Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea

A C K FRAZIER RANDALL ARAUZ IOHAN CHEVALIER ANGELA FORMIA JACQUES FRETEY MATTHEW H . GODFREY RENE MARQUEZ-M. BIVASH PANDAV KARTIK SHANKER Human-Turtle Interactions a t Sea T H E T W O L I V I N G S P E C I E S O F ridley sea turtles havevery different geographic distributions with virtually n o sympatry. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) inhabits the Gulf of Mexico and the North Atlantic, primarily on the western side (Mirquez-M., 1990. 1994a, 1994b; Weber, 1995; Frazier, 2000), but it also occurs o n the eastern o r European side (Brongersma, 1972; USFWS-NMFS, 1992). T h e olive ridley (L. olivacea) is found regularly in the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Marquez-M., 1990; Pritchard and Plotkin, 1995) and also in the South Atlantic (Reichart, 1993; Fretey, 2001). Sympatry could occur in the Caribbean Sea as well as along the interface between the North and South Atlantic basins, particularly at the western extreme of Africa, but although there are scattered records of L. olivacea from the northwestern coasts of Africa and the North Atlantic. the species is evidently not common in these waters (Fretey, 2001; Foley et al., 2003), and records of L. kmpii from outside the North Atlantic are questionable (e.g., Fretey, 2001). With the exception of a few very rare records, neither species of Lepidochelys is found in the Mediterranean. In addition t o the differences in geographic distributions, the two species also seem to be separated by differences in habitat preference, at least once t h e pelagic hatchling phase has been completed. L. kenipii normally stays near to the coast o r at least over the continental shelf (Byles, 1988), whereas at least in the eastern tropical Pacific, L. olivacea routinely occurs in open 254 JACK F R A Z I E R ET AL. ocean or high seas (Pitman, 1990, 1992;Plotkin et al., 1993). Moreover, L. kempii, considered a distinct species, is the rarest of all sea turtles, whereas L. olivacea is regarded as the most abundant (Mirquez-M., 1990;Pritchard, 1997). As a result, there are considerable differences berween these two species in the types and frequencies of human-turtle interactions that occur at sea. Unfortunately, many treatises of marine turtle biology and conservation combine discussions of different species, leaving the reader with the impression that there are no substantive differences among species' biology, ecology, conservation status, conservation threats. and conservation actions. Although there are many similarities between the two species of Lepidochely.~,this chapter separates the discussions by species in an effort to emphasize that not only the species but the different populations need t o be evaluated separately when one is considering both biological and conservation issues. In addition, it is not uncommon for marine turtles to be discussed in terms of continental distributions: for example, "marine turtles in Africa" o r "marine turtles in South America." However, these are marine animals, so meaningful geographic groupings and categories need to be based on ocean basins, not on continental land masses (see, for example, Frazier, 1998). As a result, some parts of the discussions herein may be repetitive, as certain situations in some ocean basins are repeated in others. Furthermore, distinctions between humanturtle interactions on land and human-turtle interactions at sea are often arbitrary and ambiguous: some human activities on land have profound effects on turtles at sea, and vice versa. Hence, certain parts of the discussion in the present chapter touch on, or even repeat, discussions in Chapter 12 of this volume. Finally, a number of terms are commonly used when referring to human-turtle interactions, and although many of these have become conventional o r even trendy and politically correct, they often carry implicit values through positive or negative connotations that are unjustified. For example, there have been recent critiques of fashionable expressions such as "sustainable use" referring t o the exploitation of living marine resources (Jackson, 2001), a concept paramount for the dogma of "sustainable development" (Frazier, 1997). Likewise. the term "harvest" is also commonly used in referring to the exploitation of living marine resources, but it would normally be more appropriate to refer to "extraction" or "mining" rather than "harvesting." On the other hand, descriptions of "poaching" often connote socially negative actions and attitudes that are inappropriate, or at least unsubstantiated. As a result, this chapter attempts to use terms that are as neutral as possible. such as "exploitation," "interactions,' and "take,' expressions that are meant to be without ethical or social values and neutral in connotation. When evaluating older records of ridley turtles, it is important to bear in mind the fact that for many years there was considerable confusion about the identity of these species. Despite the careful studies of P. E. I? Deraniyagala (1939\, ridleys (Lepidochelys spp.)and loggerheads (Caretta caretta) not only were confused but were often thought to be the same species. There were also commonly held opinions that L. kempii, known as the "bastard" turtle, was a hybrid between loggerhead and green turtles (Carr, 1955). These misunderstandings led to repeated problems of misidentification of specimens, with consequent confusion and errors in understanding geographic ranges and other aspects of their biology (Frazier, 1985). Prehistoric information on human-turtle interactions involving Lepidochelys spp. is scanty. There are archaeological records of L. kewtpii from relatively few sites, most of which are in Florida, with rarely more than one or two individuals per site (Frazier, 2003, 2005a). L. olivacea seems to have been reported from just one archaeological site: Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka (800-250 BC) (Chandraratne, 1997). Assuming that synchronous, massed nesting (known by a variety of names in Latin America including arribazon, arribada, and morrinda) occurred in prehistoric times, as happens today for both species, one would expect the dense concentrations of nesting turtles and their eggs to have been heavily exploited during prehistoric times. However, the limited data do not indicate any significant prehistoric interaction between humans and ridley turtles, unlike the case with Chelonia mydas and Eretmochelys imbricata (Frazier, 2003, 2004, 2005a). This lack of information, however, should be interpreted with care: Human-Turtle Interaction¥ at Sea n o evidence does not justify the conclusion that the phenomenon did not exist. Finally, there is a general lack of detailed, systematic information o n contemporary humanturtle interactions, and routinely one is obliged to make use of out-of-date, incomplete, sketchy, anecdotal, a n d / o r hearsay accounts. It is essentially a matter of personal choice whether one errs on the side of emphasizing that the lack of information is best interpreted as n o evidence for human-turtle interactions o r takes the alternate route and underscores that what little is known, in the face of major shortcomings in the data, indicates that we can see but the tip of the iceberg. Not infrequently. those trained in occidental, reductionist, o r positivist science choose the first option. The second approach is in accordance with the precautionary principle, now an integral part of fisheries agreements such as the FA0 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. that stipulates that "the absence of adequate scientific information should not b e used as a reason for postponing o r failing t o take measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species, and nontarget species and their environment" (Article 6.5; www.fao.org/ fi / agreem /codecond/ficonde.asp). Lepidochelys kempii: Kemp's Ridley Turtle Human-turtle interactions with L. kempii are limited by the relatively restricted geographic distribution of this species when compared with L. olivacea. The majority of nesting occurs in the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, particularly at Rancho Nuevo (Marquez-M., 1994a, 1994b; Burchfield et al., 1997). Hence, virtually all forms of direct exploitation, and most other interactions, involving breeding turtles have taken place in the western extreme of the Gulf of Mexico. This has included directed takes of reproductive animals immediately off the nesting beaches as well as incidental capture in shrimp trawls, particularly in U.S. waters (Marquez-M., 1994a, 1994b). For example, a take of 5,000 L. h p i i from the Rancho Nuevo area was authorized by the Mexican government in 1970, although in the end there was little if any directed exploitation that year (Marquez-M., 19943, 1994b). 255 This species seems t o prefer coastal, o r even inshore, waters that are less than 50 m deep and rich in crabs. Immature L. kempii are known t o concentrate in shallow waters. bays, and sounds of the northern Gulf of Mexico, particularly western Texas, Louisiana. and northwestern Florida, as well as along the western north Atlantic, particularly North Carolina. Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, and Cape Cod Bay. There are regular seasonal migrations, with most of the animals leaving the cooler northern waters as autumn and winter set in and migrating south and sometimes farther offshore (Weber, 1995). These areas of higher density and seasonal movements clearly relate t o places and seasons in which the chances of marine interactions are higher (Frazier, 2000). L. kempii have long been known to occur in European Atlantic waters (Brongersma, 1972). and they have been documented twice from the Azores, but there are n o confirmed records from the Atlantic coast of Africa (Fretey, 2001). Thus, the numbers that occur in the eastern Atlantic are relatively small, and there is little evidence that human activities, such as incidental capture in fisheries, are a significant cause of mortality in these areas. Directed Take Commercial fisheries for marine turtles were active before 1950 along most of the U.S. coast of the Gulf of Mexico, especially in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, and three species were commonly taken, canned, and marketed widely (Hildebrand, 1963; Witzell, 1994a. 1994b). Unfortunately, records are incomplete, and, moreover, at the time of the fishery, L. kempii were either confused with loggerheads (C. caretta) o r commonly regarded t o b e hybrids between loggerheads and green turtles (C. mydas) (Carr, 1955). As a consequence, few useful records of commercial fisheries for L. kempii are available. Nonetheless, it has been estimated that the number of L. kempii taken in these commercial fisheries was never large; Hildebrand (1982) stated that "there was n o organized fishery for the species anywhere except as a by-catch of a green turtle fishery near Cedar Key, Florida." In 1970 a permit from Mexican fisheries authorities was provided for exploiting turtles at the only t, i^ 256 JACK F R A Z I E R ET AL massed nesting beach at Rancho Nuevo. but because the arribada did not arrive on schedule. only five turtles were taken, according to official records (Hildebrand, 1982). Legal exploitation of L. kempii ended when the species was totally ~ r o t e c t e d ;legislation banning direct exploitation was enacted at different times in different states and countries: 1963, Texas, state; 1970, United States. federal; 1973, Mexico, federal: 1974. Florida, state (Frazier. 2000). However. illegal trade has continued. Records from the U.S. Customs Department show that between 1983 and 1989. when the species had been fully protected in both Mexico and the United States for at least a decade. L. k v i i products were supplied to a very active market for exotic animal skins. It is estimated that the U.S. Customs Department may apprehend less than 10% of the illegal trade, and furthermore, the available figures on confiscations by US. Customs only consider illegal imports into one country. Hence, the volume of the black market is clearly much greater than the official number of confiscations (Teyeliz, 2000). Incidental Capture Incidental capture of L. kempii during commercial shrimping operations, particularly in the northern Gulf of Mexico, began to be documented in the biological literature by 1973, when the shrimp fishery in the U.S. Gulf states was becoming more highly mechanized (Frazier, 2000;j. Frazier, unpublished data). By the late 1970s, there was tremendous concern that the only major nestingpopulation of this species, at Rancho Nuevo, had declined dramatically, was literally on the brink of extinction, and a major source of mortality was incidental capture in shrimp trawls. This led to the design of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) followed by trials and tribulations in their validation and implementation, with nearly a decade of intense social conflict between and among shrimpers, conservationists, and government agencies in the shrimping communities of the United States (Weber et al., 1995; Margavio and Forsyth, 1996; Mirquez-M., 1996; Weber, 1996; Frazier, 2000). More concern about the issue was raised by a study organized by the National Academy of Sciences in which it was concluded that the "in- cidental capture of sea turtles in shrimp trawls was identified by this committee as the major cause of [turtle] mortality associated with human activities; it kills more sea turtles than all other human activities combined (NRC, 1990: 13). Between 1986 and 1997, a total of 3.476 L. kempii were recorded stranded in the United States (this does not include turtles that were smaller than 20 cm in carapace length, coldstunned, o r head started). Of these. 