive community of about 200 people, with strong leadership. Most people use the same landing site, which is in view of the community. An alternative landing site is sometimes used, but can be monitored relatively easily. Most of the hunters in the Hammond Island community work on the community’s CDEP scheme; some are crayfishers. The study communities are in the Kaiwalagal traditional sea country and the traditional owners are the Kaurareg people, represented by the Kaurareg Traditional Aboriginal Elders Corporation, which is based on Horn Island. 1. Community Development Employment Projects scheme – this scheme provides around 25% of Indigenous employment in rural communities. CDEP schemes also provide vocational training for Indigenous peoples to enhance their ability to improve the social and environmental conditions of their communities.

19

a) b) Figure 2. Map of a) Torres Strait and b) the study communities in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait.

Study CommunitiesTorres Strait

0 8 164Kilometers

Prince of Wales Island

Horn Island

Hammond Island

Thursday Island

Study CommunitiesTorres Strait

0 8 164Kilometers

Prince of Wales Island

Horn Island

Hammond Island

Thursday Island

0 50 10025 Kilometers Torres Strait Protected ZoneTorres Strait

Gulf of CarpentariaCoral Sea

Torres Strait

Gulf of Papua

0 50 10025 Kilometers Torres Strait Protected ZoneTorres Strait

Gulf of CarpentariaCoral Sea

Torres Strait

Gulf of Papua

20

The individual median weekly income (from the 2001 census) for Torres Strait Islanders living in Torres Strait is $251, which is only 60% of the median weekly income of $419 for non-Indigenous people living in Australia (Arthur, 2003). This income disparity is exacerbated by the very high cost of store bought goods in Torres Strait resulting from high freight costs.

3.2 Provide a workshop in the Kaiwalagal region for Torres Strait Islander hunters which train hunters in the measurement of harvested turtles and dugongs, recognition of age class, maturity and breeding status and the collection of biological samples (Consultancy Service 4). Training workshops were provided to hunters at Hammond Island on February 25 and April 8, 2005. The aims of the first workshop were to: (1) broaden the awareness and understanding of the marine turtle and dugong catch-monitoring process, and (2) to disseminate information about marine turtle biology and western scientific methods that are used to gain such information. The aims of the second workshop were to: (1) discuss progress to date on the catch-monitoring process, and (2) provide more information to the community on marine turtle biology and the methods used to assess age class, maturity and breeding status. In addition to the training workshops, hands on training was also provided to hunters during the turtle rodeo trips. A spontaneous training session was conducted for AFMA and TSRA staff in which we went through the laparoscopic process, thus improving the knowledge base of agency staff who provide management and compliance services.

3.3 Employ an Indigenous research counterpart at a minimum of 75% of a full time position for 12 months (Consultancy Service 6) The Chair of Hammond Island Council, the CEO of the TRAWQ Community Council on Thursday Island, TSRA staff, the CRC Torres Strait Liaison Officer and Community Fisher Groups, all indicated that they would prefer us to employ our Indigenous research counterparts through the CDEP top-up scheme. The resultant on-the-job training provided to these Indigenous research counterparts enabled the project activities to be incorporated by the CDEP program and continued by CDEP staff after the life of the project. The skills learnt and the experiences provided through this project will provide a solid basis for future turtle and dugong projects in Torres Strait. An Indigenous research counterpart was employed from the Hammond Island Community. He is the Community Ranger for Hammond Island. From the 25 February 2005, he was paid for 8 hours per fortnight through the CDEP scheme. From the 2 June 2005 he was paid for 16 hours per fortnight. In addition, other people were paid on a casual basis to assist with the turtle rodeo work. The Board of the TRAWQ Community Council on Thursday Island accepted our proposal to employ an additional Indigenous counterpart and provide training to two others employed on CDEP. The Indigenous Counterparts began employment on the 18 July 2005. We paid one Indigenous research counterpart on CDEP top-up for 25

21

hours per week. TRAWQ Community Council provided another three Indigenous research counterparts for 16 hours each per week in return for training. The first two Indigenous research counterparts provided by TRAWQ Community Council were replaced and a third one joined the project in October 2005. In addition, people were paid on a casual basis to assist with the latest turtle rodeo work. Both Hammond Island Council and TRAWQ Community Council arranged to pay the workers and invoice CRC Torres Strait which greatly simplified the administrative arrangements and ensured that the Islanders were paid in a timely manner. $25,848 was acquitted and TRAWQ Community Council agreed to invoice CRC Torres Strait for the remaining $4151.50 in quarterly instalments during the 6 months after November 2005. Grayson intends to continue working with the Indigenous research counterparts from both communities until at least the middle of July 2006 to ensure that the TRAWQ Indigenous research counterparts have been employed and received training for a period of at least 12 months.

Figure 3. Indigenous research counterparts; Cyril Stephen (TRAWQ; top second from left) with his research counterparts Paul Dai (bottom left), David Warria (top left) and Jim Kris (bottom right) and Railey Gibia (TRAWQ fisheries portfolio Councillor) and Jillian Grayson. Note the project T-shirts

22

3.4 Train the Indigenous research counterpart and involve him/her in all aspects of the project as shown in the table titled “responsibilities of the project team” (Consultancy Service 7) We have trained Indigenous research counterparts from Hammond Island and Thursday Island in all aspects of the project including the collection of biological data and catch monitoring. The Indigenous counterparts have been responsible for the distribution and collection of catch monitoring data sheets and passing them on to Grayson. They participated in all activities undertaken during rodeo field trips, were taught how to tag, measure and collect biological samples from marine turtles and have been shown how to work out maturity and breeding status from gonads. A total of four Indigenous research counterparts received training in all aspects of the project.

3.5 Monitor the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait (Annexure A) 3.5.1 A Community-based dugong and marine turtle catch-monitoring program. A community-based approach to catch monitoring requires communities to be involved from the outset. Initial engagement with the Indigenous communities was achieved by obtaining support for the project from the Board of the Torres Strait Regional Authority in May 2004. Support for the project was then obtained from the Kaurareg Traditional Owners, Community Councils and Community Fisher Groups. Ongoing engagement of the Indigenous communities was facilitated through various means including: community meetings, training workshops and employing community members to work on the project. Grayson lived on Thursday Island throughout the project. This arrangement allowed her to work in partnership with communities and be on the ground to develop and adapt the community-based monitoring program as required. Development of the catch-monitoring project As outlined in the introduction, a community-based catch-monitoring approach, in which hunters provided continuous counts of their dugong and turtle catches was considered to be more likely to succeed than programs which rely on sampling or daily independent observations for several reasons: (1) it was more likely to provide reliable catch-estimates, (2) it would be less expensive, (3) more logistically feasible and (4) it met community priorities of employment and capacity building. In addition, hunters expressed their aspiration for such an approach at the various workshops/meetings (see below). Participation by hunters was therefore integral to the success of the community-based catch-monitoring program. Accordingly, hunters from the Community Fisher Groups (CFGs) from the Thursday Island group and Hammond Island were engaged separately in the development of the program in several meetings. Monitoring options were discussed with the hunters. Several community-based catch-monitoring tools were considered including: (1) dedicated processing sites, (2) dedicated repositories for stockpiling turtle shells and dugong skulls, (3) photographic records, (4) verbal reports and (5) a datasheet survey. The hunters were used to completing datasheets for commercial fisheries. They overwhelmingly decided to trial a datasheet survey because it least disrupted their normal hunting practices, their

23

identities could remain confidential and it was relatively inexpensive. Hunters identified the information required for them to manage their dugong and turtle fisheries during group workshops in May – July 2004 and this information was incorporated into the datasheet which the hunters helped design (Appendix 1). A research Memorandum of Understanding was developed between Grayson, Marsh (James Cook University), the Kaurareg Traditional Aboriginal Elders Corporation, Hammond Island Council, TRAWQ Community Council, and the Torres Shire Council (representing Waiben, Ngurapai, and Muralag and Prince of Wales Community Fisher Groups) to ensure that the research was conducted in a culturally appropriate manner and that the information collected was acceptable to the community and would be used in an acceptable manner. A reference group was established to provide advice about cultural protocols, culturally sensitive information and the collection and use of information. Implementation of the catch-monitoring project Hunters were supplied with data collection kits consisting of a clipboard, datasheets, pencils and a tape measure. Hunters filled in datasheets, providing information about their catches, including morphometric and reproductive information about the animals caught. Indigenous research counterparts were employed to work on the project (consultancy service 6) and to develop capacity within the community to continue a community-based catch-monitoring program after the completion of this project. The Indigenous research counterparts recruited hunters to the catch-monitoring program, collected datasheets and biological samples from hunters and helped provide feedback to hunters about the program. At Hammond Island, the Chair and Councillors helped collect datasheets when they could and at Thursday Island some hunters delivered datasheets to Grayson. 3.5.2 A scientifically robust community-based catch-monitoring program Maximum participation by hunters A community-based catch-monitoring approach, where hunters provide continuous counts of their dugong and turtle catches, requires maximum participation by hunters to obtain reliable catch-estimates, because in such a study the hunters are the sampling units. Two strategies were employed by the research team to encourage hunters to participate in the catch-monitoring program. First, the importance of all hunters in the community participating all of the time was demonstrated to hunters using a practical sampling exercise during several meetings and workshops as opportunities arose (Appendix 3). The sampling exercise demonstrated that the more hunters that participated, the more likely it was that the catch-estimate would be close to the actual catch number. If only some hunters participated or if hunters participated only some of the time, then the catch number might be over- or under-estimated. Second, the recruitment of hunters was an ongoing and adaptive process. This approach ensured that as many hunters as possible participated in the catch-monitoring program and the method of engaging them evolved and improved over time. Hunters from the Hammond Island Community Fisher Group were encouraged to participate by their Community Council. Ongoing participation was encouraged by the Indigenous research counterpart, who also recruited additional hunters.

24

Hunters from the Thursday Island group were recruited to participate in the catch-monitoring program in several phases. The hunters from the Community Fisher Groups of the Thursday Island group that were involved in the development of the datasheet survey began using the datasheet survey from mid-July 2004 but discontinued their participation in November 2004 in response to media coverage of the issue of dugong hunting. The hunters eventually re-joined the catch-monitoring program in May 2005, after a total of eight meetings during the six month period, some of which also involved other groups (e.g. the Kaurareg Traditional Owners; TRAWQ Community Council). Meetings were also held with the Kaurareg Traditional Owners to maintain their support for the catch-monitoring program. The participation by hunters from the Thursday Island group in the catch-monitoring program was enhanced by engaging the TRAWQ Community. Hunters from the TRAWQ Community were recruited to the program by the Indigenous research counterparts employed through TRAWQ Community Council from mid-July 2005. The Indigenous research counterparts utilised their usual social networks and talked to as many hunters as possible from the Thursday Island group about the project and encouraged them to participate. Quality assurance of the data Training workshops were conducted to ensure the hunters were proficient in the catch-monitoring process, data collection, measurement of dugongs and turtles and provision of biological samples. Training workshops were held at Hammond Island on February 25 and April 8, 2005 (see Section 3.2). Hands on training in the identification of sex, maturity and breeding status of turtles from gonad assessment was gained during the turtle rodeo fieldwork (see Section 3.7) and as samples were available during the catch-monitoring program. Hunters from the Community Fisher Groups of the Thursday Island group of islands were first trained in the measurement of dugongs and turtles and the collection of biological samples during the preliminary workshops in May-July 2004 which was convened by Hamann and Grayson to develop the catch-monitoring program and design the datasheet. Training workshops were offered to the Thursday Island group in February 2005 and August 2005, but the hunters were not interested. Grayson subsequently trained the Indigenous research counterparts in the measurement of dugongs and turtles and collection of biological samples. The counterparts have continued to pass these skills onto the hunters on a one-on-one basis when collecting datasheets from them. The Indigenous research counterparts also received hands on training in the identification of sex, maturity and breeding status from gonadal assessment as suitable samples became available during the catch-monitoring program.

25

3.6 Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles (Consultancy Service 5) 3.6.1 Collection of information on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles. The total numbers of dugongs and turtles caught cannot be reported because of the research MoU with all of the communities which required keeping such information confidential (Appendix 2). Therefore data on the proportions of turtles and dugongs caught by the community (i.e. all hunters for which information was recorded) are presented in the results. In addition, for Hammond Island only, information on the proportion of successful and unsuccessful hunting trips is presented. Most hunters did not hand in datasheets when they went hunting and caught nothing. Therefore to determine the proportion of unsuccessful hunting trips an independent survey was implemented in October 2005. Hammond Island hunters were asked how many times they had been hunting and caught nothing since the survey started at the end of February 2005. This information was recorded for hunters that actively participated in the survey from at least April 2005. Hunters were trained in sample collection, storage and assessment. Information on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of harvested dugongs and turtles was collected in two ways: 1) hunters recorded the information on their datasheets; or 2) hunters provided samples to the Indigenous research counterparts and/or Grayson. The sizes of the harvested turtles (curved carapace length) were measured using a flexible tape measure following standard practices for sea turtle research in Australia. Cultural protocols precluded the measurement of the size of dugongs. The dugong is totem, a spiritual God for certain clans. The myth of Gelam speaks of the journey of life to its resting place and establishment of its permanent house in the eastern Torres Strait, what is now known as Mer Island. It is the Kaurareg’s and Mualagal’s belief that by measuring the animal gives you a precise measurement of a house (coffin), in the spiritual sense marking yourself and family members for a short life (Willie Wigness pers. comm. ). Instead, hunters estimated the sizes of harvested dugongs visually. Grayson independently confirmed that the size estimates made by hunters were accurate. The maturity and breeding status of female turtles was determined by examining their ovaries. Hunters recorded whether or not female turtles had enlarged follicles in their ovaries (known locally as Webud or yellow eggs), indicating that they were in vitellogenesis for the upcoming breeding season. In addition, hunters provided samples of the ovaries of female turtles to the research counterparts, who with the assistance of Grayson and Hamann, interpreted the finer scale elements of the breeding status of the turtle. Several hunters were trained to interpret these finer scale elements of breeding status from the ovaries. The breeding status of female dugongs was determined by examining their uteri. Hunters recorded whether or not female dugongs were pregnant on the datasheets. In addition, hunters provided samples of the uteri of dugongs to the research counterparts, who with the assistance of Grayson assessed whether the dugong had bred before. Dugong tusks were collected for age determination. The sex of turtles and dugongs was recorded on the datasheets by the

26

hunters who used either external characteristics or internal reproductive organs to determine the sex. 3.6.2 Collection of information on the use of the dugong or turtle meat The use for which the dugong or turtle was hunted was recorded on the catch-monitoring datasheet (e.g. Tombstone unveiling, wedding, shaving ceremony, Kai Kai (subsistence food), funeral, initiation ceremony, coming of age ceremony, other).

