![]()
My sea turtle hazard is worse than your sea turtle hazard.
Of course.
Sounds logical.
And more importantly it falls within that quirky social dynamic called HUMAN NATURE. But the results of bias within the scientific community is an interesting topic; especially when you add the sea turtle variable and the number of threats plaguing the seven species. So put any preconceived notions that you may have aside and let’s see if we can all come together and accept the fact that the hazard I’m researching poses the greatest threat to sea turtles.
Well, perhaps we should turn to the experts and listen to what they have to say. And that’s exactly what the authors of a new publication, Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles, in Conservation Biology did. And should we really be surprised by the findings?
An internet-based survey was distributed to sea turtle experts that was designed to determine the respondents’ overall experience, expertise and the proficiency in regards to particular species, geographic regions, and hazards. Hazards that included pathogens, direct take, global warming, nest predation, pollution, coastal development, and fisheries bycatch. After quantifying results spanning the nonprofit sector, government agencies, and respondents in over 100 counties, a pattern began to emerge. A pattern attributed to expert bias.
“Respondents with no experience with respect to a sea turtle species tended to rank hazards affecting that species higher than respondents with experience. A more-striking pattern was with hazard-based expertise: the more experience a respondent had with a specific hazard, the higher the respondent scored the impact of that hazard on sea turtle populations.”
Perhaps a sign of the times, everyone was in agreement that sea turtles were under threat from multiple anthropogenic hazards. It also became apparent that there was an overall consensus on the greatest hazard, fisheries bycatch. The survey found:
- Bycatch was ranked as the top hazard for 18 sea turtle populations.
- Coastal development was ranked as the top hazard for six populations.
- Nest predation was the top hazard for three populations.
Interesting! And I guess that exclamation warrants further development if I expect it to make any sense. Although bycatch, a pelagic threat, ranked as a top hazard for 18 populations, a disparity still exists between coastal development and nest predation, which are terrestrial and coastal threats. The amount of invested resources does not correspond to the highly scored pelagic threat.
The authors point out that, “Twenty-eight percent of survey respondents reported conducting research or activities focused in the pelagic environment, compared with 70% who conducted research in both terrestrial and coastal environments.”
Which rounds off the discussion as to its applicability to conservation. Should statistical methods that account for expert bias be implemented by conservation planning programs? And should hazards that are both highly scored by experts and have a high uncertainty in regards to the range of effect on a population be treated as a research priority?
Well one thing is for certain and I agree completely with the authors that, “Priority setting for the conservation of threatened and endangered species cannot wait for exhaustive empirical research.”

![]()
DONLAN, C., WINGFIELD, D., CROWDER, L., & WILCOX, C. (2010). Using Expert Opinion Surveys to Rank Threats to Endangered Species: A Case Study with Sea Turtles Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01541.x

Our planet is an intriguing concoction of variables that meld together for successes spanning the organization of life (species, populations, communities, and ecosystems). It is literally an evolutionary process that is ecologically driven. And as a genotypic sex determined species, we seem to have an inherent fascination with the mysterious adaptive significance of environmental sex determination. But the evolution of environmental conditions, such as temperature, determining the sex of offspring is not what is going to be explored at this time. Nor do I plan to open up a heated discussion about climate change.
So just what does this data all mean? Well, the most striking finding is that since male sea turtles breed more frequently than females (i.e. an operational sex ratio that is not female biased), they are able to “reduce the probability of unfertilized clutches.” Even though males already comprise a smaller portion of the population, and would do so to a greater extent in a warming climate, the results are indicating that we (or they) do not have much to worry about when it comes to temperatures altering the sex ratios to a point where the population collapses. But perhaps this just might be limited to the SHORT-TERM.
Bycatch. It’s a word that sounds rather innocuous as it rolls off the tongue, but clearly does not do justice to the staggering amount of life that is instantly converted to simple biological waste. It’s a problem that amounts to tonnes, in the neighborhood of several million per year. And again I say thank God because the widely popular sea turtle may be able to help shine the light on an ever growing problem responsible for population declines in multiple species. Well, at least I hope so.
And after looking at the data I am left wondering how many sea turtles are actually killed or die as a result of wounds incurred by coming into contact with gillnets, longlines and trawls. I can imagine it is only palatable when wearing a pair of rose colored glasses. But as far as the research goes, there was insufficient data to incorporate mortality rates.
“Targeted action to reduce turtle-gear interactions is essential for population persistence, and is already underway for some fleets…our study revealed that reports of longline bycatch are two-fold more common than reports of bycatch in either trawls or gillnets.”

I am also a conservationist, a biologist by training, and by default an anthropologist. I look through the eyes of common sense, which is governed by conservation and biology. And I watch and study people as they interact with the marine world; hence I delve into amateur anthropology. Watching wildlife can be amazing, but watching people can be just as insightful. With that I must conclude conservation is an interesting thing; you never know how it will materialize but as for when it is every day.
So just what is this all about? Well a recent trip to the Big Island of Hawaii presented just such an opportunity as my wife and I wandered a beach along the Kohala coast. We happened upon a green sea turtle that had pulled itself onto a beach made of lava rocks for a little rest in the morning sun. As we captured a few snapshots from a distance (thanks to telephoto lenses!), a mother and her two children approached us and asked to see our sea turtle pictures. After the exchange of a few words we pointed to the resting sea turtle…why look at pictures when actual observations can be made. From a safe distance, the two girls watched the sleeping reptile as excitement filled their faces. “Get closer,” the mother said softly, “it is OK as long as you don’t touch.” As my wife and I exchanged glances the mother again urged the girls to get closer and closer. After a moment of hesitation, the children heeded their mother’s wishes and were soon sitting next to the resting sea turtle.
Sea turtle advocates in California and family shrimp fishers from Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the U. S. State Department for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for allowing shrimp caught in ways that are deadly to sea turtles to be sold in the United States The lawsuit filed by the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School (Palo Alto, CA) on behalf of Turtle Island Restoration Network (Forest Knolls, CA) and the Mayport Village Association (Mayport, FL) claims that the U. S. State Department has failed to properly evaluate and prevent harm to sea turtles from overseas shrimp fleets that sell shrimp to the United States under the ESA’s Turtle-Shrimp Law (Pub. L. 101-162 § 609). It was filed in the U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. 











