seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

In some cases the motivations are relatively clear: it's a job, it provides financial income and some form of social security, it's a tradition, it's a consultant's position, it's a livelihood and source of food and sustenance, it's a source of social recognition and prestige, it's a hobby, it's "fun", and so on. But often there is another consideration - indeed, for many of us it is most definitely NOT a job, nor a source of social security, nor a significant source of material sustenance - it is almost to the point of being "a way of life", if not a penance. The amount of devotion, dedication, motivation, and yes, passion, that is commonly part and parcel of marine turtle work is remarkable. This generality is true with youngsters who have just discovered turtles, as well as with mellowed, grey-haired elders who have been at it for half a century.

Doubtless, there is no small amount of romanticism that keeps many of us focused on these "forerunners of the dinosaurs" (the turtles, not the grey-haired elders). There is something overpoweringly primeval, ancient, "wild", "natural", - indefinably fascinating in a marine turtle. Intellectually we may "know" and even argue that there is no such thing as a "pristine coastal environment" (Jackson, 2001; Kirch 1988: 247), that "entire island ecosystems must be understood as the consequences of human actions" (Kirch 1988: 250); and while we may grant that these reptiles have been shaped over past millennia by humans - that they are perhaps even "semi-domesticated" (Frazier 2003; in press a), our fascination with them is not diminished. There appears to be something so primal and fundamental in associating with these unique creatures that they nurture basic needs and desires "to be connected with nature".

Clearly, there is adventure and excitement involved in turtle work, spiced with varying amounts of hardship, risk, and discomfort. How many turtlers have spent countless, long nights trudging through endless kilometres of soft, sandy beach in the hopes of encountering a nesting turtle? How many have camped on nesting beaches for extended periods with only the minimum (or less) of food and water? What of the indescribable - and everlasting - odours left from working up necropsies, or nest contents, of long-dead, putrefied turtle carcasses and eggs? The trials and tribulations of community workers and educators, as they struggle to develop and maintain activities without adequate resources, braving the turbid waters of social-political tempests are harrowing enough, but when intermeshed with an endless array of environmental conundrums, the frustrations and risks seem infinite. (Of course, this is not to ignore those who dwell in laboratories, transfixed long into the night by their computer screens or doubled over lab benches inhabited by jungles of aliquots and equipment; and it would be a travesty to disregard those dedicated administrators who battle endless, omnipotent bureaucracies to bring support to others. But, these latter activities could rarely be described as "natural excitement"!).

The numbers involved in the turtle community are impressive. Close to a thousand souls attend the annual symposium, with representation from almost half the countries that are members to the United Nations, hundreds of organisations, and virtually all sexes, ages, races, disciplines, and walks of life (e.g., Possardt 2002). A quick perusal of the contents page of the proceedings of this annual meeting, now moving into its 23rd year, can only impress one at both the quantity and diversity of information and activity (e.g,. Mosier et al. 2002). Additional to this, the mother of all turtle marathons, there are dozens of other marine turtle meetings and events every year, at national and regional levels; a perusal of the "Meeting Reports" and "Announcement" sections of the Marine Turtle Newsletter clearly shows how many and varied the activities and events can be. The Central American Marine Turtle Network (Anon, 1997; Anon, 1999), the Inter-University Reunion in Mexico (Benabib & Sarti 1992) and the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST) have been especially active and consistent, the last-named for nearly two decades (Eckert 2002). Indeed, one could fill the year by going from turtle event to turtle event. The importance of these various meetings is revealed at many levels. There are intergovernmental events attended by plenipotentiaries to debate and negotiate treaties and other international instruments that are focused exclusively on marine turtles (e.g., Frazier 2002); regional dialogues that work toward developing better understanding, communication, and cooperation between national entities (e.g., Al Ghais & Frazier 2001; Eckert & Abreu 2001); national and regional workshops for capacity building and regional coordination (e.g., Godley et al. 2002; Guada et al. 2000; SEAFDEC 1997; Try et al. 2002); and regional symposia (e.g. Pilcher & Ismail 2000). At the other end of the scale, community groups meet and deliberate common problems relevant to their interactions with these reptiles, with no less seriousness, political pressure, or commitment (e.g., Palma et al. 2002; Pesenti & Nichols 2002). The amount of scientific research published annually, focused on just these seven species of turtle, is truly daunting, and quite impossible to keep up with. In just one year more than a hundred publications that have direct relevance to marine turtles and their interrelationships with humans may appear in scholarly journals, not to mention entire books focused on these marine reptiles. These writings span disciplines from anthropology, to biology, to climatology, to law and policy, to marine biology, to technology, - to zooarchaeology; and this is not to mention many more articles relevant to the concepts and environments in which the turtles swim, nor to disregard the importance of productions in the popular press and diverse media. Moreover, some of the marine turtle work is at the "cutting edge" for western science, policy development, and community participation in general, with significant impacts on a wider body of information and a larger corpus of students and concepts. Obviously, a key vehicle of communication and coordination for more than a quarter of a century in the midst of all this is the Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN), regularly distributed to more than 2000 addresses in more than 100 nations.

