Thriving Oceans

My sea turtle hazard is worse than your sea turtle hazard. 

Of course.  

Sounds logical. 

And more importantly it falls within that quirky social dynamic called HUMAN NATURE.  But the results of bias within the scientific community is an interesting topic; especially when you add the sea turtle variable and the number of threats plaguing the seven species.  So put any preconceived notions that you may have aside and let’s see if we can all come together and accept the fact that the hazard I’m researching poses the greatest threat to sea turtles.

Well, perhaps we should turn to the experts and listen to what they have to say.  And that’s exactly what the authors of a new publication, Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles, in Conservation Biology did.  And should we really be surprised by the findings?

An internet-based survey was distributed to sea turtle experts that was designed to determine the respondents’ overall experience, expertise and the proficiency in regards to particular species, geographic regions, and hazards.   Hazards that included pathogens, direct take, global warming, nest predation, pollution, coastal development, and fisheries bycatch.  After quantifying results spanning the nonprofit sector, government agencies, and respondents in over 100 counties, a pattern began to emerge.  A pattern attributed to expert bias.

“Respondents with no experience with respect to a sea turtle species tended to rank hazards affecting that species higher than respondents with experience.  A more-striking pattern was with hazard-based expertise: the more experience a respondent had with a specific hazard, the higher the respondent scored the impact of that hazard on sea turtle populations.” 

Perhaps a sign of the times, everyone was in agreement that sea turtles were under threat from multiple anthropogenic hazards.   It also became apparent that there was an overall consensus on the greatest hazard, fisheries bycatch.  The survey found:

• Bycatch was ranked as the top hazard for 18 sea turtle populations.
• Coastal development was ranked as the top hazard for six populations.
• Nest predation was the top hazard for three populations.

Interesting!  And I guess that exclamation warrants further development if I expect it to make any sense.  Although bycatch, a pelagic threat, ranked as a top hazard for 18 populations, a disparity still exists between coastal development and nest predation, which are terrestrial and coastal threats.  The amount of invested resources does not correspond to the highly scored pelagic threat. 

The authors point out that, “Twenty-eight percent of survey respondents reported conducting research or activities focused in the pelagic environment, compared with 70% who conducted research in both terrestrial and coastal environments.”

Which rounds off the discussion as to its applicability to conservation.  Should statistical methods that account for expert bias be implemented by conservation planning programs?  And should hazards that are both highly scored by experts and have a high uncertainty in regards to the range of effect on a population be treated as a research priority?

 Well one thing is for certain and I agree completely with the authors that, “Priority setting for the conservation of threatened and endangered species cannot wait for exhaustive empirical research.”

DONLAN, C., WINGFIELD, D., CROWDER, L., & WILCOX, C. (2010). Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01541.x

Press Release from Sea Turtle Restoration Project  (Nov. 5, 2009)-

Sea turtle advocates in California and family shrimp fishers from Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the U. S. State Department for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for allowing shrimp caught in ways that are deadly to sea turtles to be sold in the United States  The lawsuit filed by the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School (Palo Alto, CA) on behalf of Turtle Island Restoration Network (Forest Knolls, CA) and the Mayport Village Association (Mayport, FL) claims that the U. S. State Department has failed to properly evaluate and prevent harm to sea turtles from overseas shrimp fleets that sell shrimp to the United States under the ESA’s Turtle-Shrimp Law (Pub. L. 101-162 § 609). It was filed in the U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. See the complaint.

“This is not only a tragedy for sea turtles, which die by the tens of thousands in shrimp nets every year, but is unfair to the U.S. fishers who obey the law and must compete in the U.S. marketplace with shrimp imports,” said Todd Steiner, biologist and executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of sea turtles and their habitat.

“Our Mayport shrimpers are struggling to survive, while foreign fleets get a free pass on the law and flood the market with cheap shrimp,” said Al Millar, representing Mayport Village Civic Association and its small fleet of family shrimpers based in the historic village of Mayport, FL. See www.SaveMayportVillage.net. “We work hard to fish and protect sea turtles but don’t get a break from our own government.”

The lawsuit claims that the State Department has not properly enforced requirements for foreign shrimp vessels to use nets with Turtle Excluder Devices as U. S. fishers are required to do. The lawsuit asks that the foreign shrimp certification process be given additional environmental oversight and review. Recently, shrimp imports from Costa Rica were banned due to failure to protect sea turtles after environmentalists’ complaints, but 15 other nations were certified with little, if any, scrutiny.

“There is a simple, inexpensive, and elegant solution that allows sea turtles to escape drowning in shrimp nets, called a turtle excluder device or TED” said Deborah Sivas, Stanford Law professor, and director of the Environmental Law Clinic, who filed the lawsuit.  “If the State Department can create a reasonable certification program, we can save the lives of thousands of endangered sea turtles while allowing shrimp harvesting to continue.”

