Fisheries-Related Mortality and Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs)
347
Similar to the experience in the U.S., most fishermen would not voluntarily use
TEDs to protect sea turtles; in some northern ports use was 0–20% and in others it
was as high as 50–80%. Fishers used TEDs when they perceived a benefit to their
use (turtle or jellyfish exclusion) or when they were used with no adverse impact.
When finfish bycatch was the issue, once the best devices were identified through
testing, 50–100% of the fishers voluntarily used them. When undersized prawns
were the issue, virtually all fishers adopted TEDs. When prawn fishers had a vested
interest, such as in the southern fisheries, the problem did not first have to be
quantified; the researchers could skip directly to the testing phase and involve the
fishermen immediately and directly. When fishers did not have a vested interest,
such as in the northern fisheries, even after the problem was quantified, most still
were not all willing to use TEDs. In the case of New South Wales, the response was
intermediate. Although bycatch reduction was being driven from outside the fishery,
because industry was involved at an earlier stage than for the northern fishermen in
gear development and testing, a greater proportion used TEDs voluntarily. Kennelly
(1999) concluded that the sooner and more fully industry is involved, the sooner
and greater voluntary acceptance will be. In all cases, however, the government of
Australia legislated, over a period of 3 years, the use of TEDs selectively, either for
turtle exclusion or bycatch reduction. TED use in the Queensland east coast fishery
began in selected areas in 1999 and their use in the northern prawn fishery was
mandatory in 2000.
13.5.2 U.S. P UBLIC L AW 101–162, S ECTION 609
In 1988, at the urging of the shrimp industry, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law
101–162, Section 609. Section 609 prohibits the import into the U.S. of shrimp and
shrimp products that were harvested in a manner that may adversely affect sea turtle
species. Annually, the Department of State (DOS) certifies to Congress that the
governments of certain harvesting nations have taken specific measures to reduce
the incidental capture of sea turtles by their shrimp trawl fisheries, or that the fishing
environment of those nations does not pose a threat to sea turtles. The latter situation
can include fisheries that harvest shrimp manually or fisheries that occur only in
cold water where they pose little or no risk to poikilothermic turtles. For 2002, 17
nations met the certification standards for sea turtle conservation (Belize, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvadore, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Venezuela) and another 24 nations (Argentina, The Bahamas, Belguim, Canada,
Chile, China, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Russia, Sri
Lanka, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay) and 1 economy (Hong Kong)
were certified as having fishing environments that do not pose a danger to sea turtles
(Department of State, 2002*). Such certifications are, in part, based on site visits
by the DOS and NMFS. Currently the import of shrimp into the U.S. from other
* U.S. Department of State. April 30, 2002. Sea turtle conservation and shrimp imports.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9880pf.htm.
1123 book.book Page 347 Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:50 AM
347
Similar to the experience in the U.S., most fishermen would not voluntarily use
TEDs to protect sea turtles; in some northern ports use was 0–20% and in others it
was as high as 50–80%. Fishers used TEDs when they perceived a benefit to their
use (turtle or jellyfish exclusion) or when they were used with no adverse impact.
When finfish bycatch was the issue, once the best devices were identified through
testing, 50–100% of the fishers voluntarily used them. When undersized prawns
were the issue, virtually all fishers adopted TEDs. When prawn fishers had a vested
interest, such as in the southern fisheries, the problem did not first have to be
quantified; the researchers could skip directly to the testing phase and involve the
fishermen immediately and directly. When fishers did not have a vested interest,
such as in the northern fisheries, even after the problem was quantified, most still
were not all willing to use TEDs. In the case of New South Wales, the response was
intermediate. Although bycatch reduction was being driven from outside the fishery,
because industry was involved at an earlier stage than for the northern fishermen in
gear development and testing, a greater proportion used TEDs voluntarily. Kennelly
(1999) concluded that the sooner and more fully industry is involved, the sooner
and greater voluntary acceptance will be. In all cases, however, the government of
Australia legislated, over a period of 3 years, the use of TEDs selectively, either for
turtle exclusion or bycatch reduction. TED use in the Queensland east coast fishery
began in selected areas in 1999 and their use in the northern prawn fishery was
mandatory in 2000.
13.5.2 U.S. P UBLIC L AW 101–162, S ECTION 609
In 1988, at the urging of the shrimp industry, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law
101–162, Section 609. Section 609 prohibits the import into the U.S. of shrimp and
shrimp products that were harvested in a manner that may adversely affect sea turtle
species. Annually, the Department of State (DOS) certifies to Congress that the
governments of certain harvesting nations have taken specific measures to reduce
the incidental capture of sea turtles by their shrimp trawl fisheries, or that the fishing
environment of those nations does not pose a threat to sea turtles. The latter situation
can include fisheries that harvest shrimp manually or fisheries that occur only in
cold water where they pose little or no risk to poikilothermic turtles. For 2002, 17
nations met the certification standards for sea turtle conservation (Belize, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvadore, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and
Venezuela) and another 24 nations (Argentina, The Bahamas, Belguim, Canada,
Chile, China, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Peru, Russia, Sri
Lanka, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay) and 1 economy (Hong Kong)
were certified as having fishing environments that do not pose a danger to sea turtles
(Department of State, 2002*). Such certifications are, in part, based on site visits
by the DOS and NMFS. Currently the import of shrimp into the U.S. from other
* U.S. Department of State. April 30, 2002. Sea turtle conservation and shrimp imports.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9880pf.htm.
1123 book.book Page 347 Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:50 AM