At one level marine turtle work shows clear deification of "science" and its most glorious practitioners, with the not-so-hidden addiction to advanced technology. Yet, there are also powerful humanistic, social, and policy components; and of late specialists from outside the conventional portals of the biological sciences have been appearing more frequently, more numerously, and with greater integration and impact into the main mass: for example, Bache's (e.g., 2002) evaluations of international policy and marine turtle conservation, Campbell's (2003a) recent chapter "Contemporary culture, use, and conservation of sea turtles" in The Biology of Sea Turtles, vol. 2, and her contribution to this issue of the MTN (Campbell 2003b). "Interdisciplinary" approaches and research are very much in fashion, and the term is bandied around with other contemporary jingoisms like "sustainable development" and "sustainable use" (Frazier 1997; Jackson 2001). But, in fact the marine turtle community has been involved in this approach for decades; many of its members have a deep dedication to exploring - and understanding - outside their respective "disciplinary boxes". Take the composition, structure, and function of the annual symposium: the founders made certain decades ago that there would be a diversity of opinions and representation at the event, with the freedom and dignity to air diverse views (e.g., Richardson & Richardson 1995). In addition, The Global Strategy of the Marine Turtle Specialist Group very explicitly articulates the need to integrate diverse actions, disciplines, and initiatives (IUCN 1995). This is not to suggest that the lofty goals of truly interdisciplinary work have been reached (see Campbell 2003b), but there is a widely held conviction that we must work toward interdisciplinary actions.

Perhaps it is the nature of the beast that attracts humans of like mind: resilient to hardship, or at least not seriously addicted to creature comforts; dedicated (i.e., close to impossible to deviate from a course once it has been chosen); at home in a variety of environments; and perhaps most important, of broad (international) vision. Because an individual marine turtle may disperse and migrate over thousands of kilometres of ocean, living in the territorial waters of various nations, as well as on the open seas - the "global commons", to understand these animals one must be able to appreciate the complexity of the world as they experience it.

With these introductory accolades one might - nay, must - ask: are we successful? At first the question seems obvious enough, but how to measure success? Who sets the standards for success? And who makes the evaluation? There can be no doubt that as a result of all this activity, information is more abundant, more available, more sophisticated, and even more integrated in many aspects. No doubt either, that far more people than ever before are informed about these fascinating, complex animals, their value to diverse societies, and the plight that many turtle populations have met in the past few decades. But here, at what might seem to be a common point of agreement, we reach a note of discord. Various intergovernmental organisations, governments, non-governmental organisations, and other interested groups have categorised marine turtles as requiring special conservation attention. Information from numerous and diverse sources shows that there are many reasons for concern about the status of these reptiles; reviews done more than two decades ago on declines and disappearances of nesting populations around the world (King, 1982; Ross, 1982) are no less worrying than are more recent, thorough, specialised reviews on single species (Bolten & Witherington 2003; Meylan & Donnelly 1999; Pritchard & Plotkin 1995; Seminoff 2002; Spotila et al. 2000; TEWG 1998). In a word, these animals have been subject to intense (over)exploitation, around the world, and going back no less than seven millennia (Frazier 2003). Environmental archaeologists working in the Arabian Gulf, Caribbean, and Pacific have argued that populations of marine turtles were decimated, often with the first wave of "indigenous colonists" (Frazier in press a). Nowadays, in addition to direct exploitation, other human activities have also resulted in significant threats to marine turtles, such as habitat perturbation and degradation, pollution, and more recently, incidental capture by mechanised fisheries (Lutcavage et al. 1997).