Americans consume over 500,000 tons of shrimp annually, and is the top fishery import of the United States, valued at over $3.9 billion last year, according to government figures. This includes trawl-caught wild shrimp and farmed shrimp (which does not capture sea turtles but is environmentally harmful due to pollution of fish ponds and land clearing). About 90 percent of shrimp eaten in the U. S. is imported. See latest U. S. shrimp import data.

Background:
The U. S. Turtle-Shrimp Law was challenged by nations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming to be a violation of the “free-trade” agreement, leading to the famous “Battle of Seattle” protests in 1999 where thousands marched peacefully to protest weak environmental protections in the global trade treaty.  The U.S. Turtle-Shrimp Law was eventually found to comply with the WTO, but poor enforcement has allowed sea turtles around the world to drown in shrimp nets and slide toward extinction. (The movie Battle of Seattle starring Woody Harrelson that dramatized the protests was released in 2008). Read more .

On May 1, 2009, the Department of State certified, pursuant to Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (”Section 609”), that 15 nations have adopted programs to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in their shrimp fisheries comparable to the program in effect in the United States. Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, and Venezuela. The Department also certified that the fishing environments in 24 other countries and one economy, Hong Kong, do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles protected under Section 609. Read more. 

As the weekend rolled to an end and the inevitable Monday workday loom overhead, I moseyed on to the bedroom and turned on the radio. Expecting to encounter a little paranormal lullaby, I was incredibly surprised to find the guest host of Coast To Coast AM, George Knapp, tackling the overfishing crisis.  In his interviews with Rupert Murray (The End of the Line) and Rick Moonen (RM Seafood), George brought this important topic of conservation concern to an international audience.  Since Coast to Coast AM is broadcast on over 500 United States affiliates alone, I was elated  to hear the notion of sustainable seafood practices being promoted to millions and perhaps recruiting some listeners to ultimately make informed and responsible meal decisions.

 And sprinkled throughout their conversations was a discussion, or warning if you will, about a vanishing act recently perpetrated by Alaskan King salmon.  Well, after a little online digging I managed to come up with an AP report (Aug. 2, 2009) on CBS News describing the failure of king salmon to return to a number of Alaskan rivers…again.

“One Alaska river after another has been closed to king fishing this summer because significant numbers of fish failed to return to spawn. The dismally weak return follows weak runs last summer and poor runs in 2007, which also resulted in emergency fishing closures.” AP

And as the salmon continue to vanish from our waters year after year, we are left speculating whether the problem is ocean currents, food availability, bycatch, aquaculture, or overfishing.  Yet over the last decade, ” the incidental number of king salmon caught has skyrocketed, reaching over 120,000 kings in 2007.” AP

Hmmm!  Perhaps a connection?  Instead of embarking on another version of the blame game and debating whether (or to what degree) the lack of salmon returns is caused by natural phenomena, such as changing ocean currents, river conditions or available prey, or human activities, we need to institute a little fisheries management tough love. 

For in the end bycatch may not be the only culprit, but as opposed to the actions of Mother Nature, it is the factor that we can definitely control.  And of the 120,000 kings killed in pollock trawl nets in 2007, an estimated 78,000 adults would have returned to the rivers of western Alaska.

AP Article: King Salmon Failing to Return to Spawn

I came across an interview conducted by mongabay.com on marine scientist Jennifer Jacquet’s (Guilty Planet) call for some individuals to refrain from eating seafood.  It is definitely worth a read.

“I do not believe that all people should give up eating seafood. But I believe that people for whom seafood is a luxury product should consider abstaining, particularly if it is not too much of a sacrifice,” Jacquet said. “I certainly believe there should be a conservation group out there advocating this position, too, because fish need a wider spectrum of voices. Currently, almost every campaign relates to fish and invertebrates as commodities rather than wildlife.”  Mongabay.com, 2009

Considering my wife and I, for all practical purposes, have given up seafood after a longtime bout of a ban on shrimp, I wanted to expand on the comment I left on ‘A Call to Give Up Seafood.’

Fish need an animated icon akin to the panda bear that will evoke an emotional response and drive conservation efforts.  By showcasing the plight of such public-friendly creatures like birds  and whales (as you indicated), organizations and conservation efforts can also work to protect lesser known species.  With this in mind I completely agree that campaigns must equate fish/invertebrates  to wildlife as opposed to mere commodities.

Unfortunately, I have found many individuals to either be unaware of the overfishing crisis, lazy in making a concerted effort to make safe seafood choices, or simply indifferent because seafood continues to fill restaurant menus, grocery store shelves, and fish markets.

(And those who do want to be responsible are often misled by some farmed species that are eco-unfriendly.)