6% were from the Northeast (Virginia through Maine), 25% from the Southeast (Atlantic coast of Florida through North Carolina), and 69% from the Gulf of Mexico (Texas through western Florida). Over this period, there had been a marked increase in strandings in both the Southeast and Gulf states. The western Gulf (Louisiana and Texas), which consistently has the greatest shrimp-trawling effort, also had the largest number of carcasses washed up, accounting for nearly 45% of recorded strandings. There has been a significant increase in size oi turtles stranded between the 1980s and the 1990s (Turtle Expert Working Group, 2000). Washed-up carcasses are recorded in all fou! seasons of the year, with most of the winte records coming from the eastern Gulf and thi Atlantic seaboard (Teas, 1993). Although then are no systematic stranding networks in Mexicc it is known that there are regular strandings c adult-sized turtles at Rancho Nuevo and nearb beaches during the nesting season (Turtle E: pert Working Group, 2000). Although the most likely source of mortalii for these strandings is incidental capture ar drowning in shrimp trawl nets, the trends ca not be interpreted simply as an index of fishil activity (Caillouet et al., 1996). Over the san period when stranding rates increased, the was a dramatic increase in the number of ne ing L. kempii. It has been concluded that t population is growing and in the early stages recovery; hence, increases in strandings may nothing more than an effect of more turtles 1 ing available to be caught and killed. The tl dencies in stranding data have been taken as dications that TEDs have significantly decrea mortality of incidentally caught L. kernpii (7 tie Expert Working Group, 2000): it is argi that the increase in strandings is a result of ar crease in the number of turtles. When one is interpreting records of strandings, it is fundamental to keep in mind that the number of carcasses documented represents an unknown proportion of the total number of animals caught and drowned at sea, and the number of recorded strandings will be related to a variety of variables. such as surface currents. winds, the time elapsed since the animals were drowned, and search effort (Epperly et a].. 1996). Hence, records of strandings in just the United States leave no doubt that significant numbers of L. kempii have been killed in shrimp trawls. In addition to incidental captures in shrimp trawls, there are records of L. kcmpii being taken accidentally by other fishing gear, including gillnet, hook and line, beach seine. purse seine. bag seine, cast net. butterfly net, and crab trap (Manzella et al., 1988; Marquez-M.. 19945). However, records from all of these gear types collectively represent less than a third of what was reported for just shrimp trawls. so the biggest threat to this species has been identified as shrimp trawling (NRC. 1990). more, oil spills are not the only threat posed to marine turtles by exploration and extraction of oil; however. there is relatively little information on the effects of marine pollution on L. kempii (Weber. 1995; Lutcavage et a]., 1997: Milton et al.. 2003). Other sources of mortality include dredges, power plant intakes, and boat strikes in nearshore and estuarine areas, which are thought to be increasing, but there is little systematic information on any of these (USFWS-NMFS, 1992: Weber, 1995). A much-ignored threat is sonic pollution resulting from various sources. These include seismic testing during oil exploration, explosive removal of abandoned oil rigs, weapons testing, and submarine low-frequency communications by the U.S. Navy. Although the results are varied, indications are that under certain conditions lowfrequency pollution can pose a threat to marine turtles fMoein Bartol and Musick, 2003). Because these activities are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico, the primary area of L. kempii, their relevance to this species is probably substantial. Interactions Other Than Capture Conclusions Marine pollution may take on many forms, including chemical, photic. physical, and thermal, and L. kempii are liable to all of these. The majority of studies indicate that after passing the pelagic phase, immature turtles return to shallow inshore waters and take up neritic habits, and at that point the turtle becomes a bottom feeder (Bjorndal, 1997). Nonetheless. there is evidence that at least some immatures may feed from the surface (Dobie, 1996), and if this habit is widespread, it would expose the animals to various forms of floating debris and contamination. The Gulf of Mexico, through the outflow of the Mississippi River, has a high level of discharge of numerous anthropogenic compounds, many of which are known to be toxic and are likely to affect a major part of the geographic range of this turtle (Frazier, 1980a; Weber, 1995). Even though oil spills are relatively rare events, there are serious concerns about the effect of these tragedies occurring in the Gulf of Mexico (where there are scores of offshore platforms and activities related to the petrochemical industry), and there have been national initiatives at preparing contingency plans (Shigenaka, 2003). Further- It was the tremendous and growing concern for the dramatically depleted nesting populations of L. kempii at Rancho Nuevo (Carr, 1977), along with the growing evidence that a major source of mortality for adult-sized turtles was the drowning in commercial shrimp trawls (Frazier, 2000; Turtle Expert Working Group, 2000) that prompted the development of TEDs by the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the subsequent lobbying by conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the late 1970s and early 1980s for mandatory use of TEDs. Combined with numerous international events and issues, including Arab-Israeli wars, increased gas prices, and increased competition for the U.S. shrimp market, the TED initiatives led to the "TED wars" in the Gulf and southeastern shrimping states of the United States (Frazier, 2000). From this emanated U.S. Public Law 101-162, section 609, which called for the United States to embargo shrimp not caught with TEDs. This one U.S. law prompted a series of international events of great importance not only for marine turtle conservation but also for the debate about environment and trade. Of particular importance was the World Trade Organization "shrimpturtle dispute," which provided the political stimuli for the development of several international instruments. The Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC) and the Memorandum of Understanding o n the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and Their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia (IOSEA) are products of the T E D wars (Frazier. 2002; Frazier and Bache, 2002: Bache and Frazier, 2006), even though L. keinpii does not occur within the 10SEA region. Hence, in the last few decades, more than any other species of marine turtle, L. kempii has been the raison d'etre for a number of high-level policy decisions. with enormous implications at the global level, despite the limited geographic range of this species. For a discussion of conflicting issues involving the conservation of L. kempii, see Marquez-M. (1994a, 1994b), Frazier (2000), and Turtle Expert Working Group (2000). Although the species is well documented along the eastern seaboard of the United States, where seaspnal north-south migrations have been shown to occur in several locations from New York t o the Carolinas, some authors question that the individuals that have "escaped" from the Gulf of Mexico are significant for the maintenance of the population (C. W. Caillouet, Jr., in litt., July 22,2004). For decades it has been questioned if L. kempii in European waters are waifs, lost from the population (Hendrickson. 1980; Brongersma, 1982). Hence, some workers consider that human-turtle interactions involving L. kempii in the North Atlantic, particularly European waters, are a low conservation priority. Until it can be shown that these individuals have importance to population maintenance a n d l o r genetic diversity of the species, their conservation relevance will be in doubt. Lepidochelys olivacea: The Olive Ridley Turtle Although there are n o commonly recognized subspecies of this wide-ranging turtle, there are thought t o be some subtle morphological and color differences between certain geographic areas (Pritchard and Plotkin, 1995). Broadly, L. olivacea shows a population genetic structure with differences between and within the ocean basins (Bowen et al.. 1998; Shanker et a]., 2004; Kichler Holder and Holder. Chapter 6 ) .Although the genetics and demography of L. ohvacea need to be resolved, environmental characteristics, risks, and management decisions vary from country to country and from region to region. Hence. the summary of human-turtle interactions involving this turtle is organized by sectors of ocean basins. Southwestern Atlantic Ocean Despite the fact that L,. olivacea is the most abundant marine turtle, it is the least commonly observed species in the western Atlantic (Marcovaldi. 2001). L. olivacea have been reported at sea as far north as Florida (Foley et al., 2003) and as far south as Uruguay (Trazier, 1991). encompassing a range between 25ON and 21 OS (Fretey, 1999). However. on the western side of the Atlantic, they are common only in the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana) and northern Brazil; elsewhere they are rarely documented. Unlike in the eastern Pacific. where the species is commonly recorded on the high seas (Pitman, 1990, 1992; Plotkin et a]., 1993), there are very few records from pelagic waters of the Atlantic, and there is n o evidence that L. olivacea cross the Atlantic Ocean. Hence, it is likely that a large majority (and perhaps even all) of the turtles caught, intentionally o r accidentally, in western Atlantic waters originate from the two principal nesting sites o n the coast of South America: one in Sergipe, Brazil, and the other in French Guiana and Suriname (because the nesting beaches in these two neighboring countries are relatively close and there are numerous records of female L. olivacea that have nested in both countries, this can be considered as a single nesting location). Based on the available data, it appears that after nesting, turtles from these two different reproductive populations disperse to different zones and thus experience different interactions with humans, particularly problems of incidental capture at sea. Tag returns from females that nested in French Guianal Suriname indicate that postnesting dispersion is made to one of two areas: from eastern Guyana t o Amapa (Brazil) o r Human-Turtle Interanwns at Sea north. from the mouth of the Orinoco River to the islands of Tobago. Trinidad, and Margarita Pritchard, 1973; Schulz, 1975). Nesting females tagged in Sergipe have been recovered in either Sergipe o r farther south in Brazil (Marcovaldi et a].. 2000), indicating that L. olivacea from the Guianas does not share the same foraging areas with L. olivacea from Sergipe. Although data gathered from incidental captures in shrimp fisheries may be representative of only a part of the turtle population, it is clear that there are differences between the two nesting areas, and hence, the situation in French GuianaISuriname ("Guiana") is treated separately from that in Brazil. The estimated number of clutches laid by the French Guiana /Suriname population is 1,0002.000 per year (extrapolated from Godfrey and Chevalier, 2004). This population has undergone a decline during the last century: although arribadas used to be common in Suriname, they have been absent since the 1970s (Fretey, 1989; Reichart, 1993; Pritchard and Plotkin, 1995). Remarkably, annual takes from just Suriname during the first half of the 1900s were nearly of the same size as the estimated annual number of all reproductively active females in the entire French GuianaISuriname population today In contrast. the estimated number of clutches laid per year by the Sergipe population is 1,00015,000 (extrapolated from Godfrey and Chevalier, 2004). There is n o evidence that this population was much larger in the past, and the trend in the annual number of nests over the past 10 years shows a clear increase (Marcovaldi, 2001; Godfrey and Chevalier, 2004). Reichart, w h o has considerable experience in the Guianas, stated that "probably because the L. olivacea is relatively rare in the western Atlantic, there is n o direct fisheries effort o n the species in this region" (Reichart, 1993). H e did, however, explain that there is a direct, albeit spontaneous, take of nesting animals, particularly in Guyana. In fact, although there may not be an organized, o r commercial, fishery, there have been significant levels of directed take, the vast majority of which has concentrated on nesting females. During the 8-year period between 1933 and 1940, an estimated 1,500 L. olivacea were killed annually in SuriD I R E C T E D TAKE. 259 name (Geijskes, 1945. cited in Reichart and Fretev, 1993). Yet, there is n o evidence of a systematic, directed take of L. olivacea from the sea in this region. Directed take in Sergipe. Brazil, was also casual and focused on nesting females. Since the inception of Projecto TAMAR in 1982, there have been numerous initiatives to stop human exploitation of marine turtles and replace it with other livelihood activities (Marcovaldi, 2001). The importance of shrimp trawling on incidental capture of turtles in waters of the Guianas was pointed out more than 30 years ago (Pritchard, 1969), less than a decade after this fishery became well developed in the region (Dintheer et al., 1989). Some of the earliest information on tag returns from French Guiana and Suriname reported that nearly all the recaptures of turtles came from shrimp trawlers that fished along the coast (Pritchard, 1969. 