3.7 Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the Kaiwalagal region using laparoscopic examination (at least 3 trips; Consultancy Service 3) All aspects of this section of the study were conducted in accordance with James Cook University Animal Ethics Permits A957 and A932. 3.7.1 Turtle rodeo field trips Five rodeo catching field trips were conducted in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait (Figure 4). The rodeo project had excellent support from the Hammond Island community and community members came out on turtle catching trips each field trip (see results Section 4.5.1). Caught turtles were tagged, measured and released and most were also laparoscope examined. 3.7.2 Turtle biology and ecology Turtles caught during the turtle catching trips were assessed for sex and maturity using either secondary sexual characteristics or via laparoscopy (Limpus and Limpus 2003). The sizes (Curved carapace length (CCL)) of turtles were measured using a flexible tape measure (Limpus 1985). 3.7.3 Migration information Throughout this project we received tag returns from hunted animals and forwarded the details onto the tagging agency (Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service) for inclusion in their turtle database. 3.7.4 Green turtle fibropapilloma disease (GTFP) The presence of GTFP disease on caught green turtles was noted. 3.7.5 Health and condition The health and condition of caught turtles was noted. 3.7.6 Turtles seen but not caught In addition to the turtles caught, data were recorded on the number, species and size class (estimated) of turtles that were seen but not caught.

27

��

�

��

��

�

�

��

� ��

�

Figure 4. Map of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait showing study locations used in this project. 1 – Thursday Island, 2 – Horn Island, 3 – Prince of Wales Island, 4 – Wednesday Island, 5 – Hammond Island, 6 – Goodes Island, 7 – Friday Island, 8 – Number 1 Reef, 9 – Number 2 Reef, 10 – Number 3 Reef, 11 – Hawkesbury Island.

3.8 Conduct a satellite tagging/tracking of Hawksbill and green turtles program in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait 3.8.1 Catch four turtles (preferably two hawksbill and two green turtles) in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait, attach satellite transmitters to each and monitor the movements (Consultancy service 1). During the turtle mating season (September & October, 2005) 53 turtles were caught. Of these turtles most were immature and only four of the green turtles and no hawksbill turtles were found to be preparing to breed in the 2005/2006 season. Because no breeding hawksbill turtles were caught during this period the satellite transmitters were deployed on four breeding green turtles. Two turtles were fitted with tags that remain on for 120 days and then switched to a 24 hours on/off. The other two turtles were fitted with transmitters on a 24 hour on/off cycle. All tags have sufficient battery life for eight months. However, the length of time that the tags will work for depends on whether or not the turtles damage the transmitters while resting in the reefs or when they shed their scales (usually in spring). The satellite tracking maps are being hosted on the internet by www.seaturtle.org (http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/?project_id=100) (Coyne and Godley 2005). For the development of the maps we have only used the ARGOS location codes 3, 2 or 1. These are the most accurate codes and give an error of 150m, 300m and 500m respectively. See Section 4.6.1 of the results for details.

28

3.8.2 Involve at least two schools in the area in the satellite tracking program where students are to undertake activities which include the monitoring of the turtles movements by the internet or other means (Consultancy Service 2) Two schools were involved with the satellite tracking project: Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School (OLSH) on Hammond Island and the Thursday Island State High School (TISHS). See Section 4.6.2 of the results for details.

3.9 Provide information and feedback through community meetings (Annexure A) The local radio station, Torres Strait Islanders Media Association (TSIMA, radio 4MW), the local newspaper the Torres News and the TSRA Newsletter were used to publicise the project and provide feedback to communities. Both interviews and community announcements were done on the radio. Stories about the project and advertising up-coming meetings were written for the Torres News (Appendix 4 and 5). A story on the project was included in the Hammond Island newsletter (6). The project also appeared in the CRC Reef newsletter, which was distributed to the Hammond Island community (Appendix 7). The turtle rodeo and satellite tracking featured in two articles in the Torres News (Appendix 8 and 9). In addition, flyers were handed out to hunters and put around the communities to publicise meetings and a laminated C5 size information sheet was handed out to hunters by the TRAWQ research counterparts to help them explain the project to hunters and to remind the hunters to fill in their datasheets. Grayson also provided uniforms for the Indigenous research counterparts which consisted of poloshirts with the emblem ‘Kaiwalagal dugong and marine turtle monitoring program” (Appendix 10) and a CRC Torres Strait cap. Poloshirts and caps were also provided to the Reference group members in appreciation of their voluntary commitment of time and input to the project (see Figure 3).

3.10 Write and submit reports on the above activities, including the findings satellite tracking, laparoscope examination and information collected on turtle and dugong catches from hunters in the inner islands of Torres Strait (Consultancy Service 8) Results from this project will be written up in a variety of ways as more data becomes available. The studies using the laparoscopic examination will be written up as a peer reviewed manuscript and submitted to an Australian journal. The satellite tracking data will be written up as a short note and published in a forum such as Marine Turtle Newsletter when the tracking aspect ends. Information from the hunters on turtles and dugongs will be written up and included in Grayson’s PhD thesis and non sensitive aspects will be written up as peer reviewed manuscripts. In addition both Hamann and Grayson have submitted abstracts to the 2006 International Sea Turtle Symposium. Copies of reports, abstracts and manuscripts produced from this study will be forwarded to DEH, and acknowledgement will be provided regarding the source of funding.

29

4. Results

4.1 Provide a workshop in the Kaiwalagal region for Torres Strait Islander hunters which train hunters in the measurement of harvested turtles and dugongs, recognition of age class, maturity and breeding status and the collection of biological samples (Consultancy service 4). During the first workshop on 25 February 2005, participants were trained in the catch-monitoring process, measurement of marine turtles and dugongs and shown a brief overview of laparoscopic examination and satellite telemetry. Ten of the Hammond Island hunters participated and one outcome was to document the threats to marine turtle populations in Torres Strait as perceived by the Torres Strait Islanders (Table 1) and also to develop a list of information that participating hunters would like to know about marine turtles in Torres Strait (Table 2). Table 1. Threats to marine turtles in Torres Strait and the Northern Great Barrier Reef as perceived by participants in the Hammond Island Community workshop (in no particular order). Threats identified by Hammond Island residents • Outboard motors – noise, damage to bottom and fuel/oil residue, boat strike • Plastic bags and other discarded rubbish (from ships or land) • Ghost nets and discarded fishing lines • Oil spills from ships or port facilities • Direct fishing – targeting of turtles • Over hunting of turtle and eggs by TS Islanders, PNG and people of other nations

(Indonesia, New Caledonia, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu) • Spot light fishing • Boat strike from ships • Natural predation – sharks, crocodiles, birds, goannas • Commercial Exploitation of turtles by peoples of other nations • Erosion of nesting beaches and flooding of nests • Alterations in fishing methods – e.g. use of nets in PNG • Treaty – i.e. it allows commercial sale of turtles in PNG providing more incentive

for PNG peoples to hunt larger numbers of turtles • Lack of knowledge on sustainable take of turtle, including purposes, numbers

taken and reasons for catching Additional threats added by Mark Hamann • Fibropapilloma disease (wart like tumours on turtle’s skin) • Lack of biological data on harvested populations and harvests (e.g. sex ratio, size

range, size at maturity, juvenile recruitment) • Fisheries by-catch (within Australian and international waters)

30

Table 2. Information required by Torres Strait Islanders to allow effective management decisions to be made regarding marine turtles in Torres Strait and the northern GBR

• Types of food preferred by different species of marine turtle • Important feeding areas for different species of marine turtle • How many turtles are being caught and variation in capture rates between

areas (in TS and overseas) • Why people are catching turtles – the price of meat is expensive for low

income people • How many nests are being laid and how many hatchlings are surviving • How many hunters hunt and how often • How many eggs are collected per year (by species) • Main nesting areas (by species) • Catch rates of turtles and eggs by PNG communities • Main hunting areas • How often turtles nest and how many eggs do they lay (all species) • Survival chances of hatchlings • How long do they live • Growth rates • How are other communities in the region participating • Map of feeding areas and how to protect them • How does eating turtle effect diabetics • How much turtle do people waste

At the second workshop on April 8 2005 at Hammond Island, six additional hunters signed up to the catch-monitoring process and showed support for assisting in the field aspects of the project. During the first two rodeo trips, all green turtles caught were brought back to Hammond Island so that local hunters could get hands on training for tagging turtles (flipper tags), measurement checks and see the laparoscope procedure being performed (see Figures 5 & 6). The laparoscope procedure was explained in detail, and training in the identification of sex and maturity from gonad assessment begun. In addition, during informal conversations, brief explanations of other methods that are used by marine turtle scientists to collect data on turtle biology and behaviour were explained, such as satellite tagging, electronic tagging, and time depth recording. Bringing turtles back to the community ensures that as many people as possible can get hands on experience with measuring, tagging and get to see the laparoscope procedure first hand. This has proved extremely successful and most of the Hammond Island hunters (and several that are not hunters) came along to have a look and participate. Each of the hunters at Hammond Island and the TRAWQ research monitors have been shown how gonads can be examined to identify sex, maturity and breeding status. In particular they were shown the laparoscope procedure and how to assess ovaries from hunted turtles (see Section 4.6.1). Some hunters can now explain these procedures to the community.

31

Figure 5. Seriako Dorante and Paul Schell tagging a juvenile green turtle.

Figure 6. Mark Hamann and Seriako Dorante examine a juvenile green turtle using a laparoscope.

32

In addition, TSRA and AFMA staff have been shown the measuring and laparoscopic process, thus improving the knowledge base amongst agency staff who provide management and compliance services.

4.2 Monitor the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait (Annexure A) 4.2.1 Obtaining maximum participation by hunters in the datasheet survey The media controversy surrounding the issue of dugong hunting acted as a catalyst for the Thursday Island group to withdraw from the catch-monitoring program. A total of eight meetings with Traditional hunters from the Thursday Island group were held to re-negotiate their support for and participation in the project (Table 3). The small focussed meetings were much better attended than the larger, more general meetings. Between three and 20 people attended the small focussed meetings. Both of the larger, more general meetings were poorly attended. Table 3. Summary of meetings held with traditional hunters to regain support for the project. Date Location Type Attendees 29/11/2004 Thursday Island Meeting Thursday Island traditional hunters 26/02/2005 Thursday Island Workshop Thursday Island hunters 8/03/2005 Thursday Island Meeting Kaiwalagal Aboriginal Corporation; WNM Community Fisher Group hunters, Community members 24/03/2005 Horn Island Meeting Kaiwalagal Aboriginal Corporation 7/04/2005 Thursday Island Info & BBQ Traditional hunters 28/04/2004 Thursday Island Meeting TRAWQ CDEP workers 5/05/2005 Thursday Island Meeting TRAWQ CDEP workers 6/05/2005 Thursday Island Meeting WNM/POW Community Fishers The following issues were raised at all the meetings: 1. Protection of information Restriction of hunting was a major issue raised in the media in late 2004 especially, proposed restrictions on the traditional hunting rights of Torres Strait Islanders (e.g. quotas; Australian November 8, 2004) (e.g. legislative changes Daily Telegraph November 8, 2004; Courier Mail November 13, 2004). Such reports raised concerns that Torres Strait Islanders would be forced to stop practising a very important part of their culture and they would not be given the opportunity to manage their traditional natural resources and instead would have management imposed upon them. Consequently, hunters wanted assurances that the information they provided about their harvest levels and hunting practices would be protected. 2. Misrepresentation of hunting practices in the media Animal cruelty associated with the hunting practices of Indigenous people also featured in the media in late 2004. The media reports focussing on animal cruelty, in particular, were negative, emotive and portrayed Indigenous people as insensitive and uncaring in their traditional practices (for example see Appendix 11). Consequently,

33

hunters were reluctant to allow non-Indigenous researchers to observe their processing practices. 3. Discord between scientific information and traditional knowledge In general, communities in Torres Strait acknowledge a problem with the sustainability of dugong stocks and some Torres Strait Islander leaders have been calling for assistance with implementing management arrangements for many years. Many Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people of Torres Strait, however, do not trust the outcomes of the research of Marsh et al. (2004a, b) and Heinsohn et al. (2004). They have extensive traditional knowledge from spending a lot of time out on the water and they perceive several problems with the aerial survey technique that makes them think that Marsh et al. (2004a, b) underestimate the number of dugongs using aerial surveys. These problems include that: 1) local people see more dugongs at night than during the day because dugongs hide in the deep water during the day; 2) dugongs spend a lot of time diving underwater and therefore cannot be seen; 3) dugongs might all dive at the same time, so there might not be any on the surface; 4) dugongs move large distances and therefore may have moved out of an area before they could be counted. (Most of these concerns are addressed by the aerial survey protocol as discussed below). 4. Harvesting and catch-sharing by Papua New Guinean traditional inhabitants Under the Torres Strait Treaty, traditional inhabitants of Papua New Guinea are permitted to hunt dugongs and turtles in waters in the vicinity of the Protected Zone which are under Australian jurisdiction and vice versa (Articles 11 and 12). The PNG take of dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait is largely unrestricted, except with respect to their traditional fishing areas and the Fisheries Management Notices. In particular under the Treaty, PNG fishermen are permitted to sell turtles commercially, which is not allowed for Torres Strait Islanders. Furthermore, there are recent reports of Indonesian boats fishing for sharks within the Torres Strait region, and catching dugongs as by-catch. In addition, genetic studies indicate that 12% of the Indonesian harvest of turtles, which is in the thousands per year, come from the Torres Strait/northern GBR stock of turtles (Dethmers in press). Therefore, traditional hunters are concerned that the PNG and overseas harvests of dugongs and turtles from Torres Strait are having an impact on the populations at least equivalent to traditional hunting by Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people of Torres Strait. The traditional hunters were therefore concerned that any monitoring and management of the dugong and turtle fisheries needs to include provisions for monitoring and managing the catch by PNG fishermen and other overseas harvests. 5. Lack of action on other impacts The traditional hunters were concerned at the apparent lack of action to address impacts on dugongs and turtles other than traditional hunting by Torres Strait Islanders (e.g. overseas commercial harvest, commercial fishing nets, illegal foreign fishing vessels, seagrass dieback, marine debris, coastal erosion of nesting beaches, etc). Concern was expressed that these impacts should be addressed at the same time as traditional Indigenous hunting, otherwise dugong and turtle numbers will decline despite restrictions on their traditional hunting practices.

