Unlike vessel traffic in GBNP, where numbers and speed are restricted, vessel traffic is currently unregulated in Tracy Arm.
(2014), both working in GBNP, found that seal counts were positively related to percent ice cover, the proportion of seals counted in the water was negatively related to percent ice cover, and, when ice cover was low, hauled-out seals were concentrated on the few remaining icebergs.
The maximum proportion of pups from our counts (30-36%) was also similar to the high values reported for seals in other tidewater glacial fjords (KFNP: 21-34%, Hoover, 1983, Hoover-Miller et al., 2011; GBNP: 34-40%, Calambokidis et al., 1987, Mathews and Pendleton, 2006), but ~3 times greater than the proportion of pups in Disenchantment Bay (Jansen et al., 2015).
In Johns Hopkins Inlet, GBNP, in June, the TOD also was not associated with counts of either nonpups or pups or with the proportion of hauled-out seals that were pups (Mathews and Pendleton, 2006).
Vessel traffic We documented high levels of vessel activity in Tracy Arm in 2001 (10.2 vessels/day (maximum 33 vessels/day) during 32 days of observation), compared with Johns Hopkins Inlet in GBNP during months when vessels could enter the inlet (3.7 vessels/ day, 1994-2001, E.
In Muir Inlet in GBNP, peak counts of seals on days with no vessels were, on average, 15% higher than counts when vessels were present (Calambokidis et al.
However, seals in Tracy Arm during our study appeared to be less responsive to vessels at a given distance than seals in Disenchantment Bay, where only cruise ships were monitored (Jansen et ah, 2010), and in Muir Inlet in GBNP where all vessel types were monitored (Calambokidis et al.