Indeed, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), reputed to be a world authority on the matter of conservation status of species, recently listed six of the seven species of marine turtle as either "endangered" or "critically endangered" (Hilton-Taylor 2000; S&PS 2001). The seventh, the Australian flatback (Natator depressus), is listed by the IUCN as "data deficient" (S&PS 2001). These listings are done on the basis of a series of numeric calculations regarding population sizes, trends (e.g., declines), and generation times (IUCN, 2001a; 2001b).

One might marvel at the wisdom that professes to compress into a few numbers the biological, evolutionary, economic, and political status of globally distributed species, with highly complex life cycles, delayed maturity, overlapping generations, discrete breeding populations, and other biological attributes that leave any such species on this planet highly susceptible to human activities, particularly exploitation and habitat disturbances (Crouse 1999; Musick 2001). These reductions of complex biological, ecological, economic, and political relationships into a handful of numbers, show the power of western science - or at least the power that many practitioners firmly believe that they have, as bearers of "the truth" (Caldwell 1990; Dermitt 2001).

But we need to step back from the illusion. With the tremendous increase in scientific activity and information since the end of World War II, we must ask if we are clearly living in a better world, and central to this article - are populations of marine turtles now more secure than they were before? With the aid of this "new found knowledge", are conservation, environmental, and social problems necessarily being solved more effectively, more readily, more justly? Me thinks not (Frazier in press b). "Science is a human invention and a cultural artefact" (Caldwell 1990: 5). Leaving aside that in many post-modern societies there is an active, even purposeful, confusion between science (ideally, the gathering and organising of information) and technology (pragmatically, the application of information toward fulfilling certain human goals and desires, and more and more requiring access to considerable capital), we need to be much, much more cautious about assumptions regarding the power of science, the hidden agendas wrapped within a noble mantle of dedication to "truth", and the limits to even the least politicised of scientific endeavours (Caldwell 1990; Dermitt 2001; Nader 1996).

When writing about marine fisheries (marine turtles have been, and continue to be, subjects of marine fisheries), Johannes (1998) explained that we will never have adequate scientific information (not to mention political will, see Ludwig et al. 1993) to be able to manage marine fisheries for optimal yields: there is simply too much to know, and the systems - both human-dominated and otherwise - are far too complex, dynamic and unpredictable. Yet, sub-optimal management, as deficient as it may be, is still better (or "less-worse") than no management at all. Hence, Johannes explains the fundamental need for data-less management: "that is, management carried out in the absence of the data required for the parameterization and verification of models that predict effects of various management actions with useful statistical confidence limits." And while "[m]anagement not preceded by conventional research or followed by scientific monitoring may verge, to some people, on heresy", there are no realistic options: "science" for all the revered, sanctified qualities attributed to it, will never have enough information. As he explains, the need for the precautionary approach could not be clearer: "Data-less and data-poor management are, under the circumstances, not just valid alternatives. They are an imperative." (Johannes 1998).

Even accepting that science has distinct limitations, it is far from clear what constitutes a precautionary approach. Certain attempts at restricting human activities and impacts may cause unacceptable grief to some people, as the measures will not be accepted as cautious enough; yet, others will resist the same restrictions as not only unneeded but also antisocial and disruptive to development. For example, an entrepreneur bent on trading parts and products of marine turtles, to increase profits, capital holdings, and investments, might find acceptable standards set by an "expert consultant" whose rate of remuneration is based on volume of sales, but a deep ecologist, adamant on animal rights, would never countenance their criteria, and would instead see the same situation as an unbearable failure. And those of us who try to listen to the various views, extreme and otherwise, and then adopt moderate positions, are still going to end up as targets in an argumentative crossfire.