34

6. Options for managing dugongs and turtles and enforcement of management strategies.

Torres Strait Islanders wish to play a major role in managing their traditional natural resources, including dugongs and turtles (resolution from the “turtle and dugong catch-monitoring workshop” held by AFMA in May 2003). Concerns were raised that they would not be given the opportunity to manage dugongs and turtles and would instead have management imposed upon them. In addition, hunters were not aware of the status of dugong and turtle management at the level of the Protected Zone Joint Authority. These issues were addressed in the following ways: 1. Protection of information: The research MoU was developed further to reflect concerns raised by hunters and Traditional Owners during these meetings. The Research MoU was explained in detail to the hunters. The matters addressed by the MOU included the following: (1) that participant’s names would be handled confidentially; (2) that information would not be released without consultation via the reference group, including press releases, and (3) that the total number of dugongs and turtles recorded as caught would not be reported in any research outputs and would be kept confidential. 2. Misrepresentation of hunting practices in the media Agreement was reached that the processing of animals would not be observed by researchers, but collection of biological samples could be done after processing was complete. The fact that hunting and processing practices were never intended to be described in research outputs was reiterated to hunters. 3. Discord between scientific information and traditional knowledge The adjustments used by Marsh et al., (2004a,b) to correct for potential problems associated with availability of dugongs to aerial survey observers and observer bias were explained to hunters during the meetings. These were: 1) aerial surveys were done on high spring tides during the day to maximise the likelihood that dugongs are in shallow water where they can be seen; 2) the count was adjusted after calculating the proportion of dugongs that are diving and therefore are not available to be seen; 3) time-depth recorders were used to determine that dugongs in a group dive independently of each other and therefore do not all dive together; 4) two aircraft were used simultaneously so that dugongs do not have sufficient time to move into adjacent blocks during the survey and therefore be missed or counted twice. In addition, two observers are used for each transect to maximise the chance that the dugongs that are available to be seen are counted and to enable those missed to be estimated using mark-recapture methods. The video “Dugong for our children” was updated and distributed to all Torres Strait communities. On the video, scientists explained some of the research that has been done on dugongs in Torres Strait and how it can help communities. The research includes aerial surveys, determining the age of dugong using their tusks and satellite tracking. Torres Strait Islander leaders and hunters also appeared on the video talking about the need to look after dugongs in their region. Finally, attempts were made to separate the aims and objectives of this study from the broader issues (i.e. issues 4, 5 and 6 above) associated with dugong and turtle

35

monitoring and management. Hunters were advised to talk with the appropriate management authorities (e.g. TSRA and AFMA) about their concerns about the PNG harvest, the lack of action on other impacts and options for managing dugongs and turtles and enforcement of management strategies. 4.2.2 Participation by hunters in the datasheet survey The number of hunters participating in the datasheet survey increased during the survey period. At Hammond Island, the number of hunters registered to participate increased from seven in February 2005 to 16 in April 2005 and then remained the same until June 2005. By November 2005, 17 hunters were registered to participate in the datasheet survey, with three hunters leaving the community and four more registering (Figure 7). Four of these hunters did not go hunting during the survey period and only one has not provided any datasheets and therefore 92% of registered hunters that went hunting participated in the survey. In addition, there are about another nine hunters that did not agree to participate in the survey, at least two of which do not actually live in the community. Hunters from the Thursday Island group registered to participate from April 2005, with 14 hunters registering, none of whom had handed in any datasheets by mid-April. By June 2005 there were 27 hunters registered to participate, but only three had handed in datasheets. The Indigenous research counterparts have recruited a further 36 hunters since July 2005, bringing the total number of hunters from the Thursday Island group registered to participate to 63. Nonetheless, datasheets have only been received from 13 of these hunters (Figure 8). In addition, another four hunters have provided information anonymously. The number of hunters that did not agree to participate is not known at this stage for the Thursday Island group. 4.2.3 Assessment of the datasheet survey in obtaining reliable catch-estimates Is the sample representative? At Hammond Island, 59% of the hunters who went hunting during the survey period were registered to participate in the datasheet survey. The sample of registered hunters was considered by the Indigenous research counterpart and the Council to include all of the main hunters in the community. In fact, two of these hunters accounted for 90% of the dugongs reported by registered hunters and three hunters accounted for 40% of the turtles. Although the total number of hunters in the Thursday Island group is not known at this stage, the sample of 63 registered hunters is considered by the CRC Torres Strait liaison officer and Indigenous research counterparts to include the main hunters in the community. Although the proportion of registered hunters who reported catches is small, two hunters reported 56% of the dugongs and four hunters reported 52% of the turtles. Is the sample biased? At Hammond Island 92% of registered hunters filled in datasheets when their hunting trips were successful and 88% of registered hunters that have been participating since at least April 2005 reported, via a survey, the number of hunting trips on which they caught nothing. Therefore most of the participating hunters consistently filled in datasheets. In addition, the Indigenous research counterpart maintained contact with the hunters to ensure they were recording all of their catches.

36

Only 25% of registered hunters from the Thursday Island group have filled in datasheets, including several hunters who provided information anonymously. Most of these participating hunters however consistently filled in datasheets and the Indigenous research counterparts maintained contact with them to ensure they were recording all of their catches.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Feb Apr Jun Nov

Num

ber

of h

unte

rsnot registeredregistered - datasheetsregistered - no huntingregistered - no datasheets

Figure 7. The number of Hammond Island hunters registered to participate in the datasheet survey through 2005 as a function of the total number hunters in the community. As at November 2005, four registered hunters had not gone hunting and one had not provided any datasheets.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Feb Apr Jun Nov

Num

ber

of h

unte

rs

registered - no datasheetsregistered - datasheets

Figure 8. The number of Thursday Island hunters actively participating in the datasheet survey through 2005 as a function of the number of registered hunters.

37

4.3 Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles (Consultancy service 5). 4.3.1 Information on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles. For both Hammond Island and the Thursday Island group, more turtles than dugongs were caught. Fifty-seven percent of the animals caught at Hammond Island were turtles (1:1.3 dugongs to turtles) and for the Thursday Island group 64% of the animals caught were turtles (1:1.75 dugongs to turtles). The proportion of successful to unsuccessful trips was determined for Hammond Island only. On most of the hunting trips at Hammond Island nothing was caught (72%). Turtles were caught on 14% of trips, dugongs were caught on 13% of trips and both dugongs and turtles were caught on 1% of trips. Information on sex ratio, size, age class, maturity and breeding status for dugongs or turtles recorded as caught was not recorded by all hunters. The proportion of animals for which the information was recorded is presented in Table 4. Table 4. Proportion of turtles and dugongs caught for which information on sex, size, maturity and breeding status was recorded from each of Hammond Island and the Thursday Island group. Hammond Island Thursday Island group Turtle Dugong Turtle Dugong Sex 77% 81% 93% 87.5% Size 44% 69% 71% 50% Maturity 14% 1 female 45% 25% of females Breeding status 9% 1 female 19.5% 25% of females The following results are based on the turtles and dugongs caught for which the relevant information was collected (Table 4). Hammond Island – turtles All of the turtles caught from Hammond Island for which data on sex were recorded were female. The average size of harvested turtles was 112 cm (CCL) and sizes ranged from 92 cm to 135 cm. The size range of mature turtles from Raine Island in Eastern Queensland over 25 years was 86.0 cm – 130.1 cm CCL (Limpus et al., 2003) and therefore all of the turtles caught in Torres Strait were above the minimum breeding size. The average size of turtles in vitellogenesis, and therefore confirmed to be adults was 105.6 cm. The ovaries of 9% of turtles were examined. Two-thirds of these turtles were in vitellogenesis in preparation for breeding in the summer of 2005/2006 and all of them had bred in previous years. Thursday Island group – turtles Ninety-seven percent of turtles caught from the Thursday Island group for which data on sex was recorded were female and 3% were male. The average size of harvested turtles was 102.2 cm (CCL) and sizes ranged from 91.5 cm to 130 cm. Similar to

38

Hammond Island, all of the turtles caught were larger than the minimum breeding size for green turtles recorded from Raine Island over 25 years. The average size of turtles in vitellogenesis and therefore confirmed as adults was 102.1 cm. The ovaries of 19.5% of female turtles were examined. Three-quarters of these turtles were in vitellogenesis in preparation for breeding in the next breeding season. Almost all of them (87.5%) had bred in previous years. Hammond Island - dugongs The female:male sex ratio of dugongs caught from Hammond Island for which hunters recorded the sex was 1:1.6. The average size of dugongs estimated by hunters was 198 cm and ranged from 150 cm to 240 cm. Dugongs smaller than 220 cm are considered to be immature and those larger than 250cm are considered to be mature (Marsh et al.,1984a). Only one female dugong was pregnant and therefore confirmed as mature. The pregnant dugong recorded was estimated to be 200cm long. Kwan (2002) also recorded a pregnant dugong which was smaller than those recorded in previous studies at 205cm long. Hunters have not yet provided the uteri of any adult female dugongs for examination. Thursday Island group - dugongs The female:male sex ratio of dugongs caught from the Thursday Island group for which hunters recorded the sex was 1:0.75. The average size of dugongs estimated by hunters was 215.5 cm and ranged from 165 cm to 250cm. Only 25% of the female dugongs were recorded as pregnant and therefore confirmed as mature. As for Hammond Island, pregnant females were small compared to those in previous studies. The average size of pregnant females was 216.6 cm. Only a few hunters have provided the uteri of adult female dugongs and these are yet to be examined. In addition, only a few hunters have provided the tusks of dugongs for analysis of the age class, which are also yet to be examined. 4.3 The uses of dugongs and turtles Most of the dugongs and turtles caught were used for subsistence purposes (i.e. Kai Kai). Seventy-five percent of dugongs and 60% of turtles at Hammond Island and 47.5% of dugongs and 58% of turtles at Thursday Island, respectively, were used in this way. Other reasons for taking dugongs and turtles included funerals, tombstone unveiling ceremonies, church days, wedding anniversaries, weddings, coming of age parties, shaving ceremonies and NAIDOC week celebrations.

4.4 Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the Kaiwalagal region using laparoscopic examination (at least 3 trips; Consultancy service 3) 4.4.1 Turtle rodeo field trips Across all five turtle rodeo trips a total of 106 turtles were caught, tagged and released in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait. These turtles consisted of four logger head turtles, 31 hawksbill turtles and 71 green turtles. The details of the turtle rodeo trips are summarised in Table 5. One night search was conducted during the September 2005 trip, but no turtles were seen. The main aim of the October 2005 trip was to

39

catch four breeding turtles for the satellite telemetry project. Hence most of the time was spent searching for turtles in the areas in which turtle courtship is most prevalent. 4.4.2 Turtle biology and ecology Loggerhead turtles and hawksbill turtles Four loggerhead turtles were caught and three were assessed for sex and maturity using either secondary sexual characters or via laparoscopy. The three turtles assessed comprised one adult male, one adult female (not breeding in 2005) and one pubescent female. The female had ovarian scars indicating that she had bred in a previous season and was not in vitellogenesis for the 2005/2006 breeding season. Thirty one hawksbill turtles were caught in the study and 26 were assessed via laparoscopy for sex and maturity (Table 6). Table 6. Sex and maturity of Hawksbill turtles assessed via laparoscopy. Size class Male Female Total Juvenile 5 12 17 Pubescent 0 1 1 Adult 7 2 9 The size class distribution of hawksbill turtles is presented in Figure 9. None of the juvenile hawksbill turtles were new recruits to the foraging area. There was no significant difference between the average size of juvenile male and female hawksbill turtles (Table 7). Table 7. Averages sizes (cm; CCL) of hawksbill turtles; NA = not applicable Size class Male Female t-test Juvenile 44.9 ± 9.49 52.5 ± 5.43 t = 1.65, df = 5; P = 0.07 Pubescent NA 70.8 NA Adult 73.1 ± 6.89 73.5 and 72.5 NA One of the adult female hawksbill turtles was found to have ovarian scars indicating that she had bred in a previous season and this same female was in vitellogenesis preparing to breed in the 2005/2006 nesting season. The second adult female had no ovarian scars and a fully convoluted oviduct indicating that she was an adult that was yet to breed. This individual was not preparing to breed in the upcoming breeding season. Four of the seven adult males were found to be in quiescent reproductive state and three were in spermatogenesis in preparation for the upcoming breeding season. It is not possible to tell whether these males were mid year or summer breeders, nor whether they had bred in previous seasons. Although there appears to be a shift in the sex ratio between juvenile and adult turtles (Table 6), the small sample size precluded statistical determination of a difference. The overall sample sex ratio was 1.5 F: 1.2 M, which is not significantly different from a 1:1 sex ratio (Chi-square with Yates correction = 0.07; df = 1).

