MTN 55:7-8 Guest Editorial: It's Time to Stop Headstarting Kemp's Ridley

seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

Guest Editorial: It's Time to Stop Headstarting Kemp's Ridley

Jack B. Woody
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P. O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 USA

I noted with both interest and concern the recent MTN note on the tagged headstarted Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) recaptured in Caribbean Nicaragua [MTN 54:13-14]. It was interesting because the animal had carried the tag for eight years and it was still perfectly legible. This is good news, as is the fact that the animal had survived since its release. What concerned me was that the turtle had been recovered in Caribbean Nicaragua. Wild Kemp's ridleys are not now part of the marine fauna of Nicaragua, nor are there records to indicate they ever were. Is this another reflection of possibly altered behavior resulting from headstarting? Is this why headstarted Kemp's ridleys have also been captured off the Moroccan coast of northwest Africa? Is altered behavior resulting from headstarting the reason why we have not yet identified any headstarted Kemp's ridleys nesting at Rancho Nuevo after 14 years of protection? Could the lone Kemp's ridley that nested on Florida's west coast in May 1989 [MTN 48:8-9] have been a headstarted animal?

I am not a supporter of headstarting and, in particular, I do not believe that 25 clutches each year of the most endangered sea turtle species in the world should continue to serve as an "experiment" in this potentially damaging program. These 25 clutches amount to about 3% of the annual production of hatchlings. I recognize that headstarting has great public and political appeal. Perhaps for the first time people can see little turtles in buckets and troughs and even touch them. But I would argue that it is not necessary to sacrifice hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of hatchlings every year to this public desire. The demand, if it is such, can be satisfied with a few animals from a single nest. Our [the U. S. government's] job is to conserve, manage, and recover depleted sea turtle resources utilizing proven techniques and biologically sound rationale. Scientific research is to provide us with the understanding, techniques, and guidance to do this. Disrupting an animal's natural behavior and subjecting them to experiments without required controls or measurability is not scientifically legitimate management. Add to this the fact that all sea turtles are recognized as endangered or threatened internationally, and we have even less justification for our actions-whether we be in the U. S., Mexico, Indonesia, or any other country.

In the first few years of this U.S.-Mexico project, the 2,000 eggs that were removed annually from Rancho Nuevo (Mexico) to Padre Island, Texas to complete incubation and hatch were not subject to temperature monitoring and control. As a result, there were skewed sex ratios which favored males. In order to mitigate these results, females were later produced. Some of my colleagues believe the Kemp's ridley reaches sexual maturity in less than 10 years. If this is correct, along with the theory that headstarted turtles have a higher survival rate, then we should have been seeing some of these animals at Rancho Nuevo or Padre Island for the past 4-6 years even with the skewed sex ratios during the first 2-3 years of the project. The headstarting project was originally planned to continue for 10 years. Although the Padre Island aspect was discontinued three years ago, we are now in the 14th year of the experiment and I have no idea where the end point is. A U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) "Blue Ribbon Panel" recently suggested to NMFS that the experiment should continue for another 10 years after turtle excluder devices (TED) were in use by the U. S. shrimp fleet [see MTN 51:26-27]. It's not clear if this recommendation has officially been adopted by NMFS, and it certainly has not yet had public or peer review, nor has the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service been asked to comment on the matter.

The NMFS continues to do an outstanding job of maintaining and raising 2,000 or so Kemp's hatchlings for an 8- to 24-month period every year and they should be unhesitatingly complimented for developing the techniques that result in this success. The animals look good and mortality is almost nil, but beyond a good hatchery operation, what are we really doing? I submit that we don't have the slightest idea. Since we don't know, and evidence is mounting that perhaps headstarting may be altering behavior as it relates to where in the world these turtles are supposed to be, we had better re-evaluate this "research" project. The original concept was to attempt to establish a second nesting population at Padre Island as insurance against the possibility that the Rancho Nuevo core group might be lost, as well as to develop the techniques necessary to maintain the species in captivity should all else fail. The concept made sense in 1978, and I supported the idea then. However, we must always keep uppermost in our minds that in this experiment we are utilizing one of the world's most endangered species, and we have no controls or means of monitoring the experimental animals beyond a brief captive period of about nine months. When we consider this lack of control, the precarious state of the species, our almost total ignorance of key aspects of this experiment (such as behavioral modification), we really have no business, professionally or morally, in continuing to subject the turtle (and our limited resources) to this continuing and questionable experiment.

What about cost? In 1991, the U.S.-Mexico cooperative Kemp's ridley project protecting nests on the beach at Rancho Nuevo in Mexico cost approximately 65 cents (US$) per hatchling released. This is the most expensive "per hatchling" sea turtle project that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service funds. The Kemp's ridley headstarting project, on the other hand, and these are my conservative estimates, costs approximately US$ 125.00 per animal ... and perhaps even more! What price glory? Despite all these negative aspects, there appear to be ever-increasing numbers of headstarting projects initiated in various parts of the world. It is unfortunate that there is too often a tendency for others to adopt what is being done in the United States. Sometimes this is good, but in some cases it causes others to simply repeat the same mistakes that we are making. Headstarting is one of those mistakes which is being repeated around the globe without any scientific or biological supporting data except that, "if the U. S. is doing it, it must be a proven management technique". Believe me, it is not proven and should not be initiated or continued. I've seen far too many sick, lethargic, and dead hatchlings (olive ridley, hawksbill, loggerhead, green turtle) resulting from the headstarting efforts of well-intentioned people in other nations, many of whom are attempting this based solely on something they were told or read about the Kemp's ridley headstarting experiment in the U. S.

It's very difficult to back away from a highly visible program. However, our commitment should be to the depleted species and to our professional ethics. Over the past 14 years, I believe the U. S. and Mexico have taken other actions besides headstarting to insure the future well-being and, hopefully, recovery of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The required use of TEDs and the current efforts of NMFS to expand TED use in time and space [see MTN 54:29], as well as strengthening enforcement and greatly improved compliance by the U. S. shrimp trawling industry are, in tandem with the Rancho Nuevo nesting beach effort, the most beneficial actions that could be taken to assure the survival of the Kemp's ridley. We should not continue to subject this species to experiments where direct benefits to the animal are so nebulous. Headstarting has had its day in the sun, but it is now clear that it is too dubious a project, as well as too costly, to continue for any sea turtle species ... and especially critically endangered species such as the Kemp's ridley. Let's reallocate the headstarting resources, both people and dollars, into proven conservation techniques and badly needed research that we can be more confident will have a desired effect. We've given headstarting our best shot - let's bury it and move on.