Frazer (2001) and Witherington and Frazer (2003) have explored the roots of this dilemma, showing that the quandary lies in basic questions such as: "What are sea turtles worth"? "How does one measure these values"? and "How many turtles are needed"? Even although they strove to separate their inquiry from dogma and fads, it was not easy to avoid the contemporary belief that monetary-based economy provides the ultimate scale for human existence and relations, nor was it easy for them to avoid the canon that science provides the ultimate answers to the basic questions. And there are yet other, profound levels of complexity; intimately intertwined within considerations of value is the issue of culture, or the "cultures of conservation" as Campbell (2003a) explains.

Hence, before we can meaningfully answer the "simple question" about how successful we have been, we urgently need to explore these seemingly existential questions about values, social perceptions and goals. An understanding of success and its measures will be deeply imbedded within a complex cultural matrix. In other words, after posing what I consider to be a fundamental question, I have to beg off on it!

While there is no denying the fundamental importance of culture and the need to understand basic questions of values, there is also the profound concern that Homo sapiens sapiens has not given itself the most accurate name. Just perhaps, our species may not be all-knowing and wise - sapient - as we might like to think. Putting aside the "pristine myth" and romanticisms about prehistoric societies "in balance with nature" (e.g., Kay & Simmons 2002), the archaeological record left by our ancestors - around the world - does not bode well for our abilities to manage our relationships with the environment and our resource base, particularly when it comes to marine turtles (Frazier in press b). The evidence, although often not unequivocal, indicates again and again that shortly after Homo sapiens sapiens, that all-knowing primate, arrived on the scene, resources (including marine turtles) were diminished, if not devastated.

And here we can see a clear breach in Homo sapiens sapiens' knowledge and wisdom. The opening to Ganter's (1994:1) account of the development and then decline of the pearl shell fishery in the Torres Strait provides a vivid image of the paradigm: "At the faded margin of Australian historical consciousness are the shadows of a once vibrant industry which provided the pulse of bustling little townships on the northern extremities of the continent." The same could be said of many marine turtle fisheries, around the world. Hence, not only has our species precipitated the decline (or devastation) of marine turtles and other marine resources, but we have no "historical consciousness" about what we have done. This phenomenon, particularly in regard to depleted fisheries resources, has been aptly called the "sliding baseline syndrome" (Pauly 1995), a theme of central importance to humanity, which is discussed by Bjorndal and Bolten (2003).

But the dilemma goes beyond the status of the turtles. If the ecological roles played by these lowly marine reptiles (Bjorndal & Jackson 2003) are in fact critical to the quality and accessibility of environmental services needed by our species (e.g., Baskin 1997; Daily 1997), then there are likely to be other more profound considerations that transcend human values and human culture. Beyond the questions of human values, perceptions, and desires, there is a profound question about the condition, or vitality, of the environment shared by humans and turtles.

Once again, the relevance of this issue transcends marine turtles. It is imperative to bear in mind that because marine turtles are "flagship species", whatever is accomplished with them will have much greater ramifications on other species and environments (Miller et al. 1999).

So, back to the question: have we been successful? It seems not only that the jury is still out, but that we will need to carefully consider a number of other questions, for which there are no simple answers.

And, the question before that: why do we do this? Each person will have to answer that one for them self. Many of us, I suspect, are deeply concerned about what the jury will find in the end, and somehow there is a hope to be more than just a witness to this complex drama.

Acknowledgements: Karen Bjorndal, Pam Plotkin, Melania Yánez and an anonymous reviewer made valuable comments on earlier drafts.

AL-GHAIS, S. & J. FRAZIER. 2001. Workshop on Marine Turtles in the Western Indian Ocean. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 92: 17-25.

ANON. 1997. Taller Regional de Conservación de Tortuga Marina y Manejo de Criaderos: Base Naval del Pacífico 5-7 de noviembre, 1996. Asociación Rescate y Conservación de Animales Silvestes - ARCAS; Guatemala. 24 + 21 + (14).

ANON. 1999. Memorias del III Taller Regional para la Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas en Centroamérica (D. Chacón, ed.). Red Regional para la Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas en Centroamérica; Asociación ANAI, San José, Costa Rica. d + iv + 178 pp.

BACHE, S. J. 2002. A view of the Inter American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles from down under. In: A. Mosier, A. Foley & B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. pp. 121-125.