40

Table 5. Summary of the five turtle rodeo trips. Trip (days) Boat hrs

searching # community members participating

Conditions Areas searched Habitat

April (5) 35 5 Excellent (50%)

• North of Wednesday Island, northern coast of Goods and Hammond Island;

• # 1 reef, Dollar reef (north of #3 reef), eastern side of #3 reef, leeward side of Hammond Island;

• Between Friday and Prince of Wales Island

• Reef/seagrass • Coral reef flat/seagrass • Seagrass

May (8) 39 4 Excellent (50%)

Good (50%)

• North of Wednesday Island, leeward side of Hammond Island, northern coast of Goods and Hammond Island;

• Between Friday and Prince of Wales Island • North coast of Prince of Wales Island

• Reef/seagrass • Seagrass • Reef

June (8) 19 6 Excellent (most)


• North coast of Prince of Wales Island

• Reef/seagrass • Reef

September (8) 21 6 Excellent (most)


• Between Friday and Prince of Wales Island; • #3 reef

• Reef/seagrass • Seagrass • Reef

aCommunity members spent an additional five days catching turtles immediately before the turtle rodeo trip and two days immediately after. bCommunity members from both Hammond Island and TRAWQ Community participated during this trip.

41

Size class (5cm grouping with minimum size marked)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Freq

uenc

y

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7male female unsexed

Figure 9. Size class distribution of hawksbill turtles caught on the reefs of the Inner Islands of the Torres Strait during 2005. Green turtles Seventy one green turtles were caught in the study. Of these 51 were assessed via laparoscopy for sex and maturity (Table 8). In addition two females and one male were confirmed as adults as they were caught in mounted pairs and one female had recent signs of courtship damage on her neck. For the other 17 green turtles that were not assessed via laparoscopy for sex and/or maturity, 16 were juvenile size (Table 9) and one was sub-adult size (Table 9). The sex ratio of juvenile green turtles (assessed via laparoscopy) was in favour of females, but this is not significantly different to a 1:1 sex ratio (Chi square with Yates correction = 2.34; df = 1). Table 8. Sex and maturity of Green turtles assessed via laparoscopy. Size class Male Female Total Sex ratio M:F Juvenile 16 32 48 2:1 Adult 0 2 2 NA One of the juvenile male turtles examined via laparoscopy was assessed as a new recruit to the foraging area. He was characterised with distinct plastron ridges, sharp, and slightly transparent edges to the carapace, plastron and carapace absent of algae or molluscs and dark staining in the lower mouth. Juvenile female green turtles were significantly larger than juvenile males (t-test; t = 1.90, df = 46; P = 0.03; Figure 10).

42

Table 9. Averages sizes (cm; CCL) of green turtles Size class Male Female Not assessed for sex/maturity New recruit 35.7 Juvenile 45.0 ± 3.17 47.5 ± 5.97 46.4 ± 5.32 Sub-adult 75.3 Adult 103.3a 103.4 ± 4.95b aAssessed via behaviour (caught during courtship) rather than laparoscopy bTwo were examined via laparoscopy and three via behaviour. There were five adult females caught during the study. Two were caught while they were in courtship, and were not examined via laparoscopy. Both of these females will breed in the 2005/2006 breeding season. Satellite transmitters were attached to both of these turtles to track their migration to a nesting beach (see Section 4.6). One female was not assessed for sex and maturity, however she had recent signs of courtship damage on her neck and shoulders and we thus class her as an adult in vitellogenesis for the 2005/2006 breeding season. Two females were examined with laparoscopy to confirm maturity. One had large vitellogenic follicles within the ovary consistent with a female that will breed in 2005/2006. The other had no enlarged vitellogenic follicles and was deemed not to be in breeding condition. Both of these two turtles had ovarian scars indicating that they had bred in a previous season. The average CCL of these five adult female turtles was similar to the average breeding size recorded at nesting beaches in the northern GBR (105cm; Table 9). The only adult male green turtle caught was mounted on a female turtle at the time of capture, and was thus classed as a breeding adult. His CCL was 103.3 cm (Table 9, Figure 10).

Size class (5cm grouping with minimum size marked)

20 40 60 80 100 120

Freq

uenc

y

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

malefemaleunsexed

Figure 10. Size class distribution of green turtles caught on the reefs of the Inner Islands of the Torres Strait during 2005.

43

4.4.3 Migration information Throughout this project we have been handed nine turtle tags that were taken from hunted animals. Of these tags four were from turtles hunted during the life of the project, the remainder were tags that hunters had retained for various periods of time without sending the information onto the relevant Government agencies. Details of these tag returns have been forwarded to the tagging agency (Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service) for inclusion in their turtle database. Table 10 shows a summary of the tag return information. 4.4.4 Green turtle fibropapilloma disease (GTFP) None of the adult turtles had external evidence of GTFP disease. In contrast of the 65 juvenile turtles caught six had external GTFP lesions (e.g. Figure 11). In four of these turtles the lesions were severe and the turtles were in poor body condition. These turtles had numerous large lesions (> 5cm diameter) and each of these four turtles had eye lesions greater than 2cm in diameter. One turtle was blind in one eye.

Figure 11. Juvenile green turtle with fibropapilloma disease – note lesions on the eye. Photo by Chloe Schauble. 4.4.5 Health and condition No turtles caught in this study had injuries consistent with boat strike, such as carapace fractures or scars. 4.4.6 Turtles seen but not caught In addition to the turtles caught, data were recorded on the number, species and size class (estimated) of turtles that were seen but not caught. All loggerhead turtles that have been seen during the surveys have been caught. Table 11 shows the area searched and the number of green and hawksbill turtles caught and the number missed.

44

Table 10. Tag recovery information for tags handed in to Hamann, Grayson or AFMA during 2005. These tags come from turtles that were caught over many years as hunters would give us tags as they found them. * original tagging data sourced from QPWS’s turtle database (Col Limpus personal communication) # these were tags dropped in anonymously to AFMA in early 2005. Tag number (s) Species Hunted location &

year Original tagging location & year*

T89963 & T34008 Green No details known # Raine Island 1987 & 1995 T10630 & T52038 Green Unknown Raine Island 1984 & 1990 T80303 Green Warraber - 2004 Raine Island 1994 K46479 Green No details known # Raine Island 2001 R22687 Green Inner Island TS - 2005 New Caledonia K53236 Green Inner Island TS - 2005 Heron Island 1996 & 2002 T59724 Green Inner Island TS - 2005 Raine Island 1991 K14188 Green Inner Island TS - 2005 Raine Island 1985 & 1997 K13528 Green Unknown Raine Island 1997 Table 11. The number of turtles seen and caught by location in the inner islands of Torres Strait (see Figure 4 for site locations) Location Hawksbill turtles Green turtles Seen Caught Seen Caught Number one reef 10 7 8 3 Number two reef - - 4 2 Number three reef - - 3 3 Hammond Island (nth coast) 12 5 10 9 Goods Island (nth coast) 1 22 17 Goods Island (west coast) 3 1 15 7 Goods Island (sth coast) - - 9 1 Wednesday Island (nth coast) 4 3 7 3 Waters between Goods & Friday - - 2 2 Friday Island (sand spit) - - 2 2 Prince of Wales Island (long beach) 2 0 4 1 Prince of Wales Island (nth west reef) 19 12 8 6 Prince of Wales Island (south) nr 1 nr 6 Horn Island (south nr 0 nr 1 Entrance Island Reef nr 1 nr 1 Dollar Reef nr 0 nr 3 Hawkesbury Island reef 3 1 6 4 Total 31 71

4.5 Conduct a satellite tagging/tracking of hawksbill and green turtles program in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait 4.5.1 Catch four turtles (preferably two hawksbill and two green turtles) in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait, attach satellite transmitters to each and monitor the movements (Consultancy Service 1). Satellite transmitters were deployed on four breeding green turtles:

45

“Toni” Toni is an adult female green turtle (115.0 cm in length) that was caught in the waters offshore of Friday Island. She was named by the year 1 and 2 students of the Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School on Hammond Island. She was released on the 5 October, 2005, and shortly after began her swim to the waters of the northern Great Barrier Reef. She made a near direct path out to the outer Great Barrier Reef and then travelled south down to Moulter Cay (Figure 12). She spent close to three months around Moulter Cay, and her tracking records suggest that she laid seven clutches of eggs at 13 day intervals (Figure 13). Moulter Cay and Raine Island are the two main rookeries for the northern GBR/Torres Strait green turtle population (Limpus et al., 2003). Once she had completed the nesting seas Toni migrated back into the Torres Strait, and as of 24 February she was close to her original capture at Friday Island (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Satellite telemetry map of Toni’s migration route from Hammond Island to the northern Great Barrier Reef and back to Torres Strait – updated 24 February 2006. http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/?project_id=100

46

Figure 13. Satellite telemetry map of the fine scale locations of the three female green turtles (Toni (brown), Waru (red) and Abbygail (light blue)) tracked from Torres Strait to the northern GBR.

47

“Crush” Crush is an adult male green turtle (103.3cm in length) that was caught in the waters offshore of Hammond Island. He was named by the year 1 and 2 students of the Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School on Hammond Island. He was released on the 6 October 2005, and shortly after began to swim actively around the waters between Hammond, Thursday, Horn and Wednesday Islands (Figure 14). Presumably he is searching for mates. By November 14 2005 Crush had swum approximately 213km, mostly within the area between Hammond Island, Thursday Island, Horn Island and Wednesday Island. During late November and early December he slowed his swimming down considerably and was mostly located off the northern coast of Wednesday Island.

Figure 14. Satellite telemetry map of Crush’s migration route within the Inner Island group of Torres Strait updated 24 February 2006. http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/?project_id=100

48

“Waru” Waru is an adult female green turtle (107.0 cm in length) that was caught in the waters of Dollar Reef. She was named by students of the Thursday Island High School. She was released on the 10 October 2005. She spent a week swimming around the northwest coast of Wednesday Island before moving over to Prince of Wales Island, and then finally heading north into the waters west of Badu Island. She then swam an arc around the Torres Strait moving past Boigu Island into PNG waters and then down past Saibai Island and south through the central islands. She then moved into the waters of the northern Great Barrier Reef (Figure 15). Waru’s satellite data indicate that she spend most of her time around Raine Island. It is not clear from her data how many clutches of eggs she laid. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, who operate annual turtle tagging trips to Raine Island spotted her ashore trying to nest in early December. She began her trip home in mid February, and as of 24 February she was close to her original capture site of Dollar Reef.

Figure 15. Satellite telemetry map of Waru’s migration route from Hammond Island to the northern Great Barrier Reef and back to Torres Strait updated 24 February 2006. http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/?project_id=100

49

“Abbygail” Abbygail is an adult female green turtle (105.0 cm in length) that was caught in the waters of Dollar Reef. She was named by students of the Thursday Island State School. She was released on the 19 October 2005. She spent the first week around the reefs to the north of Hammond Island, travelling up to Dollar Reef (adj Hawksbury Island). She then swam in a direct route down into the northern GBR (Figure 16). Abbygail spend most of her time close to Moulter Cay, and it is not possible from her tracking data to tell how many clutches she laid for the season. She left Moulter Cay in mid February, and as of 24 February she was approaching Torres Strait.

Figure 16. Satellite telemetry map of Abbygail’s migration route from Hammond Island to the northern Great Barrier Reef and back towards Torres Strait updated 24 February 2006. http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/?project_id=100

50

4.5.2 Involve at least two schools in the area in the satellite tracking program where students are to undertake activities which include the monitoring of the turtles movements by the internet or other means (Consultancy Service 2) As outlined above during the period 2 to 14 October 2005 four adult, breeding green turtles were captured in the waters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait. The turtles were brought back to the shore and school children (from the OLSH School on Hammond Island and TISHS) watched the various stages of tag attachment as well as the measurement and flipper tagging of the turtle (Figure 17). The children named the turtles as stated above (Section 4.2.1). Once the satellite tags were attached the turtles were released to the sea by the school children and other members of the community (Figures 18 & 19).

Figure 17. Students from Hammond Island School & members of the community watch the attachment of the satellite tag.

Figure 18. The Hammond Island community watches the “Toni”, an adult female green turtle crawl back into the ocean.

51

Figure 19. Students from Thursday Island High School with “Waru” an adult female green turtle shortly before her release. The Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School does not have internet access. Hamann emailed the turtle’s positions and jpeg maps to Stephen Ambar at the Hammond Island Council who passed the information on to the school’s teacher. The teacher then worked with the children to plot the positions onto a large map on the classroom wall (Figure 20).

Figure 20. Children from Hammond Island School crowd around the map to check the progress of the satellite tagged turtles

52

At Thursday Island State High School Hamann emailed the positions and jpeg maps directly to the year 10, 11 & 12 marine studies teachers who then updated maps with their respective classes.

