366
The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II
a higher burden of proof). Federal criminal prosecutions could include imprisonment
up to a year in addition to the fine. In practice, these upper fine limits are seldom
reached.
So do we now know, or will we ever know, what sea turtles are worth? Perhaps
not. Any exercise in valuing sea turtles should consider the prospect that sea turtles
have value that is immeasurable or unrealized. It is a common human social ideology
that concern for intrinsic value can vastly outweigh concern based solely on monetary
value (Tinker et al., 1982). Cash valuations underestimate total value in that they
cannot adequately weigh intrinsic value of beauty, knowledge, and spirituality. Thus,
the plea for conserving sea turtles may contain some elements that are measurable
and some that are abstract — a mix that may never satisfy critics who rely solely
on pecuniary judgment.
14.7 SEA TURTLE VALUE AND TRAGEDY OF THE
OCEAN COMMONS
Sea turtle value has many facets and varies greatly by one’s perspective and
recognition of ownership. With the international distribution of most sea turtle
populations, any one turtle’s life path may pass through areas where it is valued
for nonconsumptive use, valued for consumption, valued solely for its existence,
or even considered a nuisance. Even within a single nation’s waters these assessments can be mixed, but within a single political realm there is typically a sense
of national “ownership” that can justify management, and if need be, laws to
regulate human interactions with sea turtles. However, among the international
regions of our planet there is either a greatly reduced or an intensely contested
perception of ownership. In this vast international ocean commons, regulation of
human activity has proven to be difficult.
A fundamental problem with the welfare of community and global resources
was termed by Hardin (1968) as the “tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy lies in
the failure of individuals to act in the public’s interest. It is a tragedy in the classic
sense, with culpability lying not in mean-spirited villains but in well-meaning people
who may very well share their communities’ interests. For sea turtle conservation,
a tragedy might begin with an individual person’s decision to take a turtle from the
ocean commons. This decision could be described as having one negative and one
positive effect on the harvester. The positive effect is equal to the incremental benefit
gained from one turtle eaten or sold; for example, +1. The negative effect is equal
to the loss of one turtle in a population harvested by many people. Because the loss
of value of that one turtle (whether calculated as option, existence, bequest, or even
intrinsic value) is spread widely over all the people who value that resource, the
negative effect of taking one turtle, experienced by the harvester, is only a small
fraction of –1. Thus, every rational harvester in his cursory cost–benefit analysis
decides to take a community turtle, and another, and so on, even as the extinction
of the community’s resource becomes evident. For the harvester, extinction of the
turtles harvested is indeed a tragedy, but it is one that has very little effect on each
individual decision to take just one more turtle.
1123 book.book Page 366 Monday, November 11, 2002 11:11 AM
The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II
a higher burden of proof). Federal criminal prosecutions could include imprisonment
up to a year in addition to the fine. In practice, these upper fine limits are seldom
reached.
So do we now know, or will we ever know, what sea turtles are worth? Perhaps
not. Any exercise in valuing sea turtles should consider the prospect that sea turtles
have value that is immeasurable or unrealized. It is a common human social ideology
that concern for intrinsic value can vastly outweigh concern based solely on monetary
value (Tinker et al., 1982). Cash valuations underestimate total value in that they
cannot adequately weigh intrinsic value of beauty, knowledge, and spirituality. Thus,
the plea for conserving sea turtles may contain some elements that are measurable
and some that are abstract — a mix that may never satisfy critics who rely solely
on pecuniary judgment.
14.7 SEA TURTLE VALUE AND TRAGEDY OF THE
OCEAN COMMONS
Sea turtle value has many facets and varies greatly by one’s perspective and
recognition of ownership. With the international distribution of most sea turtle
populations, any one turtle’s life path may pass through areas where it is valued
for nonconsumptive use, valued for consumption, valued solely for its existence,
or even considered a nuisance. Even within a single nation’s waters these assessments can be mixed, but within a single political realm there is typically a sense
of national “ownership” that can justify management, and if need be, laws to
regulate human interactions with sea turtles. However, among the international
regions of our planet there is either a greatly reduced or an intensely contested
perception of ownership. In this vast international ocean commons, regulation of
human activity has proven to be difficult.
A fundamental problem with the welfare of community and global resources
was termed by Hardin (1968) as the “tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy lies in
the failure of individuals to act in the public’s interest. It is a tragedy in the classic
sense, with culpability lying not in mean-spirited villains but in well-meaning people
who may very well share their communities’ interests. For sea turtle conservation,
a tragedy might begin with an individual person’s decision to take a turtle from the
ocean commons. This decision could be described as having one negative and one
positive effect on the harvester. The positive effect is equal to the incremental benefit
gained from one turtle eaten or sold; for example, +1. The negative effect is equal
to the loss of one turtle in a population harvested by many people. Because the loss
of value of that one turtle (whether calculated as option, existence, bequest, or even
intrinsic value) is spread widely over all the people who value that resource, the
negative effect of taking one turtle, experienced by the harvester, is only a small
fraction of –1. Thus, every rational harvester in his cursory cost–benefit analysis
decides to take a community turtle, and another, and so on, even as the extinction
of the community’s resource becomes evident. For the harvester, extinction of the
turtles harvested is indeed a tragedy, but it is one that has very little effect on each
individual decision to take just one more turtle.
1123 book.book Page 366 Monday, November 11, 2002 11:11 AM