BASKIN, Y. 1997. The Work of Nature: How the Diversity of Life Sustains Us. Island Press; Washington D. C. xix + 263 pp.

BENABIB, M. & L. SARTI (Eds). 1992. Memorias del VI Encuentro Interuniversitatio sobre Tortugas Marinas. Publicaciones de la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexican No. 1. 96 pp.

BJORNDAL, K. A. & A. B. BOLTEN. 2003. From ghosts to key species: Restoring sea turtle populations to fulfill their ecological roles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 100:16-21.

BJORNDAL, K. A. & J. B. C. JACKSON. 2003. Roles of sea turtles in marine ecosystems: Reconstructing the past. In: P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol 2. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press. pp. 259-273.

BOLTEN, A. B. & WITHERINGTON, B. E. (Eds.) 2003. Loggerhead sea turtles. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution Press.

CALDWELL, L. K. 1992. Between Two Worlds; Science, the Environmental Movement, and Policy Choice. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. xv + 224 pp.

CAMPBELL, L. M. 2003a. Contemporary culture, use, and conservation of sea turtles. In: P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol 2. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press. pp. 307-338.

CAMPBELL, L. M. 2003b. Challenges for interdisciplinary sea turtle research: perspectives of a social scientist. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 100:28-32

CROUSE, D. 1999. The Consequences of Delayed Maturity in a Human-Dominated World. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23: 195-202.

DAILY, G. C. (Ed.). 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press; Washington D. C. xx + 392 pp.

DEMERITT, D. 2001. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Associations of American Geographers 91: 307-337.

ECKERT, K. L. 2002. WIDECAST: Visualizing a future for people and sea turtles in the Caribbean Sea. Marine Turtle Newsletter 98:11-12.

ECKERT, K. L. & F. A. ABREU G (Eds.). 2001. Proceedings: Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region - A Dialogue for Effective Regional Management. Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999.

FRAZER, N. B. 2001. Management and conservation goals for marine turtles. In: K. L. Eckert & F. A. Abreu G (Eds.). Proceedings: Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region - A Dialogue for Effective Regional Management. Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999. pp. 69-74.

FRAZIER, J. 1997. Sustainable Development: Modern Elixir or Sack Dress? Environmental Conservation 24:182-193.

FRAZIER, J. (Ed.) 2002. International instruments and marine turtle conservation. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 5:1-207.

FRAZIER, J. 2003. Prehistoric and Ancient Historic Interactions Between Humans and Marine Turtles. In: P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol 2. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press. pp. 1-38.

FRAZIER, J. in press a. Marine Turtles of the Past: A Vision for the Future? In: Proceedings of the International Council on Archaeological Zoology (ICAZ) - 2000 Conference.

FRAZIER, J. in press b. Science, Conservation, and Sea Turtles: What's the Connection? Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

GANTER, R. 1994. The Pearl-Shellers of Torres Strait: Resource Use, Development and Decline.1860s-1960s. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. xvii + 299 pp.

GODLEY, B. J., L. M. CAMPBELL, S. RANGER & P. RICHARDSON. 2002. Regional training workshop: marine turtle research and monitoring in the UK Overseas Territories in the Caribbean. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 98: 19.

GUADA, H. J., A. TRUJILLO, V. J. VERA & C. E. DIEZ. 2000. VII Short course on sea turtle biology and conservation in Sucre, Venezuela. In: H. Kalb & T. Wibbles (Compilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. pg 201.

HILTON-TAYLOR, C. (Compiler) 2000. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Morges, IUCN.
IUCN. 1995. A Global Strategy for the Conservation of Marine Turtles. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (now, World Conservation Union), Cambridge. 24 pp.

IUCN. 2001a. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (9 February 2000). IUCN - The World Conservation Union; Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN. 2001b. Guidelines for assessing taxa with widely distributed or multiple populations again as Criterion A. Standards and Petitions Sub-committee of the IUCN, June 2001. IUCN - The World Conservation Union; Gland, Switzerland.

JACKSON, J. B. C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 5411-5418.

JOHANNES, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243-246.

KAY, C. E. & R. T. SIMMONS. (Eds.).2002. Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press.