5. Discussion

5.1 Monitor the harvest of adult green turtles and dugongs by hunters based in the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait 5.1.1 Community-based catch monitoring This is the first community-based catch-monitoring program implemented for dugongs in Australia and is only the second for turtles after the Dhimurru Miyapuna project (Kennett et al., 1998). A community-based catch-monitoring program ensures that the community has a sense of ownership and control of the process and is able to direct the process towards outcomes that are important for the community as well as the species. The Hammond Island community and the Thursday Island group wanted to be involved in this project so that they could collect information to help them develop community-based management plans to look after dugongs and turtles. They wished to develop a catch-monitoring process that they could continue to use in the future to collect the information they needed for management. As a result of this project, a monitoring process is being developed adaptively and community members have gained valuable experience in using western scientific research methods to monitor catches, which they can continue to apply in the longer-term. In addition the research team have a better understanding of the concerns and aspirations of Torres Strait Islanders regarding the future management of marine turtles and dugongs. In this project, communities were engaged in the catch-monitoring process through employment of Indigenous research counterparts (consultancy Service 6) and training community members in catch-monitoring (Consultancy Services 4 & 6). The employment of Indigenous research counterparts was integral to the involvement of other community-members in the program because they were able to explain the reasons for monitoring catches from an Islander perspective. In addition, hunters felt more comfortable providing information to, and receiving information from, fellow Islanders than from outside researchers. The employment of Indigenous research counterparts was also integral to the collection of data (see below). Training in catch-monitoring was facilitated through workshops for hunters (Consultancy Service 4) and on-the-job training for Indigenous research counterparts (Consultancy Service 7). All of the participating hunters from the Hammond Island community have received training. The Indigenous research counterparts from the Thursday Island group have been trained, but the hunters have not yet taken up the offered workshops. The Indigenous research counterparts, however, are in regular contact with the hunters and are able to discuss the need to monitor catches and show them how to measure the animals and take samples on a one-on-one basis. Many community members now have experience in using western scientific monitoring methods. Maximising participation by hunters was the major challenge for community-based catch-monitoring. Through the gradual development of the project a high level of participation by hunters has been achieved at Hammond Island (92% of registered hunters). The Thursday Island group have achieved a lower level of participation (25% of registered hunters), but have been involved for a shorter amount of time and have a much larger population of hunters from diverse parts of the community to engage. However, at Thursday Island an encouraging start has been

53

made in obtaining and maintaining participation by some hunters. The next challenge is to broaden the focus to actively engage other “registered” hunters to provide datasheets. Employing Indigenous research counterparts in each part of the community would greatly simplify this challenge, but was not feasible for this current project because of available funding. Achieving and maintaining participation by hunters is susceptible to factors that they perceive might threaten their use of dugongs and turtles or their aspirations to manage their dugong and turtle resources. Torres Strait Islanders are highly dependent on dugongs and turtles as part of their way of life and livelihood and they wish to play the major role in managing their dugong and turtle resources and therefore their resilience to changes with respect to dugong and turtle hunting is likely to be limited (e.g. N. Marshal personal communication), particularly given their dependence on these resources for food. The catch-monitoring process was adapted by the Indigenous research counterparts to suit their communities. Initially few hunters handed in datasheets without being asked. This reluctance was overcome through the employment of Indigenous research counterparts and these counterparts extended their usual social networks to maintain regular contact with hunters to collect their datasheets. Kennett et al., (1998) also reported that most of the datasheets in the Dhimurru Miyapuna Project were filled in by Dhimurru staff as opposed to the hunters. The inherent danger is that the project is dependent on the employment and often the enthusiasm of the Indigenous staff. However, Dhimurru hunters were not as experienced with data sheets as the hunters in Torres Strait (Rod Kennett personal communication) who have relevant experience through participating in fisheries. Hence datasheets have been a successful method of data collection on Hammond and Thursday Islands, and we believe that the effort required to ensure their continued completion will be less than for communities such as Dhimurru. Kwan (2002) found it difficult to maintain the motivation of rangers employed through the CDEP scheme to help with her project because most of the hunting occurred on weekends and early in the morning requiring them to work after-hours (their normal hours were 8am to 5pm and they were employed on alternate weeks only). In addition, the rangers were required by Council to work on other projects, therefore making it difficult for the rangers to make the project a priority. Motivation of Indigenous research counterparts has not been an issue in this project because both the Hammond Island Council and TRAWQ Community Council have allowed the Indigenous research counterparts to work very flexible hours, including weekends and the TRAWQ Indigenous research counterparts are scheduled to work on the project every week. In addition, the Indigenous research counterparts generously collect datasheets and biological samples opportunistically outside their scheduled work hours and are able to adjust their hours worked accordingly. The Indigenous research counterpart on Hammond Island has many other duties as the Community Ranger, but the TRAWQ Indigenous research counterparts are dedicated to the marine turtle and dugong project. Topping-up the normal CDEP wage made it worthwhile for the Indigenous research counterparts to take on a position where flexible hours were required. The project is fortunate to have Indigenous research counterparts who are interested in their work, recognise its importance and are proud to be involved in the project to look after dugongs and turtles for future generations. 5.1.2 Assessing the catch-monitoring method In this project both the representativeness of participating hunters and potential biases have undergone preliminary examination for the datasheet survey. At Hammond Island, the main hunters are participating in the datasheet survey and therefore, it may not be necessary, or appropriate, to extrapolate the catch-estimates to the entire community because most of the catch is likely to be accounted for. For example, two hunters accounted for 90% of the dugongs caught from Hammond Island in this study, so it is likely that legitimate estimates can be obtained from the data. Kwan (2002) similarly found that a few hunters

54

accounted for most of the dugongs caught at Mabuiag Island The two main hunters at Mabuiag Island, caught 56% and 59% of the dugongs in 1998 and 1999, respectively. At Daru in PNG, Kwan (1991) found that most of the fishermen targeting turtles did so infrequently. The distribution of catches of turtles amongst hunters at Hammond Island was more even. However, a few hunters were still responsible for a large proportion of the catch with three hunters catching 40% of the turtles. The Indigenous research counterpart maintained regular contact with the registered hunters at Hammond Island. Consequently, the catch-estimates at Hammond Island were unlikely to be biased due to hunters only participating some of the time or under- or over-reporting their catches. All but one of the registered hunters consistently provided datasheets. In addition, the transparent nature of dugong and turtle hunting process at Hammond Island make it difficult for hunters to exaggerate or under-report the number of dugongs and turtles they caught. Both the small size of the community and the visibility of the main processing site to the community mean that most of the catches are seen. In contrast, the small proportion of registered hunters in the Thursday Island group actively participating in the datasheet survey makes it inappropriate to assess the representativeness of the sample of registered hunters at this stage for this location. The hunters who did fill in datasheets were likely to be doing so consistently because, similar to Hammond Island, the Indigenous research counterpart maintained regular contact with them. There are three main possible reasons why a large proportion of the registered hunters from the Thursday Island group have not filled in datasheets. First, these hunters may not have been hunting during the survey period. Second, these hunters may have been hunting but caught nothing and therefore decided not to fill in a datasheet. Third, these hunters may be under-reporting their catches. These reasons need to be disaggregated using a process external to the datasheet survey to assess the representativeness of participating hunters and identify any biases introduced from their patterns of reporting. Grayson plans to interview hunters about their hunting patterns and participation in the project with the help of the Indigenous counterparts. However, it is also possible that these hunters may not have been adequately engaged in the project yet and therefore have not been reporting their hunting trips. Most of the hunters filling in datasheets (82%) were either recruited by the Indigenous research counterparts and/or live in the same community. This result suggests that the focus needs to be broadened in the Thursday Island group to re-engage the hunters who have not been filling in datasheets to date. 5.1.3 Implications for monitoring The datasheet survey is heavily reliant on hunters providing information. The monitoring process is much more difficult in the Thursday Island group than at Hammond Island because of the relative levels of transparency of the catch. The Hammond Island community is relatively small, with one main processing site, which almost everyone uses and which is in view of the community. Therefore, catches of dugongs and turtles are very obvious to the community. In contrast, for the Thursday Island group, the community is large and diverse and there are many dispersed processing sites, including people’s backyards. Therefore, catches of dugongs and turtles are much less obvious to the wider community. It might therefore be worthwhile considering incorporating other monitoring options to increase the transparency of the catch for the Thursday Island group to help the monitoring process. For example, making the community more like smaller communities by having one or a few common processing sites might be one way to achieve greater transparency. In fact, TRAWQ Community Council is in the process of seeking funding to construct a common processing site on Thursday Island. Greater use of these facilities could be achieved through council by-laws making it compulsory to process dugongs and turtles at such facilities.

55

Kennett et al., (1998) found that datasheets underestimated the number of turtles captured compared with data derived from measuring stockpiled shells. Shells accumulated around cooking fires on beaches which are used on a regular basis and hunters assisted the monitoring process by stockpiling the shells. Stockpiling shells of turtles (and skulls or other body parts of dugongs) was suggested to Torres Strait Islanders, but they rejected this monitoring method because unlike the Yolgnu people of NE Arnhem Land cultural practices in Torres Strait dictate that hunters must return the remains to the sea and hunters consider it to be unhygienic to leave carcasses out and were concerned about attracting crocodiles.

5.2 Collect and analyse data from hunters of the Kaiwalagal region of Torres Strait on the size, age class, maturity and breeding status of dugongs and turtles (Consultancy Service 5). 5.2.1 Catches, size and biology of harvested turtles and dugongs Similar to communities in the Torres Strait Protected Zone, dugong and turtle hunting is a significantly important activity in the Kaiwalagal sea country of Torres Strait. The results indicate that it will be very important to collect catch-data from the Kaiwalagal communities to address the historical imbalance of collecting catch data from the Torres Strait Protected Zone only, because of the need for the Kaiwalagal communities to have evidence-based inclusion in any catch-sharing arrangements. At Hammond Island data indicate that a very large proportion of the hunting trips were unsuccessful. This result is different from Kwan’s (2002) findings at Mabuiag in 1998 and 1999 for dugongs where only 12% and 25% of trips, respectively were unsuccessful. This difference could reflect differences between the communities, abundances of dugongs or could be an artefact of Kwan’s data being only for dugongs. Additional data including the intended target species could be collected prior to hunters beginning their trip to further analyse the success rate of hunting trips, which is needed to determine the spatial and temporal variation in catch per unit effort of hunting. More turtles than dugongs were caught in both communities. 57% of the animals caught at Hammond Island were turtles and 64% of animals caught by the Thursday Island group were turtles. Marine turtles Johannes and MacFarlane (1991) suggested that Torres Strait Islanders selected adult female turtles and avoided males, whenever they could differentiate the males by their longer tails. Data from our study indicate that hunters from Hammond Island and the Thursday Island group assert that they prefer large adult female turtles and the results show that the sex ratio of harvested turtles was heavily skewed towards females, with 98% of turtles caught across both communities being females larger than the minimum breeding size (86 cm CCL; Limpus et al., 2003). This result is similar to the ratio reported by Skewes et al., 2002 (Table 12). The sex ratio of randomly caught turtles (this study) in Torres Strait was close to 1:1, and in eastern Queensland sex ratios for green turtles are about 1:2 in favour of females (Limpus et al., 1994; 2005). The size ratios of green turtles in GBR foraging areas is generally a balance of all size classes Therefore, the harvest by Hammond Islanders and the Thursday Island group is not likely to be a random sample from the natural population of turtles. This pattern is not restricted to Torres Strait, indeed, Indigenous hunters from other parts of northern Australia also appear to prefer female turtles to males. For example, more female than male turtles were recorded in the Dhimurru Miyapuna project by Yolgnu hunters in north east Arnhem Land and similar to hunters in this study the hunters stated that females are preferred to

56

males because they are larger, fatter and contain large numbers of ova (yellow eggs; Kennett et al., 1998). Conversely, Kwan (1991) did not find such marked selectivity in the catch of turtles at Daru from 1985-1987 based on a much larger sample than in this study. Although the female bias in the sex ratio was significantly different from 1:1 (Table 12; Chi Square with Yates correction = 247.58), the sex ratio was similar to the natural sex ratio found for turtles stranded in the Gulf of Carpentaria after a cyclone (Limpus and Reed, 1985). In addition, only 67.9% of the female turtles caught at Daru were larger than 90 cm CCL (Kwan, 1991). Choice of sex and size would be limited if turtles were caught by nets, but only 0.2% - 1.4% of turtles at Daru were caught in nets and most were caught using a harpoon. Turbid water would also make it more difficult to distinguish sex. Kwan (1991) suggested that sexual selection by Daru fishermen who sold their catch in the market was minimal because of the high demand for fresh turtle meat. Interestingly previous studies by Kowarsky (1982) and Nietschmann (1981) also imply that adult females are preferred and that most hunting occurs over reef areas. For turtles, the catch-data alone would not be useful for understanding the composition of the population of turtles resident in Torres Strait because there was a strong bias in the catch data towards adult females, which was not representative of the population of turtles found on the reefs. Section 4.5 (turtle rodeo) showed that most of the turtles on the reefs during the day were juveniles, with a sex ratio of about 1:1 and very few adults were seen. The composition of harvested turtles lends support to our proposal that it is possible that large turtles have been over hunted, have different foraging behaviours and/or different habitat choice than juvenile turtles. Table 12. Sex ratio of marine turtles caught in Torres Strait in various studies.

