Marine Turtle Newsletter 51:30-31, © 1990
seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In
Marine Turtle Newsletter 51:30-31, © 1990
There are three bills before the United States Congress that deserve the immediate attention of sea turtle scientists and conservationists. Senate bill S.2953 (Trawlers Relief and Working Livelihood Act of 1990) was introduced by Louisiana Senator Johnston on 2 August 1990 and is presently being reviewed by the Senate Committee on Finance. The purported objective of the bill is "To provide relief to shrimp fishermen from economic hardship caused by the mandatory use of the turtle excluder devices under the Endangered Species Act and for other purposes."
A close reading of S.2953 illustrates why we should all be gravely concerned about this legislation. Section 2 states, "...the Secretary of Commerce is prohibited from shortening the period which shrimp may be taken or otherwise restricting, directly or indirectly, the taking of shrimp within the Exclusive Economic Zone...until such time as the Secretary has submitted findings to Congress concerning the need for any additional restrictions and 90 calendar days have elapsed." This section limits the ability of the federal government to manage shrimping seasons, whether it be for the benefit of shrimp, sea turtles, or other bycatch. Section 3, apparently the primary impetus behind the bill, proposes that shrimpers be given a 15% income tax credit on shrimp caught while using TEDs. Section 4, perhaps the section of greatest concern, states, "Notwithstanding any provision of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.,) any person who violates any provision of the Act, or the regulations thereunder, relating to the use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) shall not be subject to criminal penalties." In other words, this section exempts shrimpers from criminal penalties for not using TEDs and effectively negates the entire legislative and judicial history which has culminated in a legal mandate for TED use.
Finally, S.2953 requires that the Secretary of Commerce spend up to two million dollars building a sea turtle headstart facility (for all species), and up to $750,000 per annum to maintain this facility. In a time of tightening budgets and serious deficiencies in the funding of other important recovery actions, such as the purchase of important sea turtle nesting habitat in Florida, maintaining beach patrol and nest protection programs, identifying and protecting important foraging grounds, evaluating and mitigating the effects on sea turtles of ongoing human activities (oil and gas development, dredging, coastal armoring, marine pollution), and supporting enforcement efforts, to spend millions of dollars on headstarting, an experimental and unproven endangered species recovery tool, is unconscionable. This is not to say that experimental headstarting does not deserve to be continued [see Wibbels, this issue; Allen, this issue], but to suggest that headstarting should be greatly expanded and serve as a salvation for turtles, thereby allowing us to forego the more difficult agenda of protecting wild turtles and their habitat, is insane.
Two additional bills are pending before the U. S. House of Representatives. H.R.2975 (Endangered and Threatened Species Propagation Act of 1989) seeks to amend the Endangered Species Act to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program of matching grants for the propagation of endangered species. This bill was introduced by Louisiana Representative Tauzin, with Ortiz and Laughlin of Texas. H.R.3842 (Sea Turtle Conservation Assistance Act), introduced by Taylor (Mississippi), Tauzin, and Ortiz requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish "a comprehensive headstart program for all endangered and threatened species of sea turtles found in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard." These Congressmen represent states with large shrimp industry constituencies, and in the past these constituents have proposed that headstarting (rather than TEDs) be used to mitigate industry-induced sea turtle mortality. These bills represent more of the same; it is not difficult to imagine that once headstarting is under full swing, TEDs will be billed as a thing of the past. Indeed, it is not uncommon for Gulf-coast shrimpers to suggest that headstarting can simply replace the turtles killed by shrimpers. Shrimper Thu Pham was quoted, "I would be happy to give $100 for raising baby turtles. All boats are happy to do that - $100 and no TEDs." (The Dallas Morning News, 29 July 1990).
It is very important that concerned readers contact their Congresspersons and make it known that these bills should be rejected immediately. There is concern in some quarters that, while the bills may have little chance of surviving a floor debate, supporters may slide them through by simply tacking them on to other legislation, particularly if Congress goes into a lame-duck session in November. SAE