KING, F. W. 1982. Historic review of the decline of the green turtle and the hawksbill. In: K. A. Bjorndal (Ed.), The Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. pp. 183-188.

KIRCH, P. V. 1988. Niuatoputapu: The Prehistory of a Polynesian Chiefdom. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum Monograph No. 5 (Seattle, Washington; Burke Museum). ix + 287 pp.

LUDWIG, D., R. HILBORN, R. & C. WALTERS. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260:17-36.

LUTCAVAGE, M. E., P. PLOTKIN, B. WITHERINGTON & P. L. LUTZ. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. In: P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, New York. pp. 387-409.

MEYLAN, A. B. & M. DONNELLY. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) as Critically Endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 3: 200-224.

MILLER, B., R. READING, J. STRITTHOLT, C. CARROL, R. NOSS, M. SOULÉ, O. SÁNCHEZ, J. TERBORGH, D. BRIGHTSMITH, T. CHEESEMAN & D. FOREMAN. 1999. Using focal species in the design of nature reserve networks. Wild Earth Winter 8: 81-92.

MOSIER, A., A. FOLEY & B. BROST (Compilers). 2002. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. xxv + 369 pp.

MUSICK, J. A. 2001. Management planning for long-lived species. In: K. L. Eckert & F. A. Abreu-Grobois. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Regional Meeting: "Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region - A Dialogue for Effective Regional Management", Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IUCN-MTSG, WWF and UNEP-CEP. pp. 59-68.

NADER, L. (Ed.) 1996. Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. Routledge; New York. xvi + 318 pp.

PALMA, J. A. M., F. G. ROMERO & R. B. TRONO. 2002. Approaches for an integrated conservation and development program in the Philippine Turtle Islands. In: A. Mosier, A. Foley & B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. pp. 15-17.

PAULY, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome in fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 430.

PESENTI, C. & W. J. NICHOLS. 2002. Signs of success: Fourth annual meeting of the Sea Turtle Conservation Network of the Californias (Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias). Marine Turtle Newsletter. 97: 14-16.

PILCHER, N. & G. ISMAIL (Eds.). 2000. Sea Turtles of the Indo-Pacific: Research, Conservation and Management. ASEAN Academic Press; London.

POSSARDT, E. E. 22nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and conservation (April 4-7, 2001, Miami, USA): President's Report. Marine Turtle Newsletter 98: 9.

PRITCHARD, P. C. H. & P. T. PLOTKIN, P. T. Olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. In P. T. Plotkin (Ed.). 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Silver Spring, Maryland; National Marine Fisheries Service. vi + 139 pp.

RICHARDSON, J. I. & T. H. RICHARDSON. 1995. Preface. In: J. I. Richardson & T. H. Richardson (Compilers). Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Department of Commerce; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries Service; Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361. pg. x.

ROSS, J. P. 1982. Historic decline of the loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. In: K. A. Bjorndal (Ed.). The Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. (reprinted in 1995). pp.189-195

SEAFDEC. 1997. Workshop on TED held in Malaysia. SEAFDEC Newsletter January-March 20(1): 10

SEMINOFF, J. A. 2002. Marine Turtle Specialist Group 2002 global green turtle (Chelonia mydas) assessment for the IUCN Red List Programme. Report submitted to Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland. 93 pp.

S & PS (Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, Survival Service Commission [SSC], World Conservation Union [IUCN]. 2001. Red List Petitions Results, Species 36: 31-34.

SPOTILA, J. R., R. D. REINA, A. C. STEYERMARK, P. T. PLOTKIN & F. V. PALADINO. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction: Fisheries can help avert the alarming decline in population of these ancient reptiles. Nature 405: 529-530.

TEWG (Turtle Expert Working Group). 1998. An assessment of Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. US. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409.

TRY, I., N. PILCHER, J. MILLER & N. COX. 2002. First steps toward sea turtle conservation in Cambodia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 98:18.

WITHERINGTON, B. E. & N. B. FRAZIER. 2003. Social and economic aspects of sea turtle conservation. In: P. L. Lutz, J. A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol 2. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press. pp. 355-384.

Loggerhead turtle hatchling, (Caretta caretta) hiding in clump of floating sargassum in the pelagic Atlantic. © Doug Perrine/seapics.com