Location Sex ratio F:M Date Study Hammond Island 1:0.00 2005 Present Thursday Island 1:0.03 2005 Present Daru 1:0.22 1985-1987 Kwan (1991) TSPZ 1:0.05 1996-2001 Skewes et al. (2002) Dugongs Previous work suggested that Torres Strait Islanders preferred large female dugongs (Haddon, 1912; Nietschmann and Nietschmann, 1981; Raven, 1990; Johannes and MacFarlane, 1991; Ponte, 1996). On this basis, it is surprising that more male than female dugongs were caught at Hammond Island (Table 13). For the Thursday Island group, however, more female than male dugongs were caught (Table 13) and neither of these sex ratios were significantly different from 1:1 (Chi Square with Yates correction). Similarly, the bias towards females in recent studies is relatively small and Kwan (2002) suggested that it was unlikely that hunters from Mabuiag Island were actively selecting for females. Kwan (2002) and Hudson (1986) each found that slightly more females than males were caught at Mabuiag Island in 1998-1999 and Daru from 1978-1982, respectively. Harris et al., (1997) also found a bias towards female dugongs from the TSPZ from 1990-1996 and this bias was smaller in the same area in 1996-2001 (Table 13; Skewes et al., 2002). Based on the small sample size from this study and the proportion of males to females, there is no evidence that hunters are selecting dugongs on the basis of sex in this study. As more information on the sex ratio of harvested dugongs is collected a better idea of the population dynamics will emerge.

57

Table 13. The sex-ratio of dugongs caught in Torres Strait in various studies. Location Sex ratio F:M Date Study Hammond Island 1:1.6 2005 Present Thursday Island 1:0.75 2005 Present TSPZ 1:0.5 1990-1996 Harris et al., 1997 TSPZ 1:0.88 1996-2001 Skewes et al., 2002 Many of the dugongs caught in this study were relatively small compared to the Daru harvest of 20-30 years ago. All of the dugongs caught in this study were smaller than the average size of dugongs caught at Daru from 1978-1982. In addition there has been an apparent downward shift in both the average size and the largest size of dugongs reported in other studies from Torres Strait since that time (Table 14). Table 14. The average size and range of sizes of dugongs caught in the Torres Strait area. Location Average size

(cm) Size range

(cm) Date Study

Hammond Island 198.2 150 – 240 2005 Present Thursday Island 215.5 165 – 250 2005 Present TSPZ 213.3 79 – 280 1996- 2001 Skewes et al., 2002 Mabuiag Island 233.0* 132 – 320 1997-1999 Kwan, 2002 Daru 251.0 150 – 331 1978-1982 Hudson, 1986 *unpublished data A downward shift in the sizes of dugongs caught could indicate that the population is being over-harvested because it suggests that the larger, reproductive animals have been removed and are not being replaced fast enough to counteract the effects of hunting (e.g. Hudson, 1986). The sample of dugongs from the Kaiwalagal region in this study is relatively small compared with the other studies and does not include a full year of sampling, which excludes the time when dugongs are most abundant in the area. Dugongs from the Kaiwalagal area come from the same genetic stock as those from Daru, so it is unlikely that the dugongs near Daru are actually larger than dugongs near the Kaiwalagal area (Kwan, 2002). Further information on sizes of harvested dugongs needs to be collected to determine, first, if there really is a shift towards harvesting smaller dugongs in the population and second, if there is, what has caused it. In addition, more tusks need to be collected to determine whether dugongs are small because they are young or due to some other factor affecting growth. Some of the pregnant females caught here were among the smallest such females ever recorded (Marsh et al., 1984a, b). The average size from both communities was 212.5 cm and ranged from 200 cm to 240 cm (Table 15). Kwan (2002) also recorded a small pregnant female (205 cm) from Mabuiag (Table 15). As mentioned above, previous studies have suggested that dugongs reach sexual maturity at sizes greater than 220 cm (Marsh et al., 1984a, Marsh 1995; Table 15).

58

Table 15. Comparison of the minimum sizes of sexually mature female dugongs recorded in various studies. Location Min. size sexually

mature (cm) Date Study

Kaiwalagal region 200 2005 Present Mabuiag Island 205 1997-1999 Kwan, 2002 Townsville 234 1969-1981 Marsh et al., 1984a Numbulwar 229 na Bertram & Bertram1973 Daru 240 1978-1982 Hudson, 1986 Density dependence theory suggests that when populations are below carrying capacity because of exploitation, colonisation or a natural event, age and size at first reproduction decreases and the population growth rate increases (see Fowler, 1981, 1984). Therefore, coming into breeding at a young age and small size could be a demographic signal of over-harvesting. Alternatively it could be a response to temporal or spatial shifts in environmental conditions (Marsh et al., 1984b; Marsh 1995; Boyd et al., 1999). For example, Kwan (2002) suggested that the early maturity of dugongs in her study was most likely due to favourable environmental conditions with good seagrass resources, but could not rule out a density dependent response to a reduction in the population size through over-harvesting. More information on age is needed to determine whether dugongs are breeding at a younger age or the animals are small because of some factor affecting their growth. More information on sizes and ages of pregnant/sexually mature female dugongs caught by hunters in this study is needed to determine whether this apparent pattern is real. If it is, to disaggregate the possible causes, more information on seagrass distribution, abundance and nutritional quality in Torres Strait would be needed. The collection of data in this section is dependent on the hunter’s willingness to provide biological samples. The rates of collection of biological samples have been increasing from both the Thursday Island group and Hammond Island as hunters have become more familiar with the data collection system. 5.4.2 Uses of dugongs and turtles A relatively large proportion of the dugongs and turtles caught were used for subsistence compared to other uses. The high cost of living and lower incomes in Torres Strait relative to other parts of Australia means buying store bought meat is expensive and therefore reducing the number of dugongs and turtles caught is difficult. For example, the individual median income of Torres Strait Islanders living in Torres Strait is only 60% that of non-Indigenous people living in Australia, but meat is several dollars more expensive per kilogram (e.g. Table 16). This disparity is probably even greater on the outer islands and PNG than Thursday Island and would need to be considered in the development of any community based management arrangements, including options such as catch sharing across communities. Table 16. Comparison of the prices of meat between Canberra and Thursday Island Item Price per kilogram Canberra Thursday Island Lamb chops/rump steak $13.99 $15.99 Rib fillet steak $16.99 $24.50 Eye fillet steak $26.99 $29.99

59

5.3 Rodeo catch and monitor the reproductive status of green turtles on the reefs of the Kaiwalagal region using laparoscopic examination (at least 3 trips; Consultancy Service 3) 5.3.1 Size and biology The pubescent female loggerhead was 86.0 cm in carapace length, which is above the minimum breeding size in Queensland (80 cm), but below the mean size of first breeding in Queensland rookeries (94.4 cm) (Limpus and Limpus 2003). There are few published accounts of hawksbill turtle population demographics outside of the nesting season. Our data suggest a sex ratio close to 1:1 which is different to that published for the southern GBR of 2.57F:1M (Limpus 1992). It is likely that some of this difference is due to our smaller sample size. Our data on the size class structure are similar to those reported by Limpus (1992) for hawksbill turtles in the southern GBR. The two adult female hawksbill turtles were 73.5 and 72.5 cm in length (CCL). Both of these turtles are above the minimum breeding size for hawksbill turtles in northern Queensland (Dobbs et al., 1999). However, they are both in the lower end of the breeding size class based on data from Milman Island in the northern GBR (Limpus and Miller 2000). For the green turtles, the size of the only new recruit to the foraging area is within the range recorded for green turtles at other locations in Queensland (Limpus et al. 1994; Limpus et al. 2005). A larger sample size needs to be collected to determine robust estimates on recruitment rates and allow comparison with other sites. 5.3.2 Densities of turtles on the reefs and size range The turtle rodeo trips highlighted to us that, despite the expert local assistance we received and unlike areas within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (where Hamann and others have conducted extensive similar work), turtle densities on the reefs we sampled during the day are low (similar to those in Gulf of Carpentaria for which rodeo data are available). This result is likely to be a result of a combination of factors such as: working with turtle populations that are hunted by local people, the volume of traffic (ranging from dinghies to large ships), and the density of available foraging habitat. Among the reefs that we sampled (on more than one day) the lowest densities of juvenile green turtles (per square km of reef) were Number One and Number Three reefs. Higher densities of juvenile turtles were found on NW reef, and the reefs surrounding Goods, Hammond and Wednesday Island (Figure 4). The pattern is similar for Juvenile hawksbill turtles. On Number One, Two and Three reefs all turtles were seen on the reef crest or the reef flat and no turtles were caught in the lagoon areas. Our data show that there is a bias in the size and maturity classes of turtles that are residing on the reefs during the day. For both green and hawksbill turtles we caught a majority of juvenile turtles (92% and 65% for green and hawksbill turtles respectively) and all except one of the adult green turtles caught were in courtship or advanced vitellogenesis. For green turtles the size/age class ratios that we found in Torres Strait are unlike other GBR reefs and inshore foraging sites whereby size class ratios include turtles of all size classes including sub adults (between 65cm and 90cm) and adults (Limpus et al., 1994; Limpus et al., 2005). However, the size class distribution of hawksbill turtles has been found to vary between study locations in Queensland (Limpus and Miller 2000). Extensive foraging area studies in Queensland have found no evidence of turtles readily changing habitats depending on their size (“developmental migrations”). In the 1970s Nietschmann, working at Mabuiag Island commented that turtles were caught during the day up on the reefs at higher tides. However he makes no comments as to whether this occurs year round or just during the breeding season (Nietschmann and Nietschmann 1981). Within our study region local hunters state that large turtles only come on to the reefs at night, and in the day they remain in the deep water. We conducted one three hour

60

night trip, with good conditions and tides, and did not see a turtle. The lack of large turtles on the reef during the day is likely to be a result of several factors (high boat traffic, hunting, food availability). We also have anecdotal evidence that changes in hunting practices have occurred. For example most night catching occurs on the rising tides when turtles are first coming up on the reefs. Also PNG hunters from Daru have indicated that they now have to travel to Warrior Reefs to catch large turtles (Kwan 1991; AFMA unpublished information). While travelling through and across deep water channels we often saw adult and sub adult sized green turtles surfacing to breathe. It is therefore possible that larger size classes of turtles have different foraging behaviour or habitat choice than juvenile turtles and these differences are being seen in the composition of turtles on reefs during the day. Deeper waters, or waters that cannot be easily accessed for hunting may act as a reserve for green turtles in this region. Studies that identify fine scale patterns in foraging behaviour, forage selection and habitat use of green turtles together with fine scale mapping of forage types and benthic habitats are warranted to provide more information on these knowledge gaps. 5.3.3 Green turtle fibropapilloma disease (GTFP) In general GTFP is more prevalent in juvenile size classes. According to Harris et al., (1997) there was no recorded incidence of GTFP in turtles from Torres Strait. While there has been little quantitative data published on GTFP rates in Australian green turtle populations, unpublished data from QPWS indicate that rates in Moreton Bay and Repulse Bay are high (between 10 and 60% depending on specific localities in the bay) and low rates are found in other coastal bays (Shoalwater Bay 0.5 to 2.12%; Limpus and Miller 1994; Limpus et al., 2005) and reef habitats (Heron Reef < 1%). Although initial reports have suggested that turtles with GTFP have high mortality rates, recent data suggests that recovery is possible, especially in turtles that are less than severely inflicted (Work and Balazs 2000; Limpus et al., 2005). However, once the lesions cover eyes, mouth or become internal recovery rates are low (Work and Balazs 2000). There is little evidence to state causes of the disease however it is emerging that the most likely vector is the marine leech. We do not have enough data from Torres Strait to make assumptions about habitats where the disease might be more or less prolific or recovery rates for this population.

6. Key areas for research and management focus

This study, and discussions held with Community members have identified several key areas that warrant further study, or are areas that are deemed important from local communities with regard to management of marine turtles.

6.1 Research needs 6.1.2 Turtles

o Fine scale analysis of foraging behaviour and habitat uses of green turtles (juveniles and adults)

These research projects would use methods such as telemetry, time depth recorders and stomach content analysis to elucidate about foraging behaviour. In particular whether there are any ontogenetic differences in fine scale temporal and spatial habitat choice. Results from these activities would add to our ability to interpret population level data for the species, such as night time bias in catch effort. Outcomes of this project would lead to more robust management and monitoring options by providing empirical data on habitat use.

61

o Hatchling production from Torres Strait rookeries for green and hawksbill turtles The premise for this activity is that Raine Island, the main rookery, has low hatchling production (Limpus et al., 2003). This hatchling production project would expand the work the QPWS are currently undertaking at Raine Island to other rookeries in Torres Strait. Such a project would analyse nesting and hatchling emergence at other key rookeries for both species. These data would allow more accurate existing population models to be improved or new population status models developed.

o Effects of changing island geomorphology on the nesting ability and hatchling

success of Torres Strait turtle rookeries One of the main reasons suggested for the poor hatchling emergence from Raine Island is the changing beach profile (Limpus et al., 2003). QPWS studies have indicated that the beach at Raine Island is slowly eroding and that nests are becoming flooded by the water table (Limpus et al., 2003). This study would identify if similar geomorphology patterns are occurring at other islands; and for Raine Island determine whether the changing beach profile is a natural event or exacerbated by human modification to the island.

o Continued description of the population dynamics of green and hawksbill turtles in

Torres Strait (especially the central and eastern Islands) We have presented the first data on the population characteristics of green and hawksbill turtles foraging in Torres Strait. However, for a more robust evaluation of the demography and trends in population function, and how these may change temporally and spatially a longer data set and monitoring period is necessary.

o Analysis of the genetic composition of hawksbill turtles in Torres Strait

Breeding populations of green and hawksbill turtles form discreet genetic groups (often termed management units). Hence it is possible to analyse DNA from turtles in a foraging area to identify their natal region and thus breeding population. An understanding of what breeding populations are being impacted by the harvest of eggs and turtles both in Australia and overseas will greatly enhance the ability to adopt successful local, national and regional management programs.

o Investigation into the potential effects of climate change on Torres Strait and nGBR

turtle populations Climate change is expected to have a profound impact on marine populations by affecting sex ratios of hatchlings, nesting seasonality, nesting locations, beach stability and nutritional uptake (Hamann et al., 2002). Multi-disciplinary research activities that focus on quantifying current situations and then predict future impacts are warranted to improve current and future management options.

o Assessment of the scope of the GTFP disease and possible causes GTFP is a retro-viral disease that is currently prevalent in green turtles from Torres Strait. More research is needed to identify the scale of the disease within Torres Strait, and to elucidate, and manage, potential hot spots. 6.1.2 Dugongs

o Cross-jurisdictional aerial survey of Torres Strait, northern GBR and Queensland coast of Gulf of Carpentaria

This survey is required to estimate the sustainable levels of mortality for dugongs across this entire region. Previous surveys have been conducted within geographic areas in different years and the results are confounded to an unknown degree by movements between regions between surveys.