1973). making it clear I that this fishing method has a major impact on L. olivacea in the region. Postnesting females from the ~ u i a n i a - h a v been e recaptured as far north as Isla Margarita, Venezuela, and even into the Lesser Antilles and as far south as Amapa, Brazil (Pritchard, 1973; Schulz, 1975), all locations where there is also active shrimp trawling. Since the 1990s, incidental take in shrimp trawls in the Guianas has become better understood ( e g , see Tambiah, 1994; Hoekert et al., 1996; Laurent et al., 1999; Gueguen. 2000). The limited information indicates that L. olivacea are by far the most commonly caught marine turtles in shrimp trawls in the region, and they are caught in all months of the year. Different studies report that there are peaks in incidental capture from July t o September (Pritchard, 1973) o r from January t o March (Tambiah, 1994). Preliminary estimates of the annual mortality from shrimp trawling are some 1,600 marine turtles in Suriname (Tambiah, 1994) and another 1,000 in French Guiana (Gukguen, 2000) (most of these turtles would b e L. olivacea). Because of overfishing, there has been increasing trawling activity closer t o the coast (Dintheer et al., 1989), which is likely t o result in even more incidental captures and mortality. In Gukguen's (2000) pilot study, a third of the turtles caught in shrimp trawls were landed dead in French INCIDENTAL CAPTURE. 260 JACK FRAZIER ET AL. Guiana, whereas "direct mortality" (turtles dead on landing) in Venezuela was reported as 19% for all species (Marcano and Alio, 2000). Not surprisingly, postrelease mortality has not been estimated. but it is likely t o b e significant, so the figures for "direct mortality" will be underestimates of mortality caused by capture in shrimp trawls. Although change over a period of three decades should not b e surprising, it is remarkable that 30 years ago nearly a quarter of the tag recaptures were from Venezuela (Pritchard, 1973). and in recent years there have been few, if any. reports of the species captured in these waters (Guada, 2001). It is relevant that in 1979 the U.S. government passed a law (PL 101-162, section 609) that required shrimp-exporting countries t o implement turtle conservation programs, namely, the mandatory use of TEDs (Frazier and Bache. 2002). Thus, it is likely that the chances of reporting tag returns from shrimp trawlers has declined, as it would be perceived as increasing the risk of having a shrimp import embargo imposed by the main importing country, the United States. Gillnets are known t o be an additional source of mortality, but annual captures are thought to be well below those for shrimp trawling (Fretey, 1999). Evidence from other fishing methods in this region indicates only occasional captures of marine turtles (e.g., Hoekert et al., 1996; Chevalier et a]., 1998; Laurent, 1999a, 1999b; Chevalier. 2001; Guada, 2001). Reichart and Fretey (1993) suggested that accidental capture of L. ofivacea at sea was the largest unresolved problem facing L. olivacea in the Guianas, and Pritchard and Plotkin (1995) concluded that the dramatic decline in numbers nesting in Suriname was the result of high mortality from incidental capture in shrimp trawls throughout the region where these turtles are known t o disperse, from Venezuela t o Brazil. There is a paucity of systematic information o n incidental capture, and data for at-sea interactions are very limited; quantitative data are based on results of 39 recaptures of tagged nesting females, compiled before the mid-1970s (Pritchard, 1973; Schulz, 1975). Nonetheless, more detailed research o n the impacts of fishing and other marine activities are likely t o identify other forms of human-turtle interaction at sea. Nesting females tagged in Sergipe. Brazil, are known to move south (Marcovaldi et a]., 2000). Most marine turtles recorded as stranding dead on the coast of Sergipe have been adult-sized L. ofivacea; from 1999 to 2002 there were 201 records, of which 71 % were L. olivacea (J. Castilhos, personal communication). As in many parts of the world, an active shrimping fleet in Sergipe trawls closer t o the coast than is legally allowed, and it is known that shrimpers catch turtles, particularly L. olivacea, with estimates that they may drown at least dozens in a year (Thome et al.. 2003). Other fishing methods in Brazil seem to have little impact on L. olivacea. In one study of turtles captured accidentally in Almofala, Ceari, Brazil, during the 8 months between January 1 and August 3 1,2001. in currais, a traditional type of fishing weir. only 1 of 75 marine turtles was L. olivacea (Lima et a]., 2002). A larger study in Brazil found that only 3 of 207 turtles caught in currais were L. olivacea, and there was not one record of the species in more than 2.300 records of accidental capture in the state of S5o Paulo (Marcovaldi et a]., 2001). Although n o L. olivacea were reported from a recent study of by-catch o n longlines in southern Brazil (Kotas et al., 2004). there are at least one confirmed record (Serafina et al., 2002) and one "highly probable" record (Pinedo and Polacheck, 2004) of incidental capture on long lines as well as several records of strandings in southern Brazil attributed to catch with hooks o r nets (Soto'and Beheregaray, 1997). A total of 237 dead stranded turtles were recorded between 1996 and 2000, from 125 krn of the 161 km of beach in Sergipe, and of 154 carcasses that were identified as t o species, 88 (57.4%) were L. olivacea, the vast majority of which were of adult size. T h e increase in shrimp trawling, particularly within 3 nautical miles of the coast, is uncontrolled and is thought t o be a major factor in the mortality of turtles (Da Silva et a]., 2002). In addition, at least three of the four records of L. olivacea from Uruguay were caught accidentally in gillnets (A. Estrades, in litt., August 4, 2003). Recently initiated coastal monitoring and on-board monitoring programs in Brazil (Marcovaldi et a]., 2002) and Uruguay (LopezMendilaharsu et al., 2003; Estrades et a]., in press) will address these problems of the paucity Unman Tw lie Jn!emrtion.s a t Sco of basic information. especially reliable data on incidental capture and impacts caused by other human activities in the marine environment. INTERACTIONS OTHER T H A N CAPTURE. There seems to be little, if any, information on various forms of marine pollution in the southwestern Atlantic and how they affect marine turtles. Given the situations in other regions. lost and discarded fishing gear, plastics. and oil spills are likely threats. , C O N C L U S I O N S . The available evidence indicates that there are two breeding populations of L. ofivacea in the western Atlantic. T h e French Guiana-Suriname population has declined dramatically (Fretey, 1989: Reichart and Fretey, 1993) and has been named as a conservation priority (Mast et al., 2004). Mortality just from shrimp trawling appears to be a major threat t o the recovery of this population. The Sergipe population, although fewer than 1,000 nesting females per year, is increasing despite whatever mortality is inflicted by fishing and other human activities. An ongoing program to monitor and mitigate fishing in Brazil (Marcovaldi et al., 2002) will help provide much-needed basic data for the design of conservation and management activities. Shrimp trawling is active from Venezuela to Brazil, and all countries in this region have legislation requiring TEDs, with the notable exception of French Guiana (France) (Laurent et a]., 1999). This legislation is t o comply with requirements to have legal access t o the U.S. shrimp import market, not primarily t o protect marine turtles (Frazier and Bache, 2002), and in many cases there is poor, if any, implementation. The future of the nesting population in the Guianas may depend on resolving the problem of incidental capture in various fisheries and instigating responsible fisheries in the region. At the same time, incidental captures present a remarkable paradox to marine turtle conservationists. Although this is a major source of mortality o n reproductively active turtles, it has also been a unique source of information on postnesting females, particularly o n their dispersion, distributions, and potential foraging areas. This information is fundamental for any conservation program. 261 Southeastern Atlantic Ocean Information on marine turtles from the west coast of Africa is limited, but it is clear that L. oflvacea is c o m m o n throughout this region. The species has been confirmed, o r is thought to occur, in all countries along the Atlantic coast of Africa between Mauritania and South Africa, and the highest densities are documented, o r suspected, in the Gulf of Guinea between Cote d'lvoire and Gabon, including the volcanic island chain that bisects the gulf. Juveniles have been reported in the waters of Cote d'lvoire, Cameroon, and S5o T h o m e (J. Gomez, H. Angoni, and I.-F. Dontaine. personal communicat i o n ~ .and there are indications that, as well as nestingbeaches. the region provides important foraging areas and migratory corridors for this species. The environmental conditions of the Cameroon estuary as well as the Niger Delta, mouth of the Upper Volta, and other estuarine and deltaic areas indicate that these could be important feeding and developmental areas for this turtle (Fretey, 2001). As is the case on the western side of the Atlantic. there are few records from the eastern Atlantic of L. d-ivact-aon the high seas. Because the coastline of West Africa is some 12,000 krn long, and there is considerable marine and coastal diversity in this region, it is likely that several stocks. o r management units, of L. olivact-a occur, as seems t o be the case with C. mydas in this region (Formia, 2002). D I R E C T E D T A K E . The intentional capture of marine turtles, both o n nesting beaches and at sea, is documented in 15 of 27 countries along the west coast of Africa, from Morocco t o South Africa, and although C. mydas is preferred, L. ohvacea is commonly captured to be eaten. In general, the turtles are killed whenever they are encountered. Most directed take is o n nesting beaches, and directed fisheries for marine turtles are not generally common. However, in areas of high turtle density, some fishermen use specialized techniques, such as large mesh turtle nets set at strategic sites. Although not the most commonly captured species, L. olivacea is occasionally taken in these nets. Capture of L. olivacea at sea has been recorded in Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d'lvoire, Ghana, . Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon. Equatorial Guinea, S i o Thome and Principe, Gabon, Congo, and Angola. and the species is suspected t o occur in Mauritania, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and Guinea (Fretey, 2001: Fretey et al., 2001; Formia, 2002; Barnett et a].. 2004). The most important locality for L. olivacea in the region is S2o Thome. where there is a thriving black market in turtle meat. and this is the most frequently encountered species in local wildlife markets in Togo and Benin (Fretey. 2001). Although there is strict protective legislation in most of these countries, the capture, transport. holding, marketing. killing, and consumption (all actions that are illegal) of marine turtles, including L. olivacea, are commonplace. Although there are few systematic data on directed take, consun~ptiveuse of marine turtles is regarded to be a major source of their mortality throughout most of West Africa. Although C. mvdas is the preferred species, often considered a delicacy, marine turtles of all species and sizes are consumed when available, whether at home, in bars. hotels, o r restaurants. The market for meat and eggs of marine turtles is fueled by a high demand for animal food products by inhabitants of coastal villages and particularly larger towns and cities (especially in S i o Thome, where L. olivacea is the most frequently consumed marine turtle). These turtles are often commercialized within established market systems (albeit illegal), providing a much-needed source of cash for economically marginalized villagers but especially benefiting intermediate traders and middlemen. This species is a particularly prized commodity in remote villages because the turtles can be maintained alive for several days, eliminating the need for refrigeration o r preservation. and they can be more easily transported because of their smaller size and weight (compared t o C. mydas and Dermochebs coriacea). Other traditional uses of marine turtle products include medicinal oil, produced from the body fat, and powder from crushed skull bones, used to cure aches and migraines (Fretey et a]., in press). In addition, carapaces of L. olivacea are often utilized for decoration in private dwellings, bars, and restaurants; they are also used as containers and t o shield items against the rain (such as religious sculptures): this last-named function is particularly common in Cameroon, Togo, and Benin. Carapaces are often polished and painted with marine scenes o r made into masks and sold in markets. souvenir shops, o r alongside major roads, particularly in areas most frequented by national and international tourists. For instance, carapaces decorated with bronze ornaments and made into masks by Bamum artists in Cameroon appeal to the wealthy, local elite. Although it is often impossible t o determine the origin of these turtles, it is likely that at least some result from intentional captures at sea. I N C I D E N T A L C A P T U R E . Despite the widespread occurrence of directed take of L. olivacea along the coast of West Africa, the pelagic habits of these turtles means that they are not usually available for targeted o r directed coastal fisheries. Instead. they are