House Bill 980

April 6, 2006

EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Senator Paula C. Hollinger, Chair

Statement of the

Terrapin Institute and Research Consortium, Inc.

Marguerite Whilden

Madame Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on House Bill 980. We greatly appreciate the legislature’s interest and commitment to terrapin conservation. We support the legislation with amendments. I have a few brief points to make about the amended bill and hope that you will consider making a minor amendment to House Bill 980.

The original legislation was for a prohibition on the commercial harvest of terrapins. After overwhelming public support, we were surprised to see the amended bill as it does not offer any protection to the species

The original Fiscal and Policy Note indicated that the original proposed harvest prohibition would not incur a public expense. The REVISED Fiscal and Policy Note indicates that the amended bill would incur significant public expense and take over five years to implement. Over a five year period the DNR proposes to spend over $299,800 in salary for a biologist and another $60,000 for additional study. I am afraid the terrapin will not last that long. Also, when I met with Mike Slattery on the DNR, he indicated a different scenario and much more expedient protective regulations.

The REVISED Fiscal and Policy Note indicates that the commercial terrapin fishery generates only $2,000 per year. I have to question that information. However, if that is the case, it seems illogical for DNR to spend over $350,000 to support the continued harvest of terrapins. Considering all the other fisheries issues in the Bay, it would seem to make more sense to close the terrapin harvest and use these funds on other DNR emergencies. Clearly, the commercial harvest is the only source of mortality that can be addressed by the DNR.

Since the public supports a harvest prohibition and the economy from terrapin harvest is minor, it is difficult to understand how we ended up with this amended legislation. With all due respect, I believe it would be in the Maryland Watermen’s Association best interest to give up this species. The terrapin’s primary role is not as a commodity for watermen. This species brings much joy to countless students across the State. The terrapin is worth far more in the Bay than it is in a box. Most importantly, until we know for sure that this species can be harvested safely, we should close the commercial fishery down. Terrapin populations crashed once and they are destined to crash again.

The terrapin and many Maryland citizens would be most grateful and indebted to this Committee if you would be so kind as to reconsider this proposed legislation. Until DNR is prepared, please take the terrapin off the commercial market. My only amendment would be to add the following language: Page One, line 3, After “For the purpose of” add “the establishment of a term moratorium” and on line 11, page 3, after “4-903, add “A. Effective July 1, 2006 the Department shall impose a moratorium on the catching of terrapins until the completion of the Fishery Management Plan, stock assessment, and revised management regulations.”

Respectfully submitted,

Marguerite Whilden

The Terrapin Institute, P. O. Box 51, Edgewater, MD 21037