62

o Investigation of changing demography of the dugongs harvested in Torres Strait This study and Kwan’s (2002) study at Mabuiag Island in 1997-98 indicate that the size of dugongs harvested in Torres Strait and the size and possibly age of first reproduction has declined. This result may be a demographic signal of over-harvest which requires further investigation by:

o Further investigations of the size, age and sex ratio of harvested dugongs,. o Investigation into the temporal changes in the age at first reproduction and

calving interval revealed by examination of the Growth Layer Groups in the collection of tusks of Torres Strait dugongs held at JCU and collected by this project.

6.1.3 Turtles and Dugongs o Economic value of the Torres Strait dugong and turtles harvests

This project confirms that much of the harvest of dugong and turtle meat is used for subsistence by community members on very low incomes. If there are to be quotas on the number of animals harvested, alternative sources of protein will be a high priority for affected communities. The economic value of the current harvest needs to be quantified in the context of the cost of hunting and living in different communities.

o Arrangements between communities and between PNG and Australia The biggest challenge for turtle and dugong management in Torres Strait is the coordination of management at culturally (community) and ecologically (stock) relevant scales. Research is needed to develop principles for future community based arrangements for catch-sharing at several spatial scales: (1) between Australia and PNG, (2) between Torres Strait and the northern GBR and Gulf of Carpentaria communities; and (3) within Australian communities in Torres Strait

o Developing a toolbox of tools to ensure that the dugong and turtle harvests in Torres Strait are sustainable

There are a range of tools that could be used to ensure that the harvest of dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait is culturally and ecologically sustainable. These options include catch quotas, area and temporal closures and gear restrictions. The acceptability of these alternatives to Islanders needs to be investigated using focus groups, along with a spatial risk assessment of the management outcomes of the various options based on: (1) the information on the spatial distribution of dugongs and turtles in Torres Strait obtained from the temporal series of aerial surveys since the late 1980s and (2) contemporary information on the hunting patterns and egg harvest of individual communities.

6.2 Management needs (as identified by the Hammond Island Community) These management needs were identified through talking to Hammond Island community members.

o Development of educational and awareness raising materials There is a strong need for the development and distribution of plain English (or language) materials that describe biological data and results of research for turtles and dugongs.

o Development of community based management plans Community based management plans are one management option that communities are willing to support. Assistance should be provided where possible to support Islander aspirations in the development of these community based plans, and to ensure that they are based on robust scientific and Indigenous knowledge. The NAILSMA project is designed to address this need but will undoubtedly need to be extended to achieve this outcome.

o Management of the PNG and Indonesian harvest of marine turtles and dugongs from within Torres Strait waters

63

Torres Strait islanders have expressed significant concern about international harvest – such as the commercial harvest by PNG. Unless there are steps taken to reduce the pressure from international hunters on Torres Strait (and Australian) turtle and dugong populations; local management by Australian agencies and communities will be exceedingly difficult.

7. Lessons learned

Many lessons have been learned from this project. These lessons need to be distilled to inform other attempts at managing and monitoring marine hunting and fishing, especially of threatened species of cultural significance. Our list of such lessons follows:

7.1 Lessons for community-based monitoring of dugongs and turtles • It is important for researchers and managers to work with communities in culturally

appropriate education and extension programs before monitoring and other management initiatives are negotiated. Communities must understand a problem if they are to respond effectively.

• Negotiations about monitoring must be conducted in a manner that allows all parties to

participate on an equal footing, and to respect each other’s aspirations. Jones (2004) provides practical advice about how to set up an effective negotiation table in such circumstances.

• The development and implementation of Indigenous community-based catch-monitoring for

dugongs and turtles must be gradual and adaptive. Engagement of communities is slow because developing the necessary trust and capacity throughout the community takes time. The development of trust can be facilitated by employing local staff with extensive social networks and the enthusiasm to engage other participants and maintain their trust. Communities also need access to scientific expertise to ensure that their collection techniques are robust.

• Because of the cultural significance of the Indigenous hunting of dugongs and turtles, trust is

quickly destroyed by media controversy. If effective community based monitoring and management is to be developed in Torres Strait, a comprehensive culturally-sensitive media strategy is essential. All stakeholders need to respect the need to work in a culturally sensitive manner.

• In addition to the cultural significance of dugong and turtle hunting, Torres Strait Islanders are

highly dependent on dugong and turtle meat for food. Consequently, Islanders will be very resistant to change unless they are meaningfully involved in the decision-making process. Actively involving Islanders in catch monitoring and research is valuable because this involvement increases their understanding and trust of the need for change and potentially provides them with some control over their future (e.g. N. Marshal, personal communication)

• Large meetings are not effective in engaging hunters. As Havemann et al. (2005) explained,

interacting with the key hunters is integral to successful programs. Smaller, more focussed meetings and one-on-one interactions are likely to be much more effective in engaging hunters, especially the main hunters in the community.

• Catch-monitoring of dugongs and turtles is complicated by the many issues associated with

dugong and turtle management in Torres Strait. These issues need to be addressed before, or

64

at least at the same time as implementing the catch-monitoring program. The major management needs identified by the communities we worked with were the need for long-term employment, the development of community-based management plans, assessment of the PNG and Indonesian harvest of dugongs and turtles from within Torres Strait waters, development of educational and awareness raising materials for both western scientific and traditional knowledge and greater action on impacts other than traditional harvesting. Concern about options for management and enforcement increased concerns about sharing ownership of research projects and outcomes and protecting sensitive information.

• Active involvement of Islanders in other aspects of dugong and turtle research and

management can increase interest in catch-monitoring. For example, hunters actively involved in the turtle rodeos became more interested in monitoring their catches because they were getting a broader understanding of the biology and ecology of the animals. This idea that catch-monitoring needs to be developed and implemented in a holistic way in the broader context of Indigenous management of marine resources was also raised at the Catch-monitoring Workshop held on Thursday Island in 2003, where it was recognised that monitors need to be involved in more activities than just monitoring of their own catch.

• As raised during the Catch-monitoring workshop in 2003 (Turtle and dugong catch-

monitoring report, 2003), employment and training of Indigenous research counterparts was integral to the success of the program. Ongoing employment will be integral to the continuation of catch-monitoring programs within communities because of the high level of contact needed between hunters and Indigenous research counterparts to collect datasheets.

• Using datasheets to monitor the catches of relatively small animals like dugongs and turtles is

not very transparent. It might, therefore, be worthwhile considering incorporating other monitoring options like community processing sites to increase the transparency of the monitoring process. Rules for using such sites could be incorporated into community by-laws as the communities of Torres Strait achieve local government status.

• Catch-monitoring needs to be community focussed, but scientifically structured for catch-data

to be meaningful. The information to be collected and how it will be analysed and used needs to be considered upfront to avoid collecting data that may not be useful. Managers, Indigenous or otherwise, need to be sure that the data being presented to them from the community is real and free (as it can be) from bias and error.

• Consideration needs to be given to controlling the use and/or distribution of data and reports.

There is a need for transparency among all parties about what data will be collected and which data will be openly shared or withheld from public access. This will prevent misunderstandings as happened in this project with respect to the release of catch numbers.

7.2 Lessons for management of dugong and turtle harvests • Australian Indigenous communities do not trust western research or researchers. Nonetheless,

because research is conducted over many years, it provides a valuable opportunity to build trust by following agreed protocols and should be considered as part of the community education and extension process. Meaningful Indigenous participation even extending to “co-managed” research (Innes and Ross 2001), at all levels of the research process from framing and prioritizing the questions, designing the research protocol, collecting and analysing the data, and disseminating the results helps to build trust in the outcomes of the research process, especially if the results can be set in the context of relevant traditional knowledge.

65

• Management of the Indigenous dugong and turtle harvests should be conducted in the context of broader ‘Caring for Country’ initiatives. Indigenous peoples wish to create employment options within communities to manage “Caring for Country” initiatives. Indigenous peoples wish to be involved in all aspects of the management of their country in a manner which they consider culturally appropriate and which uses their traditional knowledge.

• It is important to develop a management framework for managing dugong and turtle harvest

at ecologically relevant scales. If individual communities are treated as prototypes they may resent an initiative that does not apply to other communities. Communication between communities, even isolated communities in remote areas with a low socio-economic base, is now fast and efficient. Another imperative for implementing management at regional scales is that both dugongs and turtles undertake extensive movements. The large scale movements that both turtles and dugongs make means that both ecological scale of the animals’ spatial use and the cultural scales necessary for management need to be acknowledged and be incorporated into management practice.

• Indigenous communities are understandably wary of initiatives that they consider threatening

to their aspirations. In Australia, this includes Native Title aspirations. Thus management initiatives should acknowledge these concerns.

• Management initiatives should be culturally appropriate and developed together by the

community and the managing agencies. Successful initiatives are an iterative mixture of both top-down and bottom-up strategies. Top-down initiatives from managing agencies are important for statutory support, capacity building and resources. Bottom-up initiatives from the community are an essential pre-requisite for community ownership and control.

• Management arrangements need to be flexible and adaptive, allowing the management

partnerships to grow iteratively in a distinct cycle, which treats management intervention as a hypothesis for testing and evaluation. This approach allows all parties to test their assumptions systematically and to measure how well the arrangements have worked and improve them if necessary. Thus successful co-management initiatives are likely to take many years to develop, and would incorporate several “management tools” other than catch regulation.

• The problem and the proposed solution have to be owned by many people in both the

community and the managing agencies, rather than a few champions. An initiative must have the capacity to survive changes in personnel.

• Planning management initiatives is much easier than implementation, which requires

resources and community capacity. The resources required for implementation should ideally be available before planning is completed to capitalise on the momentum generated during the planning phase and as an incentive during the negotiation process. Although, funds have been provided by the Australian Government to support community-based management of dugongs and sea turtles in northern Australia, this funding is project based and short-term. A secure long-term funding base is required. Altman (2003) notes that ‘supporting Indigenous economic futures on country has the potential to generate benefits not just for Aboriginal people but also for a variety of national stakeholders’. The development of local Indigenous natural resource management of land and sea country in the remote regions of northern Australia is a potentially cost effective option (Smith 2004). Such an initiative has the potential to provide employment opportunities in communities that are at present largely dependent on social security to manage remote areas that are currently managed largely by benign neglect. Using locals should be much more cost-effective than meeting the logistical

66

challenge and expense of re-locating management agency staff from other areas, either permanently or on an expeditionary basis.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Kaurareg Traditional Owners (represented by the Kaurareg Traditional Aboriginal Elders Corporation) and thank them for allowing us to conduct this work in their traditional sea country. Toshi Nakata (CRC TS liaison officer) provided substantial help particularly in gaining and regaining support for the project. The Indigenous research counterparts and other members of the community helped enthusiastically with all aspects of project, particularly Stephen Ambar from Hammond Island and Cyril Stephen, Paul Dai, David Warria and Jim Kris from TRAWQ. We thank all of the partners in this project: Hammond Island Community (Fred Gela (Chair), Seriako Dorante and Thomas Sabatino), TRAWQ Community (Annie Stone (CEO) and Railey Gibia), WNM and POW Community Fisher Groups and Torres Shire Council on Thursday Island (Graham Hirakawa, Yen Loban and Alan Ketchell), the Kaurareg Traditional Aboriginal Elders Corporation (Willie Wigness) and the traditional hunters from each of these groups. The members of the Reference Group, Fred Gela, Seriako Dorante, Willie Wigness, Graham Hirakawa, Yen Loban, Railey Gibia and Alan Ketchell provided substantial input into the project and provided useful comments on the report. The project was funded through grants from The Department of Environment and Heritage (NHT program), CRC Torres Strait (including TSRA and AFMA) and Ocean Parks Conservation Foundation).

67

Literature cited

Altman, J.C. & Cochrane, M. 2003. Innovative institutional design for sustainable wildlife management in the Indigenous owned savanna. CAEPR discussion paper series 247. 14 pp.

Anderson L.G. 1984. Uncertainty in the fishery management process. Marine Resource Economics. 1(1): 77-87.

Bertram, C. & Bertram, K. 1973. The modern sirenia: their distribution and status. Journal of the Linnaean Society of London. 5: 297–338.

Bradley J. 1997. Li-anthawirriyarra, people of the sea. Yanyuwa relations with their marine environment. PhD thesis, Department of Biology, Northern Territory University, Darwin Australia.

Bomford, M. & Caughley, J. (eds). 1996. Sustainable Use of Wildlife by Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra.

Boyd, I.L., Lockyear, C. & Marsh, H.D. 1999. Reproduction in marine mammals. In Reynolds, J.E. III & Rommel, S.A. (eds). Biology of marine mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Coyne M.S & Godley B.J. 2005. Satellite tracking and analysis tool (STAT): an integrated system for archiving, analysing and mapping animal tracking data. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 301:1-7.

Dethmers K.E.M, FitzSimmons N.N, Broderick D., Whiting S., Guinea M., Kennett, R. Hamann M. & Limpus C.J. (in press) Distribution of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) populations across North Australian feeding grounds. In proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Miami 2002.