frequent victims of incidental capture in a wide variety of fishing activities. Artisanal fisheries using gillnets, hook and line. beach seines, and large-mesh gillnets are known to catch these turtles. In virtually all instances of incidental capture by artisanal fishermen, whether the turtles are retrieved dead o r alive, L. olivacea are retained as part of the catch and either consumed locally o r sold. In addition t o small-scale, artisanal fishing, eastern Atlantic waters, namely the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of West African states, are exploited by industrial fishing fleets, particularly trawlers and pelagic long liners. Pelagic fishing fleets, including those from countries in the European Union (mainly Spain), operate throughout the region. Industrial trawlers of various nationalities operate mainly out of ports in Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Guinea, Senegal, and Congo-Brazzaville, concentrating their activities in the nutrient-rich waters of the Gulf of Guinea and the upwelling zone between Senegal and Mauritania. There is little, if any, regulation of bottom trawling, such as net and mesh sizes, maximum trawl times. target species, minimum sizes, catch quotas, or damage to marine environments. Moreover, it is common for these foreign trawlers t o fish illegally in coastal zones reserved for artisanal fishers and also t o stray into waters of states where they have n o permits. Although many countries in West Africa have adequate fisheries regulations on the books, the Human-lurtir Interactions at Sea activities of the foreign fleets are largely unregulated. For example, Asian companies often operate the most destructive trawlers in the region, and intergovernmental agreements for funding of infrastructure (such as roads, hospitals, and government buildings, not to mention "kickbacks" involved in accepting the contracts) often guarantee them immunity from regulations and sanctions. In many areas, the protected status of marine turtles, including L. olivacea, is not widely known, and it is likely that fishermen retain the majority of incidentally caught sea turtles, either for sale at port or for consumption on board. INTERACTIONS OTHER T H A N CAPTURE. The Gulf of Guinea and adjacent areas are the focus of intense oil exploitation, which has extended over an increasingly wider region during the last few decades. This represents a serious potential threat to all marine turtles, but especially to L. olivacea; for these turtles can be found in relatively high densities in this area, which is evidently where they concentrate for feeding. Threats related to the oil industry include lowfrequency, high-energy sonic perturbations from explosives used during exploration activities; chemical and physical contamination from drilling, construction of wells and platforms at sea, oil refineries, and pipelines; light pollution from gas flares and other developments; and of course oil slicks. Turtles covered in tar are sometimes found stranded on the beaches of northwestern Cameroon; the marine terminus of the Chad1 Cameroon pipeline represents a serious threat for nearby marine ecosystems and nesting beaches. Waste and plastic debris, as well as oil drums and other materials, from offshore oil platforms are routinely discarded at sea, compounding the problems of urban and industrial pollution. Other threats to both the turtles and their habitats include sewage discharge, agricultural runoff and siltation, eutrophication, discarded fishing gear, drifting logs (from logging activities), and shifting currents and erosion caused by coastal construction. However, there is little if any systematic information on any of these threats. As mentioned above, industrial fishing, especially by foreign fleets, is intense and virtually unregulated. The resultant overfishing and envi- 263 ronmental degradation in certain areas of the eastern Atlantic are likely to be influencing the trophic structure of prey items on which L. olivacea and other marine turtles feed. Certainly, they are depleting fish stocks and other marine resources on which small-scale coastal fishermen depend, forcing greater reliance on alternative sources of protein such as marine turtles. CONCLUSIONS. Although directed fisheries for marine turtles in West Africa are generally small scale and focused on local subsistence needs, their cumulative effects over some 12,000 km of coastline, much of which is densely populated, may represent a significant source of mortality. Mechanized trawling has increased greatly along the Atlantic coast of Africa, and there is widespread evidence of L. olivacea being caught, sometimes in relatively large numbers. At Bijagos Archipelago, Guinea-Bissau, local residents attribute the decline in numbers of nesting ridleys to the mortality caused by offshore trawlers (J. Fretey, personal observation). Coastal strandings of marine turtles are common and widespread, particularly in Cameroon, Nigeria, Benin, Togo, Senegal, and Gabon, and the most commonly reported species is L. olivacea, although C. mydas and D. coriacea are occasionally documented. The causes of strandings can seldom be identified with certainty unless the turtle washes up accompanied by fishing gear. In Nigeria, for example, several strandings have been reported entangled in pieces of thick plastic netting, showing evidence of having been cut away from the rest of the net. Mass strandings have been reported, indicating possible seasonal peaks, notably during the nesting season. For example, in February 2000, a total of 18 L. olivacea strandings were observed along 15 km of shore east of Accra, Ghana, and in November of the same year, 15 strandings were reported in the same area. Similar incidences have been reported in recent years in Gabon and CongoBrazzaville (Renatura and A. Billes, personal communication). Interaction with industrial fisheries is thought to be the gravest indirect threat to L. olivacea in the region. Nonetheless, as is usual for other regions, there are very little systematic data on incidental capture of marine turtles in West 264 JACK FRAZIER ET AL Africa. This is compounded by the fact that commercial fishing vessels often d o not unload o r dock at African ports. and there are n o on-board observer programs. Hence, inferences must be drawn from incomplete sources of information. Many countries in West Africa lack the means (trained. motivated, and supported personnel; boats; equipment; fuel: administrative and legal support: etc.) t o carry out effective coastal patrols in their territorial waters and. even worse. in their EEZs. Moreover. prosecutions for law breaking are rarely given administrative, legal. or political priority. Along the entire Atlantic coast of Africa, the only country where TEDs are legally required is Nigeria, and even there, adequate implementation of the T E D laws is uncommon despite Section 609 certification by the U.S. Department of State (see Frazier and Bache, 2002). Diverse and heavy impacts by commercial fisheries and the petroleum industry o n fish stocks and other marine resources affect not only marine turtles and their habitats but also countless small-scale fisheries, coastal communities, and their livelihoods. The development of accountable and transparent coast guard brigades will be essential t o reduce bycatch and environmental destruction from industrial fisheries and other development activities in the region. Western Indian Ocean Although the eastern Indian Ocean has some of the largest breeding concentrations of L. olivacea known. the species is not generally common in the western Indian Ocean, which extends from the southernmost tip of India, west t o South Africa. The species nests in small numbers along the east coast of Africa, from Mozambique t o Kenya, as well as o n Madagascar (FAO, 2006); with the exception of some beaches in Oman, it has been rarely reported from the Arabian Peninsula (Ross and Barwani, 1982: Baldwin and A-Kiyumi, 1999), and there are regular but relatively small numbers nesting in Sind, Pakistan (Firdous, 2000; Qureshi, 2006) and along the western coast of India, from Gujarat t o Kerala (Kar and Bhaskar, 1982; Sharath, 2002, 2006; Giri, 2001; Sunderraj et al., 2001, 2006; Dileepkumar andJayakumar, 2002; Giri and Chaturvedi, 2003,2006), and also in the Lakshadweep Archi- pelago (Tripathy et al., 2006, in press). Relatively little is recorded about either the biology o r conservation status of L. olivacea in this vast region. Some cultures of the western Indian Ocean have long histories of interacting with marine turtles, with special traditions linking their societies with these reptiles; the Bajun of southern Somalia and northern Kenya (Gudger, 1919a, 1919b; Grottanelli, 1955) and the Vezo of southwestern Madagascar (Astuti. 1995) are clear exan~ples. In contrast, on many parts of the Indian subcontinent, adult sea turtles have not been harmed directly because of long-established Hindu religious beliefs that turtles are an incarnation of Vishnu, one of the Gods of the "Hindu trinity." Likewise, many Muslims do not eat turtles o r turtle products because their Islamic customs forbid it; in many Islamic societies turtles are considered as haram o r unclean because they have an amphibious life (Dileepkumar and Jayakumar, 2006: Qureshi, 2006: Tripathy et a]., 2006). More recently, nationally and internationally recognized, grassroots, communitybased conservation programs have developed t o protect these turtles in this region (e.g.. Shanker and Kutty, 2005; Kutry, 2006). D I R E C T E D T A K E . In general. directed take of L. olivacea from the sea in the western Indian Ocean is uncommon and exists at a very low level. Possible exceptions could occur where the species is especially abundant, o r at least common, and there is also a custom of catching turtles at sea. However, most traditional turtle hunters, such as the Bajun and Vezo, live in areas where C. mydas is common, and L. olivacea is generally uncommon. It was reported that marine turtles in Mozambique are killed, accidentally and intentionally, by fishing activities (Magane et a]., 1998), and L. olivacea can be common in the north of the country. Directed take is thought t o occur in Kenya (FAO, 2006: App. I), but there is little information. Fishermen from the west coast of Madagascar take L. olivacea for meat (Rakotonirina and Cooke, 1994). There also may have been a directed take in Baluchistan, the westernmost province of Pakistan, where for years, there have been reports of a fishery for marine turtles that may include ridleys (Frazier, 1980b; Qureshi, 2001, 2006), but few details are avail- Human-Turtle Interactions a t Sea able. and the characteristics and magnitude of the situation are unclear. In general, the coastal population of the shores of the western Indian Ocean from Tanzania to the Red Sea and around the Arabian Peninsula t o Pakistan is Muslim (Qureshi, 2006), and most of the western coast of India is Hindu (Giri and Chaturvedi, 2006), although the Lakshadweep Islands are predominantly Muslim (Tripathy et a]., 2006'). In both cases there are religious and cultural taboos against consuming turtles (Dileepkumar and jayakumar, 2006), s o there would be fewer motives for people t o be involved in directed take. However, there is some evidence of directed take in the Indian state of Goa. which is mainly Christian (Giri and Chaturvedi, 2006) Along the coasts of eastern Africa, shrimp trawling is known to catch significant numbers of marine turtles. and many, if not most, of these are likely t o b e L. olivacea. However, few detailed data are available. Formerly it was assumed that there was n o significant incidental catch in shrimp trawls in Mozambique but that the beach seine fishery was taking some 20 turtles (species not determined) per month (Magane et a]., 1998). However, more recently a study of by-catch was conducted, and it was estimated that between 6 and 8, o r perhaps as many as 12, turtles are caught by "semiindustrial" trawlers per month, yielding an annual estimate of between nearly 2,000 and more than 5,000 turtles captured annually o n just the Sofala Bank, Mozambique. Although there were n o specific records of L. olivacea (Gove et a]., 2004), it is likely that this species is affected. It was reported that. despite protective legislation, almost every turtle captured in nets in Tanzania is killed, and that the animals are caught in both artisanal and commercial shrimp fisheries. There is some indication that "large numbers" may be caught, and although there is n o confirmation that L. olivacea is commonly taken (Haule et a]., 1998), it is likely that this species is common off the Rufiji delta, where shrimp trawling is also concentrated. Although relatively few trawlers have been licensed t o work in Kenya, there have been significant n u m bers of strandings in Ungwana and Malindi Bays INCIDENTAL CAPTURE. 