THE TERRAPIN INSTITUTE
July 17, 2006
Howard King, Director
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service
Tawes
State Office Building
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD. 21401
VIA E-Mail
Dear Mr. King:
The Terrapin Institute must reject the proposed regulations as presented on July 10, 2006. The agency is proceeding without science,
expertise, or basis. When a
population is in decline, promoting an increased harvest of immature animals
cannot be justified. When a population
is stressed by habitat loss and by-catch mortalities, it is irresponsible to
promote a continued commercial harvest. When very little can be enacted to
address all other detriments to a species, the only option is to address that
which can be addressed. When the
commercial fishing industry does not appear before the public forum provided,
either the economic importance of this species is insignificant or the industry
is delighted with the DNR proposal. If
global demand continues to grow, the incentives to harvest and trade in this
resource within and outside the law are greater. Judging from Maryland’s
history in commercial fisheries management, the results of these regulations
should be obvious. This proposal will
not allow the DNR to preserve an abundance of terrapins, manage the commercial
fishery or enforce these regulations. The terrapin and all other commercially
exploited Bay species have been decimated and continue to be threatened by
conventional fisheries management.
As demonstrated in the July 10,
2006 public meeting, the agency has no authority over habitat loss
and no capacity to minimize other detriments to this species. The agency cannot explain how decreasing
minimum harvest size will reduce the direct consumption of the species or
protect the resource against further decline.
There are no harvest models for this species or any other turtle
species. The agency has not sufficient
record or the necessary minimum qualifications to manage a harvest or trade of
the diamondback terrapin. The only respectable action the agency can
take is to ban the harvest of terrapins until more information is available and
fishing mortalities can be determined, implemented, and enforced.
The only data available to the DNR to substantiate these proposals is
extracted from a long term terrapin population study in a five mile segment of
the Patuxent
River. While the study may be sound, this population
may not be representative of the State’s terrapin population. The study methodology does not factor fishing
mortalities. The rate of decline
documented in the Patuxent
River study may be different
in other tributaries of the Chesapeake.
Page Two, Howard King, July 17,
2006
Elsewhere, the species could be far more impacted by habitat loss, directed
harvest, and by-catch. The harvest
pressures in the Patuxent have not been investigated
and therefore may not be reflective of the entire terrapin fishery. For example, the terrapin population of the
Tangier Sound may be larger due to adequate habitat, but is far more vulnerable
to by-catch from oyster dredging and commercial crab pots. Add to that a directed harvest of immature
terrapins and the population could plummet in three months.
There are other concerns with the DNR data.
The agency has not provided the actual data retrieved from harvesters
and dealers reports, but has offered charts derived from that information. Although terrapins are never weighed, the
harvest and trade data continue to be presented only in total pounds. The dealer reports are a more accurate reflection
of the trade in terrapins, but the details of such reports have not been
investigated or publicized. As
reported in 2004, the 75% decline in a Patuxent River
terrapin population (presumed to be numbers of terrapins, not pounds) was
attributed to the oil spill in that river system in 2000. Apparently, that report did not investigate
other impacts to the species, such as commercial harvest or
by-catch. The same data and study site used in the 2004 report are
the basis of the 2006 DNR regulatory proposal presented to the public on July 10, 2006. Without any specific information on the
commercial harvest, the report has been amended and extrapolated to support the
DNR commercial harvest proposal. This
report is used to project an 80% decrease (pounds or numbers) in statewide
terrapin harvests over the first three months of 2006 season. Under the circumstances, the data and report
cited by the DNR are subjective and potentially wrong. Therefore, the same data cannot be reliable
justification for lowering the minimum harvest size, concentrating harvests to
three months, or for applying the DNR regulatory proposal throughout the
Bay. Considering the never-ending
confusion over how terrapins are reported and calculated, an increase harvest of smaller terrapins could actually be reported to
the public as a decrease harvest in pounds of terrapins.
If this data and report are disqualified as they should be, the agency is
without alternative scientific basis.
Without scientific basis, the DNR is violating its own stated principles
and policies as mandated by the Governor.
Given the agency’s lack of capacity under current conditions, the agency
is less capable to enforce these additional regulations. There is reason to believe the agency will be
less cooperative in distributing future harvest and trade data, particularly if
the actual data do not produce the projected reduction in harvests or
trade. Likewise, if the number of
terrapin harvesters and fishing effort suddenly increase, it is doubtful the
DNR will disclose such information in a timely manner. Under the circumstances, the commercial
harvest of terrapins cannot continue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
M Whilden
Marguerite Whilden
P. O. Box 51, Edgewater,
MD 21037 410 370 9171 www.terrapininstitute.org