Dews, G., Harris, AN., Poiner, I.R. & Kerr, J. 1993. Guide to monitoring the traditional catch of the Torres Strait. Report to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Torres Strait Protected Zone. October 2003.

Dobbs K.A., Miller J.D., Limpus C.J., & Landry A.M.J. 1999. Hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, nesting at Milman Island, northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3, 344-361.

Fowler, C.W. 1981. Density dependence as related to life history strategy. Ecology, 62(3): 602-610.

Fowler, C.W. 1984. Density dependence in cetacean populations. Reports of the International Commission for Whaling. Special issue 6: 373-379.

Gales N., McCauley R., Laynon J. & Holly D. 2004. Change in the abundance of dugongs in Shark Bay, Ningaloo and Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia: Evidence for large-scale migration. Wildlife Research. 31:283-290.

Haddon, A.C. 1912. Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits. Volume 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hamann M., Owens D., & Limpus C.J. 2002. Reproductive cycles in male and female sea turtles. In Lutz, P.L., Musick J.A. & Wyneken J. (eds) Biology of sea turtles Volume 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp 155 -163.

Harris, A.N.M., Dews, G., Bishop, M. & Pitcher, R. 1997. Transfer of traditional fisheries monitoring to AFMA with training. Unpublished final report to the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Torres Strait Protected Zone.

Havemann, P., Thiriet, D., Marsh, H. & Jones, C. 2005. Traditional use of marine resources agreements and dugong hunting in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Environmental and Planning Law Journal. 22:258-280.

68

Heinsohn R., Lacy R.R.C., Lindenmayer D.B., Marsh H., Kwan D. & Lawler I.R. 2004. Unsustainable harvest of dugongs in Torres Strait and Cape York (Australia) waters: two case studies using population viability analysis. Animal Conservation. 7:417-425.

Honneland G. 2000. Compliance in the Barents Sea fisheries. How fishermen account for conformity with rules. Marine Policy. 24(1):11-19.

Hudson, B.E.T. 1986. The hunting of dugong in Daru, Papua New Guinea, during 1978-82: community management and education initiatives. In Haines, A.K., Williams, G.C. & Coates, C. (eds). Torres Strait Fisheries Seminar, Port Moresby, 11-14 February 1985. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra. pp. 77-94.

Innes, J. & Ross, H. 2001. Co-managed research as a strategy for informing the development of Indigenous and government management partnerships over the Great Barrier Reef. Paper presented at International Association for the study of Common Property Inaugral Pacifc Regional Meeting, Brisbane, QLD, 2-4 September 2001. Available at http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/documents/dir0/00/00/07/03/index.html.

Johannes, R.E. & MacFarlane, J.W. 1991. Traditional fishing in the Torres Strait Islands. CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Hobart, Australia.

Kennett R., Munungurritj N., & Yunupingu D. 2004. Migration patterns of marine turtles in the Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia: implications for Aboriginal management. Wildlife Research 31, 241-248.

Kinan I. (ed). 2002. Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop. February 5-8 Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 300 pgs.

Kowarsky J. 1982. Subsistence hunting of sea turtles in Australia. In Ed. KA Bjorndal (ed) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington pp 305.

Kwan D. 1991. The turtle fishery of Daru, Western Province, Papua New Guinea: Insights into the biology of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and implications for management. MSc thesis, Faculty of Science, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland Australia.

Kwan D. 2002. Towards a sustainable Indigenous fishery for dugongs in Torres Strait: a contribution of empirical data and process. PhD thesis. School of TESAG, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Kwan, D., Marsh, H. & Delean, S. (in press). Factors affecting the customary hunting of a threatened marine mammal by a remote Indigenous community. Environmental Conservation.

Limpus C.J. 1985. A study of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta in eastern Australia. PhD thesis, Department of Zoology, The University of Queensland. Brisbane, Australia.

Limpus C.J. 2002. Conservation and research of sea turtles in the western pacific region: an overview. In Kinan, I. (ed), Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Worksop. February 5-8, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 300 pp.

Limpus C. J. & Miller J. D. 1994. The occurrence of cutaneous fibropapillomas in marine turtles in Queensland. In Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency (eds) Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra, ACT. pp. 186-188

Limpus C.J. & Miller J.D. 2000. Final report for Australian hawksbill turtle population dynamics project. Report to the Japan Bekko Association from Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.

Limpus C.J. & Limpus D.J. 2003. Biology of the loggerhead turtle in western South Pacific Ocean foraging areas. In Bolten A. & Witherington B. (eds) Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D. C. pp. 93-113.

69

Limpus C., Miller J.D., Parmenter C.J., Reimer D., McLachlan N., Webb R. 1992. Migration of green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles to and from eastern Australian rookeries. Wildlife Research 19, 347-358.

Limpus C.J., Couper P.J., Read M.A. 1994. The green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Queensland: Population structure in a warm temperate feeding area. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 35, 139-154.

Limpus C., Miller J., Parmenter C.J, Limpus D. 2003. The green turtle, Chelonia mydas, population of Raine Island and the northern Great Barrier Reef 1843-2001. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 49, 349-440.

Limpus, C. J., Limpus, D.J. Arthur, K.E. & Parmenter, C.J 2005. Monitoring green turtle population dynamics in Shoalwater Bay: 2000 to 2004. Report to Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 51pp.

Marsh, H. 1995. Limits of detectable change. In Grigg G., Hale G. and Lunney D. (Eds), Conservation through sustainable use of wildlife. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

Marsh, H., Heinsohn, G.E. & Channells, P.W. 1984a. Changes in the ovaries and uterus of the dugong Dugong dugon (Sirenia: Dugongidae), with age and reproductive activity. Australian Journal of Zoology, 32: 743-766.

Marsh H., Heinsohn G.E. & Marsh L.M. 1984b. Breeding cycle, life history and population dynamics of the dugong, Dugong dugon (Sirenia: Dugonidae). Australian Journal of Zoology. 32:767-785.

Marsh, H., Harris, A.N.M. & Lawler, I.R. 1997. The sustainability of the Indigenous dugong fishery in Torres Strait, Australia/Papua New Guinea. Conservation Biology. 11:1375-1386.

Marsh H., Lawler I.R., Kwan D., Delean, S., Pollock K. & Alldredge M. 2004a. Dugong distribution and abundance in Torres Strait. Australian Fisheries Management Authority Torres Strait Research Program Final Report number R 01/0895.

Marsh H., Lawler I.R., Kwan D., Delean, S., Pollock K. & Alldredge M. 2004b. Aerial survey and potential biological removal technique indicate that the Torres Strait dugong fishery is unsustainable. Animal Conservation. 7:435-443.

Nietschmann B. & Nietschmann J. 1981. Good dugong, bad dugong; bad turtle, good turtle. Natural History. 90:54-62.

Plotkin P. 2003. Adult migrations and habitat use. In, P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick and J. Wyneken (eds), The biology of sea turtles. Volume 2. pp. 225-242.

Ponte, F. 1996. It has nothing to do with hunting: An examination of the attitudes and values associated with recognition of indigenous hunting rights. Unpublished PhD Thesis, James Cook University, Townsville.

Raven, M. 1990. The Point of No Diminishing Returns: Hunting and Resource Decline on Boigu Island, Torres Strait. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis.

Seminoff J.A. 2002. Global status of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas): a summary of the 2001 status assessment for the IUCN red list programme. IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group. 92pp.

Skewes, T.D., Kingston, A.G., Jacobs, D.R., Pitcher, C.R., Bishop, M., Burridge, C.M. & Lilly, S. 2002. The traditional fisheries catch of Torres Strait. Project Final Report, 1996-2001. AFMA/CSIRO Division of Marine Research Final Report, Canberra Australia.

Smith, A.J., & Marsh, H. 1990. Management of traditional hunting of dugongs [Dugong dugon (Muller, 1776)] in the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Environmental Management. 14(1):47–55.

Taylor B. & Gerrodette T. 1993. The use of statistical power in conservation biology. The vaquita and the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology. 7:489-500.

Wade P.R. 1998. Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of Cetations and Pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science. 14:1-37.

70

Work T.M. & Balazs G.H. 2000. Quantification of tumor severity and hematology in green turtles afflicted with fibropapillomatosis in the Hawaiian Islands. Pp. 243. In Kalb H.J. & Wibbels T. (eds) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-443. 291 pp.

71

Appendix 1 data sheet for catch monitoring Fill in 1 datasheet per animal (if no dugongs or turtles were caught, fill in the other details for the trip). To be filled in my one member of the hunting party only.

HUNTING DETAILS: Date: ____/____/_____ Code number of hunter: _______________ Day Month Year

Number in hunting party: ______________

CATCH DETAILS: (Use a separate sheet for each animal)

What type of DUGONG, if any, did you catch: Type Sex Pregnant female? Time caught ___ Adult Female Yes How far from the island where you live: ____ Youth Male No ___________________________km Calf Guess size: _________ cm What type of GREEN TURTLE, if any, did you catch (Use a separate sheet if you also caught a dugong and have filled in the information for dugongs on this sheet): Type Sex webud? Time caught:____ Waru Female Yes How far from the island where you live: ____ Murai Male No ____________________________________km Waru kas Measure size: ________ cm Tag number: _________ What equipment did you use for the hunt? Dinghy & clinker Dinghy only Dinghy and spotlight Wap Hand catch Hook (turtle) Catch rate: Today, what time did you: Start your trip? ____________Finish your trip? How many hours did you spend hunting? ____________ (including looking for dugongs and turtles)

What did you set out to catch today? Dugong Turtle Crayfish Fish Other __

What was the purpose for hunting today? Tombstone unveiling Funeral Wedding Initiation ceremony Shaving ceremony Coming of age ceremony Kai Kai Other (please say what) __ Did someone else ask you to hunt for them today? Yes No How many people? ________ How many people did you share your personal Turtle or dugong with? ________________ Comments:____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

72

Appendix 2: Relevant section of the Research MoU 4. INTENDED USES FOR THE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND TRADTIONAL KNOWLEDGE PROVIDED BY COMMUNITIES TO THE STUDENT The research will result in outcomes, disclosure of Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by Communities to the Student, feedback, and outputs. Outcomes It is intended that the methods developed and information collected in this project can be used by the participating communities to assist:

o Decision-makers in designing future management plans for their turtle and dugong fisheries.

o In designing community-based catch-monitoring programmes that are appropriate for individual communities.

Disclosure of Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by Communities to the Student Some facets of Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by the Communities to the Student will be in the public domain and will therefore be able to be accessed by anyone interested. Other facets of Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by the Communities to the Student will not be in the public domain and people would need to apply for formal permission to use it. During the project, the Reference Group and the Student will discuss what such information is made available in the public domain, as in the Project Sheet (item 5). Some Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by the Communities will not be disclosed, but the Student does need to disclose some other Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by the Communities: Cultural Heritage and Traditional Knowledge provided by Communities to the Student that will not be disclosed: The total numbers of dugongs and turtles recorded as harvested will not be disclosed in any outputs and will be confidential until otherwise agreed.

73

Appendix 3: Practical sampling exercise The sampling exercise demonstrates that the more hunters that participate, the more likely it is that the catch-estimate for the community will be close to the actual number of dugongs caught. Hunters are given cards with the number of dugongs caught. The first two hunters call out their numbers (i.e. 8 and 0) and the estimated number of dugongs caught by the community is calculated based on the sample of 2 hunters. The estimated number of dugongs is 120, which is an over-estimate because only 36 dugongs were actually caught. This is repeated with a sample of 15 hunters (half the hunters in the community) and the estimated number of dugongs is 20, which is an under-estimate. This is repeated again using all of the hunters and the estimate is 36, the actual number of dugongs caught. If only the second set of 15 hunters provides data, then the estimated number of dugongs caught by the community is different from the estimate obtained using the first set of 15 hunters. This demonstrates that the estimate may be different depending on which hunters participate.

74

Appendix 4: Story in the Torres News promoting and upcoming meeting

75

Appendix 5: Article in Hammond Island Newsletter

76

Appendix 6: Article in CRC Reef Newsletter Link: www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/newsletter/jun05_dugongturtle.htm Dugong and turtle research in the community

In February, community members and hunters on Hammond Island took part in a workshop on turtle and dugong research, with CRC Torres Strait researchers Ms Jillian Grayson and Dr Mark Hamann from James Cook University. With the help of Hammond Islanders, Mark is coordinating a turtle research project.

Islanders will be employed to count the numbers of male and female turtles in the region, how many turtles breed each year, the average size of adult turtles, the numbers of adults that have and haven’t bred before, and how many new ‘young’ turtles come to the region.

Jillian also asked the community to participate in a project to test ways for Islanders to monitor their catch of dugong and turtle. Hunters agreed to trial a datasheet and monitor their catch for the next 15 months. The project has the support of key community organisations in the Kaiwalagal region. Jillian and Mark hope that other Inner Island communities will also help them with this important project.

CRC Torres Strait Liaison officer Mr Toshi Nakata is helping to design the projects to make sure that they are culturally appropriate for Torres Strait Islanders. The information collected by hunters can be used by Islanders for future community-based and co-operative management of dugong and turtle, so that Torres Strait Islanders can be confident that there will be plenty of dugongs and turtles for their children and grandchildren.

For more information, visit www.crctorres.com/research/T1-11.html or contact Ms Jillian Grayson, James Cook University, [email protected] or Dr Mark Hamann, James Cook University, [email protected]

77

Appendix 7: Torres News article May 2005

78

Appendix 8: Article in Torres News – satellite tracking

79

Appendix 9: TSRA Newsletter – satellite tracking

80

Appendix 10: Logo on Polo-shirts worn by Indigenous counterparts

81

Appendix 11: Example of a story on animal cruelty Cairns Post 11th November 2004

raising indigenous community awareness and promoting on ... · in both hammond island and the trawq...

Documents