265 for years, and L. olivacea is one of the species most affected. It has been estimated that at least 100-500 marine turtles (species not specified) are caught annually in this fishery (Wamukoya et a]., 1998). It is also thought that this species is also caught in a variety of other inshore fishing gear in Kenya (F.40, 2006: App. I), but detailed data are scarce. Studies from Eritrea indicate that although significant numbers of marine turtles are caught incidentally in shrimp trawls, L. olivacea are not included (Gebremariam et al., 1998), most likely because the species is uncommon in this region. N o records of captures in shrimp trawls were available from Madagascar, but this is probably because there was n o effort t o document incidental capture of marine turtles (Randriamiarana et a]., 1998). There is n o evidence that L. olivacea is taken in fisheries from any of the other island territories of the western Indian Ocean, for the species is generally rare in these oceanic waters. An on-board observer program was conducted on u p to eight industrial trawlers (mainly from South Korea) during 1989 in Oman. Between May a n d December at least 201 turtles were recorded in the catches, about half of which were estimated t o have died. However, although L. olivacea occurs in Omani waters, n o information is available o n the species of turtles caught by the trawlers (Hare, 1991). Strandings have been reported o n the coast of Sind, Pakistan (Stevens, 1998), but there seem t o be n o data o n incidental capture. There is evidence of fisheries-related mortality in the Indian state of Gujarat, which lies just t o the south, and where fisheries activity has increased since the late 1970s (Sunderraj et al., 2001). Pair trawling off the coast of Gujarat between December 1983 and March 1984 was reported t o have caught 70 C. rnydas (Siraimeetan, 1988). However, this form of marine exploitation is one of the least selective, aside from use of dynamite and poison, so it is likely that L. olivacea would also have been caught. There has been a marked increase in fishing effort in the state of Gujarat, as indicated by the number of fish landing centers; these increased from 477 in 1977 t o 854 in 1992. Yet, relatively few stranded L. olivacea have been found during recent coastal surveys: just nine carcasses were reported from a survey conducted during part of the 2000-2001 season (Sunderraj et a].. 2001. 2006). Early surveys in Gujarat reported that turtle meat was often sold and that the flippers could be hacked off to make rough shoes for walking on coral (Bhaskar, 1979, 1984). However, more recent surveys in this state found no evidence for the sale of turtle meat (Sunderraj et a]., 2001). Hence, at least in recent years. there is little evidence for incidental capture. In Maharashtra state there are reports of incidental capture of L. olivacea by trawlers, but evidently numbers are relatively small. For religious reasons most fishermen in Maharashtra d o not harm turtles but instead release them from their nets: however. meat consumption is reported from two of the five coastal districts, where it is carried out in an opportunistic manner and probably based mainly on incidental captures (Giri, 2001; Giri and Chaturvedi, 2003. 2006). It is believed that consumption of turtle meat in Goa, predominantly a Christian state, was widespread in earlier times. although this seems to be much reduced now (Giri. 2001; Giri and Chaturvedi, 2006). In contrast. meat consumption in Karnataka state is reported to be rare (Madhyastha et a]., 1986)..whereas in Kerala, particularly in the south where the population is mainly Christian, meat is consumed (Dileepkumarandlayakumar, 2002,2006). Hence, even though L. olivacea is common along the western coast of India, in those areas where there seems t o be little demand for marine turtle meat, there appear to be few motives to catch and keep turtles. Unlike other island territories, the Lakshadweep Archipelago has moderate numbers of L. olivacea nesting (Tripathy et a]., 2002, 2006, in press). Here, turtles, although not usually eaten, are killed for the oil used to treat wooden boats, for bait, and for making stuffed curios; however, L. olivacea is not common in the inshore areas where most turtles are captured. There are only 22 records of the species in the Maldives, although it has been suggested that Maldivian offshore waters may be a significant foraging area for juveniles (Anderson et al., 2003). Remarkably, half of all L. olivacea reported from Maldives were either entangled in discarded fishing gear (41%) or caught incidentally in oceanic driftnets o r long lines (9%). Although the sample sizes are admittedly small, it was concluded that entanglement in discarded fishing gear is a significant source of mortality for this turtle in the central Indian Ocean (Anderson et a]., 2003). INTERACTIONS OTHER T H A N CAPTURE. Various forms of pollution, such as plastics, agrochemicals, urban wastes, and particularly lost and discarded fishing gear, are likely to have important impacts on marine turtles throughout the region, but there is n o systematic information available. Major threats to marine turtles on the coast of Gujarat are petrochemical industries. sand mining. and harbor activities (Sunderraj et a]., 2001, 2006), and similar concerns have been raised for the coast of Maharashtra (Giri and Chaturvedi, 2006). CONCLUSIONS. Clearly, there is a tremendous paucity of basic information on both the biology and conservation status of L. olivacea from the western Indian Ocean. This turtle is generally uncommon in this region, and other species, namely C. mydas and E. imbricata, have been given higher priority because they are (or were) abundant and have been the focus of directed fisheries in many countries (Frazier, 1980b. 1982). If the relatively small, dispersed nesting populations throughout the western Indian Ocean are found to have unique genetic characteristics, more attention may be warranted. Eastern Indian Ocean Marine turtles have been important for nutritional, economic, and cultural reasons in several places in the eastern Indian Ocean. However, toward the end of the twentieth century there have been repeated signs that turtle populations in various countries had declined, and they were no longer economically viable or as culturally significant as before. In contrast to the situation in the western Indian Ocean, L. ohvacea is the most abundant marine turtle in the eastern Indian Ocean, with three sites in Orissa, India, where massed nesting occurs: Gahirmatha (in Bhitarkanika National Park), Devi, and Rushikulya. For decades it has been alleged that Gahirmatha hosts the largest concentration in the world of L. olivacea (or any other marine turtle), and although this Human-Turtle Interactions a t Sea claim recently has been challenged (Tripathy, 2002'). the number of turtles that mass each year is extraordinarily large: hundreds of thousands. O n the eastern shores of the Bay of Bengal, however. this species is uncommon (Tow and Moll, 1982). and in some places, such as Myanmar, there has been confusion between C. caretta and L. olivacea, which is complicated by the fact that few data are available (DF-GUM, 1999; Thorbjarnarson et a]., 2000). Remarkably, with the enormous numbers that occur in Orissa, there is n o clear idea where the adult turtles live once they have left the nesting area. Out of nearly 10,000 turtles tagged at Gahirmatha, Devi, and Rushikulya, 24 have been recaptured in the Gulf of Mannar, between India and Sri Lanka, and elsewhere o n the coast of Sri Lanka, leading to suggestions that this may be an important foraging area for L. olivacea in the eastern Indian Ocean (Kapurusinghe and Cooray. 2002; Pandav and Choudhury. 2006; see also Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2006). In addition, there are several reports of concentrations of these turtles in Sri Lankan waters, suspected to have been migrating t o nesting beaches in India (Kar and Bhaskar, 1982). However, a satellite telemetry study found that one of four postnesting females from Devi went as far as southeastern Sri Lanka, turning east before transmissions stopped, which headed the animal away from the Gulf of Mannar (J. Frazier et a]., unpublished data). There is a higher probability for turtles t o be observed, caught, and tags returned from active fishing areas such as the Gulf of Mannar than from areas with lower fishing effort o r from the high seas. Hence, although Sri Lankan waters, particularly the Gulf of Mannar, may be an important area for L. olivacea, there are likely to be other locations, perhaps with even larger numbers of turtles. DIRECTED T A K E . Directed fisheries involving L. olivacea are known t o occur in Sri Lanka as well as in the four Indian states that border the Bay of Bengal: Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal. In general, these are locations where marine turtles, including this species, are sinplarly abundant, at least during certain times of the year. Elsewhere in the eastern Indian Ocean basin, there appear t o have been few directed fisheries for this turtle. 267 Marine turtles of several species have been taken at sea by Sri Lankan fishermen from various parts of the island. T h e Tamils and Sinhalese Christians in northern Sri Lanka have been involved in turtle exploitation for generations, and the Tamils in Jaffna were renowned as accomplished turtle catchers, using a variety of nets t o capture sea turtles (Frazier, 1980b; Hews\''isenthi, 1990; de Silva, 2006). Decades ago it was estimated that 1,500 turtles were caught yearly in Jaffna alone, and about 2,000-3,000 animals o n the entire island (Hoffmann, cited in Frazier, 1980b, 1982). There are reports of relatively high rates of catch by Jaffha fishermen: 100 turtles taken in one fisherman's nets over a 4- to 5-day period (Somander 1963), and 78 turtles, almost all of which were L. olivacea, being caught in a single net (Hoffmann, cited in Kar and Bhaskar, 1982). Over 3 days, 16 turtles were butchered at Negombo village (Perera, 1986). and a daily average of 10 turtles were landed and butchered at Kandakkuliya village (Gunawardane, 1986); in both cases with these west coast villages, the majority of the turtles were L. olivacea. At Kandakkuliya, 13 L. olivacea were butchered in one morning, and it wasestimated that an average of at least 20 per week were killed, yielding an estimate of over I ,000 turtles killed annually in just Kandakkuliya, a village with an estimated 1,000 fishermen (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). Dattatri and Samarajiva (1982) reported carapaces of this turtle in nearly every coastal village of Sri Lanka (except o n the east coast, which was not surveyed); in one village north of Puttalam on the west coast, they counted 250 carapaces during a single visit, and they considered L. olivacea t o be a common and heavily exploited species. Several other reports from the early 1980s (Wickremasinghe, 1981) concurred that this was the most common species. Remarkably, surveys in the 1990s indicate that C. mydas is the most c o m m o n species of marine turtle in Sri Lanka, and this has led t o suggestions that there may have been a significant decline in L. olivacea in Sri Lankan waters (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). However, because there are n o specific studies o r long-term monitoring, the situation is unclear, and a variety of estimates have been offered for different years and coastal areas. Finally, it is not often discernible if figures for turtle exploitation in Sri Lanka deal with directed take, 268 JACK FRAZIER E f A I . stemming from a specific fishery, o r from incidental take, supplemental t o another fishery. but with the turtles eagerly kept for consumption (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). De Silva (2006) provides a summary of historic information from Sri Lanka, indicating that at least during the later part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century thousands of L. olivacea were captured each year in directed fisheries. Directed take of turtles is not usual in India, particularly at sea. Clear exceptions seem to have occurred in certain places in the states of Tamil Nadu. Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal, which together form the western shore to the Bay of Bengal. T h e Tamils of southern India were, like the Tamils of northern Sri Lanka, accomplished turtle fishermen. In the Gulf of Mannar and Tuticorin, marine turtles have been caught for generations in special turtle nets (Kuriyan, 1950; Valliapan and Pushpara.;. 1973). It has been estimated that during the middle of the twentieth century, some 5,000 turtles, of which approximately 75% were C. n~ydas,were landed annually in southern Tamil Nadu for both local consumption and export (Jones and Fernando, 1968). For the period between 1971 and 1974, it has been estimated that annu,al exports of turtle products from this fishery, mainly t o Japan, the United States, and Europe, ranged between 1,000 and 2,500 kg (Murthy, 1981). There seem t o be n o detailed figures on the species composition, but L. olivacea should have comprised at least some of the catch; recent years appear t o have experienced a relative increase in exploitation of this turtle, as the preferred C. mydas has become less abundant (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2003, 2006). However, with the exception of the extreme south of the state, where turtles are (or were) intentionally captured for local consumption of both meat and blood as well as for export, most people in Tamil Nadu d o not consume turtles, and intentional capture is currently relatively uncommon (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2003). Nevertheless, illegal meat and blood are still sold in "underground" markets (K. Shanker, personal observation). In Andhra Pradesh, the state immediately t o the north, there has not been an organized turtle fishery. Nonetheless, it was reported that some 800 L. olivacea were caught for local trade, of which 648 were captured offshore during mating (Raja Sekhar and Subba Rao, 1988). This. however, seems to have been an isolated occurrence for this state. for there is a religious taboo on eating turtle in the fishing communities in Andhra Pradesh (Tripathy and Choudhury, 2001: Tripathy et a]., 2006). Orissa, the next state to the north. is world famous for the massed nesting beaches of L. olivacea. Although the inhabitants of the state are not known for eating marine turtles. the large massed nesting populations, particularly off of Gahirmatha, have attracted fishermen from West Bengal and Bangladesh, where seafood and other aquatic, freshwater animals are openly consumed, even by some Brahmins (the Hindu caste in which people typically have the most restrictions t o their diet, including a ban on animal matter). As a result, there have been intense fisheries for L. olivacea in coastal Orissa (Biswas, 1982: Silas et a].. 