Perhaps it is the lack of marketable ‘spokesfish’ that has driven campaigns towards referring to fish/invertebrates as commodities. Hence, the hope is that appealing to the pocketbook of individuals, communities and commercial fisheries operations will promote long-term sustainability. But the battle still rages as fish, crabs, and a host of other species are drawn from the oceans in an attempt to quell a population’s daily appetite.
Fish and invertebrates are wildlife indeed.  Considering they draw millions of people to reefs and aquariums each year there is obviously a love of fish, but maybe it is the respect they lack.  I am a fish lover. I love to watch them forage for food, I love to watch them in shoals, I love to watch them school, I simply love to watch them interact with the environment and I find nothing better than floating in the current over a reef observing ocean WILDLIFE.  Tranquility at its best…just ask any aquarist (responsible fish keeping please!), snorkeler, and diver.  And I give them the utmost respect. 

Obviously I am not alone, but the vastness of our oceans and the continued stocking of seafood has given rise to the general population’s false sense of security that fish always have and always will be available.  Because of that it has become second nature not to give the origin of seafood a second thought.

So, does anyone have a ‘spokesfish’ in mind to expand the call for sustainable fishing practices and appeal to the masses?

I came across a piece on Fish & Aquatic News this past Sunday in which authorities in Spain confiscated 11 tons of shark fins.  It simply reminded me that the Mediterranean Sea is a poster child for overfishing and already at the mercy of an irresponsible tuna industry. Yet, what I did not fully realize was that there has been an incredible decline in sharks over the last 200 years in this region alone.
In a 2008 publication in Conservation Biology, it was found that:

“Only 5 of the 20 large predatory sharks were detected at levels of abundance sufficient for analysis. Moreover, these 5 species showed rates of decline from >96 to >99.99%, which may classify them as critically endangered according to IUCN criteria.”

Even more disturbing is that the authors contend the depleted numbers may mean the large sharks are “functionally extinct” in the Northwestern Mediterranean. So, continued harvesting of sharks only for their fins is adding insult to injury on these cartilaginous ocean inhabitants.

After a rudimentary investigation on Spain’s fishing practices, I found that most of their longlines are actually set on the Atlantic ocean side, which may be compounding the dwindling Mediterranean shark populations. Because overharvesting (i.e. 11 tons of shark fins) is taking place, we are effectively limiting the ability for Atlantic and Mediterranean sharks to replenish falling populations and/or exchange individuals via the “critical migration corridor” in the Strait of Gibraltar.

With up to 2000+ pelagic longlining boats traversing the Mediterranean Sea, a considerable illegal fisheries industry continuing operations, and lackluster regulatory action, top predators responsible for structuring  ocean communities will continue to be at under threat of extinction.

photo credit: Erik Charlton

Reference:

Loss of Large Predatory Sharks from the Mediterranean Sea, Conservation Biology
Volume 22, Issue 4, Date: August 2008, Pages: 952-964

“Killing too many loggerhead sea turtles” is the phrase that bent me out of shape once again. After a moment of Zen I did resort to just a shaking of my head in disbelief, but I am still reeling from catching red-handed a three person crew illegally dumping their trash in an open field.  License plate recovered, police informed, and wheels in motion for cleanup so enough said on that topic.

Every time I turn around there is yet another fisheries report or statistic that make its way to the surface and forces me to wonder why we have not yet mandated and end to destructive fisheries techniques.  OK, I know the big box fisheries can’t possibly have any legislative influence, so the blame must solely lie with…the consumers?  Tongue and cheek aside it is definitely a commercial and consumer issue as the circle of fisheries life wouldn’t be complete if restaurant and shelf demand did not exist for species harvested in an unsustainable manner. But, this is something worth repeating yet again as apparently the masses still haven’t downloaded the latest safe seafood lists.

As far as the loggerheads are concerned, appreciation would abound it our morality and diets came together in unison. A mandate;  well if JFK can set a moon directive that the entire country lines up in favor of reaching (and we do with flying colors of patriotism), I must say it is not 1960s rocket science but fisheries science with the backing of 5 decades of technological achievement.

But that technological achievement has instead delivered unprecedented catches of all that our oceans have to offer.  On April 29, NOAA established emergency protections for sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico as observers documented “the reef fish longline fleet was incidentally catching and killing too many loggerhead sea turtles.”  This ruling establishes a buffer zone for the threatened turtles by forcing longliners further out to sea and protecting feeding areas for the next 180 days. 

So, being the eternal optimist that I am it appears we have indeed set a mandate for permanent sea turtle protection solutions which by law is 180 days with a potential extension of an additional 186 days.  Let’s stay tuned and watch the launch of a new era in fisheries management, reduced bycatch, and sustainable fishing techniques.  I won’t hold my breath just yet, but a word of advice is that solutions are not in emergency rulings but in formal regulations, consumer action, and commercial responsibility as the future of their jobs depend on it as well.