1983a, 1983b; Kar and Dash, 1984). Kar and Dash 0984). Das (1985'). Dash and Kar (1990). and Chada and Kar 0 9 9 9 ) summarize the directed take of L. olivacea in Orissa. At first there was n o organized fishery. although turtles caught incidentally in fishing nets were brought t o shore and sent overland to markets. The massed nesting beach at Gahirmatha was first described in 1974, and by the mid-19iOs, a turtle fishery quickly became organized. In 1975 the government of Orissa prohibited the collection of eggs and the capture of adult turtles, but at-sea captures continued (Kar, 1980). Turtles in the waters offshore of Devi and Astaranga, which is south of Gahirmatha, were caught at sea, landed, and sent by boat, truck, bus, and train t o Howrah, the main fish market of Calcutta. Most Oriyas d o not purposefully kill turtles because of religious reasons, and this fishery was operated mainly by immigrants o r temporary inhabitants from West Bengal and Bangladesh. It was estimated that between 1975 and 1983 about 1,000 fishermen were involved in the fishery, which lasted 5-6 months a year while the turtles were massed in the offshore waters of Orissa. Turtles were simply captured directly from the surface of the sea. Although there is n o detailed study, the numbers involved obviously were very large; for example, during just the 3 months from November 1974 through January 1975, more than 6,000 turtles are known to have Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea been booked from various train stations in Orissa for delivery to Howrah. Because turtles were often booked as "fishery products" o r with false documentation (to avoid prosecution for trading in legally protected species), it is impossible to know the precise numbers involved. But it is estimated that between 50,000 and 80.000 turtles of adult size and of both sexes were taken from Orissa each year until the 1982-1983 nesting season. when the authorities finally were able to patrol the offshore areas. and only about 10,000 turtles are thought to have been taken that year. However. an illegal fishery continued for a number of years later (for more details see Dash and Kar, 1990: Chada and Kar. 1999). A major demographic change that is thought to have promoted this boom in turtle captures is the mechanization of fisheries beginning in the early 1970s. Directed fisheries for these turtles in West Bengal waters have probably been active for decades. and people from this state routinely went t o Orissa t o exploit eggs and turtles. A wellorganized fishery. transport, and marketing network was described in 1982. and it was reasoned that this was promoted by a lack of success in other fishing activities (Silas et a]., 1983b); instead of simply keeping turtles incidentally caught in nets, fishermen would specifically look for L. ohacea floating at the surface and catch the animals by hand. Raut and Nandi ( 1 988) provided a summary of the fishery in West Bengal, explaining that it was a "supplementary fishery," but nonetheless, the practice had become quite common by the mid-1980s; they estimated that nearly 20,000 were captured between November 1983 and February 1984. T h e West Bengal and Orissa fisheries were probably based on the same population of turtles, and because the two states are neighbors, it is difficult t o interpret figures and estimates of turtle capture in simple terms of state fisheries; in the main, the figures are most likely to apply to captures made in Orissa's waters. Marine turtles are consumed by aboriginal ethnic groups as well as most settlers in the Andamans and Nicobars. There are descriptions of turtle-hunting methods as well as rituals for Great Andamanese (Man, 1883), and turtle spearing has been reported more recently (Bhaskar, 1979). Although most of the turtles taken from 269 these t w o island groups are likely t o have been C. mydas, there are significant numbers of L. 01;vacea in these waters (Bhaskar, 1993; Andrews et a]., 2001. 2006), s o it is also likely that they have been subjected t o directed take. Very few communities in Bangladesh consume turtle meat, but some turtles are taken for the souvenir and curio trade, which seems t o be growing (Rashid and Islam, 2006). There appears to be n o information o n directed take of L. olivacea at sea from countries on the eastern side of the Bay of Bengal: Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, and Malaysia. This indicates that if there is a fishery, the numbers taken annually are not large. In those areas where the human population is largely Muslim (Bangladesh, western Myanmar, southern Thailand. and Malaysia), there would be relatively little attraction in catching turtles, for they are usually not eaten. INCIDENTAL CAPTURE. Over the past decade it has become clear that, although not well understood o r studied, by-catch is a significant source of mortality t o marine turtles in this region. As with information o n directed take in Sri Lanka, there are various estimates o n incidental capture. ranging from a total of 400 turtles annually for the entire island (Jinadasa, 1984) to 16 turtles in a three-day period at Kandakuliya fishing village (Gunawardene, 1986) t o 10 turtles per day for just one village (Perera, 1986). In the last two cases, L. olivacea was observed to be the species most commonly captured. An attempt t o systematically estimate bycatch in Sri Lanka was conducted through a network of fishermen interviews for 12 months, between November 1999 and October 2000 (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). T h e largest figure comes from Galle village, in the southwest, where it was estimated that more than 2,000 turtles have been caught annually by the many vessels that harbor there and that this level of incidental capture probably has been occurring for at least a decade. O n the basis of the study, it was estimated that 5,241 turtles were caught incidentally, of which 1,626 (31%) were reported t o b e L. olivacea. A wide variety of gear is used, including at least six types of nets and seines as well as hooks of various sorts. Most turtles are captured in nets, particularly bottom drift gill- 270 JACK FRAZIER ET A1 nets (e.g., ray and sharknets), gillnets (e.g.,those that target flying fish), a n d t u n a nets. Although Kapurusinghe and Cooray's (2002) study is one of the few investigations in the region specifically focused o n incidental capture, the results must be interpreted carefully. The 12month survey was restricted t o the southern and about half the western coasts, less than 30% of total coast. Clearly, much of the northern area, renowned for its well-established turtle fishery, has been dangerous t o access because of civil war. In those areas where access was less dangerous. it was clear that in many cases the numbers reported during the survey were underestimates because fishermen were afraid of being persecuted for catching and consuming legally protected turtles. Despite laws and religious beliefs, turtles are commonly killed and consumed, and there is a widespread. if small-scale, directed fishery; in many cases incidental catches are eagerly exploited, sometimes with the explanation that this compensates for damage t o gear caused by the turtles (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). Other studies have also concluded that incidental catch in Sri Lankan waters is an important source of turtle mortality (de Silva, 2006). A survey of the Tamil Nadu coast between November 2000 and April 2001 yielded a record of 377 dead, stranded L. olivacea, more than 60% of which came from Nagapatinam, just north of Point Calimere and Sri Lanka (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2002,2003). There has been a market in the southern part of the state, where there was once a specialized turtle fishery, and sale of meat and blood persists even though it is illegal. Hence, turtles caught accidentally in the south would likely be channeled t o an underground market, and it would be difficult to get reliable figures o n incidental take. Although there was once a turtle fishery in Tamil Nadu, the majority of turtles consumed (illegally) today are from incidental capture, which is widespread along the coast (Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2003. 2006; K. Shanker, personal observation). Between October and December 2000, a research trawler that operated in the northern part of Andhra Pradesh caught only L. olivacea, with an average rate of one turtle per 90-minute trawl. In November most were males, and in December the proportion of females increased; this was taken as evidence that the turtles were migrating through Andhra Pradesh en route t o the massed nesting areas in Orissa. There were also reports of turtles being caught in gillnets and beach seines. Between May 2000 and March 2001, a total of 806 dead turtles, only 2 of which were not L. olivacea, were recorded, mainly along the northern coast: more than 70% of these carcasses were female (Tripathy et al., 2003, 2006). In comparison, a 3-year study beginning in 1984 produced an estimate of 577 stranded turtles along the northern coast (Raja Sekhar and Subba Rao, 1988), the majority of which were likely t o have been L. olivacea. The apparent upsurge in strandings in recent years is likely to be from increased fishing effort with gear that is accidentally catching and drowning turtles in the waters of Andhra Pradesh, and incidental catch is regarded as a major problem in this state (Tripathy et a].. 2006). By far the most remarkable figures o n incidental capture of L. olivacea anywhere are from Orissa. In the mid-l970s, mechanized shrimp trawling began to increase, and even then there were indications that trawlers were taking turtles at sea (Kar, 1980). Beginning in the 19821983 season, extraordinary numbers of turtles were documented washing u p dead, with from 55 to 150 carcasses per 100 m of beach, and an estimated 7,000-7,500 carcasses over a 15-km stretch of beach (e.g., Silas et al., 1983a). During the 1983-1984 nesting season alone, it was estimated that more than 3,000 carcasses of L. olivacea stranded along a 10-km stretch of beach in the Gahirmatha study area, and an additional 1,000 carcasses were on beaches to the north (Dash and Kar, 1990). Every nesting season since then, for the past two decades, thousands (if not tens of thousands) of turtles have stranded dead o n the beaches of Orissa. More intensive beach surveys were begun in the 1993-1994 season (Pandav et al., 1994, 1997), and these continued for a period of six seasons, until 1998-1999. A peak in stranded carcasses was reached in the 1997-1998 season, when 13,575 L. olivacea were counted on the beaches from Gahirmatha south some 350 krn to the border with Andhra Pradesh, and over the six seasons more than 46,200 carcasses were counted. There was a clear relationship between number of trawlers active in a zone and the numbers of carcasses that were counted in that zone (Pandav, 2000). Since then, discarded net is reported from both Andaman on the Orissa coast each year (Wright and Moand Nicobar Islands (Andrews et al.. 20061. There hanty, 2006). could also be significant illegal fishing within the However, trawlers are not the only source of EEZ by vessels from neighboring nations. parincidental capture and mortality. In the same ticularly from Southeast Asia. and this could have a significant impact on turtles in pelagic areas of coastal Orissa where an estimated 900 waters. notably L. olivacea. trawlers operate, there are also an estimated 5,000 vessels using gillnets. O n February 17. Evidently, the modernization of the fishing fleet in Bangladesh has resulted in increased 2002, a portion of gillnet washed ashore at Gundalba Beach with 205 dead, rotting L. ol~vacea mortality to marine turtles. which is greatest during the nesting season (Rashid and Islam, entangled. By this date, about two-thirds of the way through the season, more than 10,000 car2006). Various types of gillnets and drift nets used around St. Martin's Island. Bangladesh, are casses had been tallied, and it was reported that some 75,000 carcasses had been counted in the reported t o catch marine turtles. and mechanized trawlers also operate in these waters. six seasons from 1996-1997 to 2001-2002 (Wright and Mohanty, 2002). More than 51 carcasses of L. odvacca stranded during the 2000-2001 season. In 2001, fishermen There is evidence that the fishing effort in Orissa has more than doubled in the last t w o reported seeing "numerous dead turtles" floatdecades, with substantive increases in incidental ing in oceanic concentrations, and it was sugtake. For example, it is estimated that there has gested that, given the size of the phenomenon. been a threefold increase in mechanized fishing there could have been hundreds o r thousands of craft in India, from 19,210 in 1980 t o 47.706 in turtles (Islam, 2002). However, there are n o 1994, while the numbers of nonmechanized details on rates of catch o r to what extent L. olicraft remained relatively constant during the vacea are affected. Additionally, there is evidence same period, at about 150,000, although "tradithat fishermen will kill turtles found entangled tional boats" with outboard motors increased in nets, for they ,are regarded as bad omens from 0 t o 36,000 (Rajagopalan et a]., 1996). (Islam, 2002). However, conflicting evidence inThese increases in mechanized fishing vessels, dicates that some fishermen will not harm gillnets, and trawl nets, and port facilities (Dash marine turtles in Bangladesh, as it is thought t o bring bad luck (Das, 1989). and Kar, 1990) have promoted substantial increases in the overall fishing effort in the area There seems t o be little systematic informawhere the turtles concentrate, s o it is to be extion on incidental capture of L. olivacea from the pected that large numbers will b e caught incieastern shores of the Bay of Bengal: Myanmar, dental to fishing operations, even though the anThailand, o r Malaysia. However, given the fact imals are legally protected and much of the area that there are many fishing activities, and fishing where they are caught is within a marine reserve. effort generally has increased throughout the Clearly. incidental capture is a major source of region, it is t o be expected that incidental catch ridley mortality in Orissa (Pandav et a]., 2006). is a significant issue. During a recent coastal survey in West Bengal, 514 dead L. olivacea were recorded, all of INTERACTIONS OTHER T H A N CAPTURE. which were attributed t o trawlers (RoychoudT h e usual threats, including marine and landhurv, 2001). With an estimated 2,000 trawlers in based pollution as well as lost and discarded fishthe state, and a "rough estimate" of 20 turtles ing gear, are likely t o be most problematic where (nearly all L. olivacea) caught per trawler per year both fishing and coastal development are most (Chowdhury et a]., 2006), it is clear that incidenintense. In Sri Lanka, mining and construction tal capture is a major source of turtle mortality industries have destroyed large areas of reef, and in West Bengal. There is little information from tourism and beach armoring have disturbed imthe Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but it has portant nesting areas (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, been estimated that 2,000-3,000 turtles (of all 2002; d e Silva, 2006). Various types of land-based species) are caught in shark nets each year, just pollution, stemming from increased coastal dein the Andaman Islands; turtle entanglements in velopment, are of concern in Andhra Pradesh 10.000-15.000 dead turtles have been counted Tripathy et a]., 2006), and the same is true in Bangladesh (Rashid and Islam, 2006). A fertilizer plant in Paradeep, Orissa, discharges effluents into the Mahanandi River, which wash directly out t o sea in the vicinity of Gahirmatha. The discharges include phosphogypsum together with radioactive radium-226, which releases radon. fluorine, sulfuric acid, and sulfur dust. Preliminary surveys revealed evidence of marked environmental and trophic perturbations, and there is concern that the turtles downstream of the plant will be affected, not t o mention the thousands of people w h o have been injured (Anon. 2002; Mohanty, 2002a, 2002b). Developing and planned port facilities, such as Dharnla, which is within kilometers of the Gahirmatha nesting beach, have raised concerns among turtle conservationists (Sekhsaria, 2004a; Pandav et a].. 2006), as have offshore oil exploration and extraction activities o n the Orissa coast (Sekhsaria. 2004b); it is argued that this can only have serious impacts on the large seasonal concentrations of L. olivacea. In the Andaman Islands, plastics and other debris are abundant in several channels where turtles also concentrate and where boat strikes also occur; dumping from shipping and bilge wastes also may be a significant problem (Singh et a]., 2003). In general. however, there appears t o be relatively little specific information from this region on what are known from other regions t o be serious threats t o marine turtles. CONCLUSIONS. General reports from the eastern Indian Ocean on directed take and the eating of turtle meat are not all directly relevant to L. olivacea. T h e general information o n meat consumption, however, does indicate that at least some people in these places are not averse to killing these turtles if they come upon them, despite generalizations about religious and cultural taboos. Northern Sri Lanka, southern Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal clearly have the strongest customs of catching and consuming marine turtles, and there is some evidence that populations of L. olivacea may have been affected. Nevertheless, all indications are that incidental capture not only is more widespread but results in considerably more mortality: routinely, the source of turtle meat is incidentally caught animals. Obtaining reliable estimates of rates. o r even numbers, of incidentally caught L. olivace, is not easy. The recent estimates from Sri Lanka although based on one of the few studies tha have specifically addressed by-catch, apply ti less than half the national coastline; in additior there were clearly cases of underreporting in a1 attempt to avoid prosecution (Kapurusingh, and Cooray, 2002). In an estimate of the mortal ity of marine turtles along the entire coast c India, Rajagopalan et al. (2001) suggested tha between 1997 and 1999 from about 2.000 ti 3,000 turtles were caught or stranded yearly (ex cluding the coast of Gahirmatha) and that abou half of these were dead turtles that had washei ashore. However, on the basis of the estimate from detailed state surveys, involving on-the ground field work forjust the four states of easi ern India (e.g., Pandav, 2000; Roychoudhuq 2001; Bhupathy and Saravanan, 2002, 2003 Tripathy et a]., 20031, the number of turtle stranded appears t o be much greater than tha estimated by Rajagopalan et al. (2001'1. More over. because a dead turtle at sea will be drivel according to winds and currents, not all cai casses will wash ashore (Epperly et a].. 1996). I is not known what proportion of the total num ber of dead turtles were counted on the beache: possibly half o r less. For years it has been known that trawler catch and kill large - numbers of L. olivacea in th waters of Orissa, but recent studies have show] that a variety of gear, including several kinds c nets and hooks, can catch and kill substantic numbers of turtles (Kapurusinghe and Coora! 2002). In India it was estimated that gillnet catch nearly four times as many turtles as trawler (Rajagopalan et a]., 2001), but because the ovei all estimates may be questionable (see above), i is unclear how to interpret the findings on rela tive effects of different types of gear. There has been a growing awareness of th pressing need to develop gear modifications an1 strive for less destructive fishing practices, in cluding the use of TEDs, in various countrie of the region. In India this has been the sourc of tremendous conflict (Choudhury, 2003; Be hera, 2006), but there is hope that, at least ii Andhra Pradesh, there will be greater responsi bility by the fisheries sector (Sankar and Raji: 2003, 2006). The situation in Orissa, where th turtle mortality is greatest, is less clear. Thes Huntati-Turtle l t t t e r a r r i m a t Sea boat owners are politically powerful and aggressive (Pandav, 2003), and there has been at least one incident of a guard of the Orissa Forest Department being killed by a boat crew (WPSI, 2003). T h e eastern Indian Ocean is of tremendous importance for L. olivacea, with some of the largest breeding concentrations in the world. Logically, this region must also have some of the largest concentrations of migratory turtles, but relatively little is documented. Tag returns from southern Tamil Nadu (Bhupthy and Saravanan, 2002) as well as Sri Lankan waters in the Gulf of Mannar (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002) indicate that these may be important foraging and migration areas for the turtles that nest in Orissa. Further evidence comes from opportunistic reports of large concentrations of "migrating" L. olivacea in these areas (Hoffmann, cited in Kar and Bhaskar, 1982; Silas et a]., 1984; Bhupthy and Saravanan, 2002). Recent evidence indicates that numbers of L. olivacea have declined throughout the eastern Indian Ocean. In Sri Lanka it is common for fishermen to kill and sell turtles that become entangled as a means of compensating for damage t o nets and loss of fish catch (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). Because L. olivacea evidently had been one of the most commonly caught species until the 1990s (Wickremasinghe, 1981; Dattatri and Samarajiva, 1982), significant numbers of these turtles have been caught and killed in Sri L,anka for many years. It has been suggested that incidental capture may be one of the most important sources of mortality in Sri Lanka and that this has provoked a decline in numbers (Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002). There are indications that the enormous nesting population in Orissa has been affected by both directed take and incidental capture (Shanker et a]., 2003). Much smaller nesting populations in the region also have declined, including Bangladesh, notably St. Martin's Island (Islam, 2002); Myanmar (Thorbjarnarson et a]., 2000); and Thailand, notably Phra Thong Island (Limpus, 1995; Aureggi and Chantrapornsyl, 2003). The eastern Indian Ocean not only has some of the largest concentrations of L. olivacea in the world but also has some of the largest, and most impoverished, populations of people. Despite religious and cultural beliefs that protect turtles, 273 and the acknowledged need to control destructive fishing practices. it seems unlikely that present threats to these animals are going to subside in the immediate future (Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). Numerous public education and community-based programs have made great advances in increasing the awareness of the need for protecting turtles from the diverse and large sources of mortality. and these initiatives should continue t o have important effects (e.g., Kutfv, 2001 : Dharani. 2003: Dongre, 2003; Shanker, 2003). There also have been recommendations t o allow for a controlled, and much reduced, annual take of mainly injured and deformed turtles in Orissa. as a means to provide a source of protein and give local people a direct benefit from the resource (Dash and Kar, 1990); however, this proposal has not been explored, much less implemented. Southeast Asia: "Greater Sunda Sea" T h e waters of Southeast Asia (excluding the Andaman Sea), including the Gulf of Thailand, Gulf of Tonkin. South China Sea. Celebes Sea, Java Sea, Banda Sea, Timor Sea, Arafura Sea (much of which is taken together as the Sunda Sea), and extending t o the Gulf of Carpentaria. have variously been considered t o be part of either the eastern Indian Ocean o r the western Pacific. In fact, this area has some of the greatest diversity in marine species in the world. Although the surface area is relatively small, there is an enormous, complex coastline with large continental stretches, countless islands, and vast areas of tropical, shallow seas. This provides large areas of nesting and feeding habitat for marine turtles, including L. olivacea. T h e species is recorded nesting throughout the region, and in most cases there have been clear, even dramatic, declines in annual numbers nesting (Chantrapornsyl, 1994; Kamarruddin, 1994; Limpus, 1994,1997; Kalim and Dermawan, 1999; Taha, 1999; Shanker and Pilcher, 2003). In general, throughout this region much more attention has been given t o C. mydas, D. coriacea, and E. imbricata, s o that relatively little is documented o n L. olivacea (Limpus, 1997). Apparently, the t w o largest nesting concentrations are in Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia, and northern Australia; the former has declined in about 50 years from an estimated 1,000 t o a few dozen an- nual nesters, and the latter hosts an estimated 500-1.000 annual nesters iKamarruddin. 1994; Limpus, 1994: WMS-EA, 1998 1. The most cornrnonly discussed problems are the overexploitation of eggs and increases in fishing activities. carried out over decades (Tow and Moll. 19'32; 1.impus. 1997). One common problem is the lack of systenlatic. long-term data, a problem that was underscored in nearly all country reports at the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center iSE.4FDFCUSEAN iAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations i Regional Workshop o n St.\] 'I'LIIP tie Conservation and Mi~n~agenient, l i ~ l dJuly 26-28, 1999. in Ktula ' I ' e r e n ~ i i i u .Mal.ysiii. The numbers of turtles ncstmfiin MiiLiysiii. derived from egg collection delta. h.ive declined drastically ( Riimli iind Hiew. 1 W Y i. but fe\\ reports provide any information l b n l i e Miili'iysicin states in Borneo: S.ibCiha i d Sin-a\viik.The turtle pop~il~itions along Thai i-oa.st-i o n the C u l t of Thailand are thought to h ~ v edeclined, but httle detailed information is available iChar~ichinda and Chanti-apornsyl, 1999). Although there <ire n o detailed data, L. olivi.icea is reported to be the most abundant marine turtle in Brunei D a r ~ i s salain. but there has been a'decline in nesting in the east. especially as a result of coastal developniem (Taha. 1999). In Cambodia little is k n o w n , but marine turtle populations are said to be decreasing, and fishing activities seem to be related to the decline (Try, 19991; little seenib t o be known from i'ietn'lm ~Viiiliiwd Thuoc, 19Wi. Although the species seems t o be relatively uncommon in the Philippines, records '11-e \\id?spread (Cruz, 1999). In Indonesia. it was reported that there has been an increase in i i e s r i i i ~ i ttwo national parks in East Java, Alas Purwi) and Jamursba-Medi (Kalim and Dermawan. 1999); however, the increased numbers reported may result from increased beach-nionitorin~;efforts. D I R E C T E D T A K E . 1" many places throughout the "Greater S ~ i n d aS e a marine turtles are not eaten for religious and cultural reasons. However. in several places in Indonesia turtles are taken for both consumption and trade, and they have been caught at sea with nets, harpoons, and "Hawaiian slings'' (Polunin and S~imertha Nuitja, 1982). It was reported thiir there is n o "significant" take in countries neighboring Australia (Linlp~is.1997): however, i t is believed that the species is severely affected by directed take o f nesting females along much of the coast of Vietnam (TRAFFIC, 2004). What directed take does occur is poorly understood and rarely documented. so i t may be prudent to reserve judgment about whether o r not directed take has been significant until more information is available. INCIDIfl'l'AL (:,-lPTL'RI;. Over the past decades fishing effort has increased e n o r m o ~ ~ sthroughly out the region. and although it has been known for ijeetick's that 1.. ol1vacea are affected, there is little systematic infoi-rrii~ionon their incidental capture and mortality. k:or example, between 1'156 m J 197'3. marine fisheries landings in PeninsuLir MaLiysin increased more than five times. with much greater effort from gillnets i ~ i ~t ~d~ ~ i w lmd e r ~i.t was generally known that this hiul "taken '1 heavy toll on turtles," It was reported that in 197.3 ' a bottom long line for rays caused a massive kill of ridleys at Setiu, Terengganu" iTo\v ,ind Moll. 1982). Some of the earliest and most detailed information on incidental catch is from the waters oft Terengganu, Malaysia. where i t was estimated that more than 440 L. 0/1\~i11~tu were caught annually by trawlers, drift, and gillnets i C h m et al., 1988). Gillnets, long lines, and particularly trawlers were all identifiei-i 'is important sources of mortality for marine turtles in Thai waters (Chantrapornsyl, 1994; Charuchinda and Chantrapornsyl, 1999). Various fishing activities, namely trawling and long-lining, have been known to catch turtles incidentally in Indonesian waters (Polunin and Sumertha Nuitjd, 1982). Although in the Philippines L. dhvaa"~is not c o n ~ m o n l ysighted, and numbers are thought to be low, there seem to be records of capture throughout the archipelago P a l m a , 19971. There are general comments that L. olivacca is "incidentally caught in fisheries operating in the Gulf of Papua," Papua New Guinea i WMS-EA, 1998). and two records of capture by trawlers in this Gulf (Ulaiwi, 1997). In Vietnam there are records of incidental capture, but because turtles are symbols of longevity, if they are still alive when incidentally caught. they are generally released back to the sea (Vinh Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea and Thuoc, 1999). Nonetheless, it is believed that the species is severely affected by incidental capture along much of the country's coast (TRAFFIC. 2004). In an attempt t o quantify anthropogenic sources of mortality in Australia, the Marine Recovery Team had t o conclude that the species is "poorly documented" and that the "lack of certain knowledge about this species within Australia is a cause of concern." Both trawls and gillnets were known t o cause mortality (WMS-EA, 1998). There are reported to be "low numbers as by-catch in the Northern Prawn Trawl" (Harris, 1994, cited in WMS-EA, 1998), but the conclusion that this was not of immediate concern has been criticized, and it was argued that trawling and other gear d o pose real threats t o turtles, particularly L. olivacea, about which s o little is known in these waters (Guinea and Whiting, 1997). For the population that occurs in north Australian waters, Limpus (1997) reported that "the species is drowned sufficiently commonly in fishing gear (prawn trawl and gillnets) t o raise the concern that this species is probably as threatened as the loggerhead turtle in Australia." There is at least one record of an estimated 300 turtles being drowned in just one 2,000-m shark gillnet over a two-week period in northern Australia, 85% of which were L. olivacea (Guinea and Chatto, 1992; Limpus, 1994; WMS-EA, 1998). INTERACTIONS OTHER THAN CAPTURE. Several locations in the region have active petrochemical ventures, including offshore exploration and extraction as well as onshore refineries and other activities. Water pollution and destruction of feeding habitat by irresponsible fishing activities were recognized as problems in Thailand (Charuchinda and Chantrapornsyl, 1999). Chan and Liew (1988) drew attention t o the fact that these effects represent serious threats t o marine turtles in the area, but because of a lack of fundamental information, they were compelled t o recommend that basic studies be carried out. It is unclear if the institutions responsible have advanced much in this regard. It also has been suggested that plastics may be a major source of pollution and mortality in this region (Limpus, 1994). and discarded and lost 275 nets are known t o k i l l turtles in Australian waters (WMS-EA. 1998), but little systematic information is available. In the mid-1990s, scattered accounts from northern Australia began t o document stranded turtle carcasses, including L. olivacea, entangled in marine debris, including net webbing (Chatto et a]., 1995). In 1996, in response t o mounting quantities of marine debris on the coast of the Grove Peninsula, Northeast Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia, yearly coastal surveys were begun, and a 70-km stretch of beach has been monitored between April and AugustiSeptember every year. By the end of 2003, a total of 194 entangled turtles have been recorded, of which 25 were L. olivacea. Debris appears t o concentrate in certain areas. such as in the vicinity of Cape Arnhem and Port Bradshaw, and it is mainly foreign trawl and drift net webbing, especially of Asian origin. It is during southeasterly (onshore) winds when most of the debris is pushed ashore, and stranded, entangled marine turtles are found primarily between late April and early August every year when the Southeast winds are at their strongest. There has been considerable variation in numbers of stranded animals from year t o year (Roeger, 2004; S. Roeger, in litt. June 3, 2004). There are also reports of L.olivacea entangled in ghost nets in the T i m o r and Arafura Seas, north of Darwin (D. White, in litt., June 2, 2004). If the figures from these studies are extrapolated over the vast area of Austral-Asia in which marine debris are likely t o pose serious threats, it is clear that the numbers of turtles negatively affected must b e very large. CONCLUSIONS. T h e fact that L. olivacea is not generally c o m m o n in the "Greater Sunda Sea," and other species of marine turtles have represented important sources of food and income, means that relatively little attention has been paid t o this species in this region. For example, a recent report o n trade in marine turtle products in Vietnam (TRAFFIC, 2004) focused mainly o n Eretmochelys imbricata and t o a lesser extend Chelonia mydas, with only a few lines about L. olivacea. Coupled with the generalized lack of systematic information o n human impacts, including directed take, incidental capture, and interactions other than capture, the re- 276 JACK F R A Z I E R ET A1 suit is a tremendous lack of basic information on L. olivacea. Ironically. Manila Bay. Philippines, is the type locality for this species. Western Pacific Ocean It is generally assumed that L. olivacea is uncomm o n throughout most of the western Pacific, there being neither large nesting populations nor feeding aggregations. For example, although there have been decades of careful study of marine turtles in Japan, this species has been documented only rarely and is thought to be astray in these waters (Abe. 1999). Nonetheless. the species does occur widely throughout this vast area (Eckert, 1993: Pritchard and Plotkin. 1995; Limpus, 1997: NMFS-USFWS, 1998). If, however, areas important for feeding are found, research and conservation priorities will need t o be revised accordingly: it is not unlikely that coastal waters of southern China host significant numbers of these turtles. at least at certain times of the year. Despite the lack of basic information, it is generally assumed that there is little significant directed take of L. olivacea in the western Pacific (e.g., Limpus. 1997). Other species, however, have been part of directed fisheries, particularly C. mydas and E. imbricata. D I R E C T E D TAKE. It is known that L. olivacea are caught incidentally by trawlers and gillnets along the east coast of Australia, particularly Queensland, but n o details seem t o be available (WMS-EA, 1998). There is believed t o be n o threat t o this turtle from incidental take in U.S. territories in the eastern Pacific (NMFSUSFWS, 1998); however, there are some records of capture o n long lines and plankton nets around G u a m (Eckert, 1993). Many of the carapaces found in coastal villages of southern China in 1985 had come from incidental captures in fishing activities that were being modernized in the early 1980s (Frazier et al., 1988). INCIDENTAL CAPTURE. INTERACTIONS O T H E R T H A N CAPTURE. The usual problems from marine and land-based pollution, plastics, debris, and discarded fishing gear will b e generally relevant to L. olivacea in the western Pacific. From the past history of in- dustrial pollution inlapan. mercury for exam{ and the rate at which China is modernizing. i to be assumed that there will be many differ1 anthropogenic assaults on all species of mar turtles in this region. Even if the numbers of olivacea in the western Pacific really are as sir as they are assumed to be. there could be ar; ments for strengthening research and conser tion. However. it will be necessary to determ if the western Pacific serves as a sink for t u n dispersing from the very large populations in I eastern Pacific o r if the L. olivacea that are fou in the region have unique genetic qualities. CONCLUSIONS. Eastern Pacific Ocean Lepidocltelys olivacea is by far the most abund, marine turtle in the eastern Pacific. with nestrecorded from northern Mexico. evidently as north as Baja California (Mirquez-M.et a].. 19 Fritts et a]., 1982) to as far south as northern PC (Hays Brown and Brown, 1982) and massed nC ing (arribadaj sites in Oaxaca, Mexico (Escob and Morro Ayuta). Nicaragua (La Flor and C. cocente), and Costa Rica (Nancite and Ostior (Marquez-M.. 1990; Eckert, 1993: Pritchard a Plotkin, 1995; NMFS-USFWS. 1998). There abundant evidence that large numbers of L . , vacea in the eastern Pacific Ocean live on I high seas, hundreds and even thousands of ki meters from a continental shore (Pitman, 19 1992; Arenas and Hall. 1992: IATTC, 2003a). certain places there are remarkable concent tions at sea, such as along a band at about 5 extending west from the South American coi nent to about 125OW (IATTC. 2003a). These high densities, with tens to hundred; thousands of turtles massing t o nest on a ki meter o r s o of beach, attracted one of the, if r the, most intense directed fisheries for man turtles ever documented. At the same time, t extraordinary densities of turtles aggregated east Pacific waters presented other singularly tractive areas for at-sea captures, distant frc coastal waters. In more recent times, these sai concentrations of turtles present high probal ities of negative effects from various fisher and other human activities in marine envin ments. In the waters around Pacific islands. h e juato. There is evidence that thousands of L. olivacea are still taken each year along the Pacific coast of Mexico (Cantu and Sanchez, 1999; Gardner and Nichols, 2001 ;Nichols, 2003b; PROFEPA, 2003; also see the following section o n incidental capture). In recent years there have been reports from Guatemala of L. olivacea captured at sea, well off the continental shelf, t o be used for shark bait (Higginson, 1989). It is not known how long this practice has been going on, how frequently it happens, o r the rates of take. T h e small amount of information available could be interpreted as evidence that this illegal fishery is erratic, casual, and may involve relatively small numbers of turtles per year: however, there is n o adequate information, and because the fishery is against the law, it will be difficult t o obtain reliable estimates. There appears t o be n o other evidence of directed at-sea take of L. olivacea elsewhere on the Pacific coast of Central America, where in general there seems t o have been little demand for turtle meat (Cornelius, 1982). According t o fishermen in the north of Ecuador, an organized fishery in southern Colombia was supplying skins and other products towtradersin Ecuador during the period of that fishery, berween 1970 and 1981 (see below). Like the Ecuadorian fishery, much of the activity included catching and skinning the turtles and then jettisoning the carcasses at sea, and the vast majority of the animals are thought to have been L. olivacea (Hurtado, 1982). However, even after the large Ecuadorian fishery was officially closed, organized directed takes in Pacific Colombia apparently continued between 1980 and 1985, with some boats taking as many as 50 turtles during an outing (Amorocho et al., 1992). In Ecuador, near Santa Rosa and La Libertad, Guayas Province, there was a fishery for local consumption (Green and Ortiz-Crespo, 1982). A second legal "industrial" fishery that focused on L. olivacea began in Ecuador in 1970, just two years after the Mexican fishery reached its peak, and began a steep decline (Frazier, 1980c; Green and Ortiz-Crespo, 1982; Mack et al., 1982). In contrast t o the Mexican fishery, the Ecuadorian turtles were all captured at sea, commonly as much as 50 krn offshore. Also in contrast with the Mexican fishery, the turtles in Ecuador were first captured for exporting turtle meat, not skins, although there are accounts that skins from Ecuador were sent to Mexico in the early years of the fishery. In 1973 the documented production in turtle skins began in Ecuador, and by 1975 the quantity of exported skins represented far more turtle equivalents than did the exported meat. Remarkably, there was little domestic demand for turtle meat: it was often added to sausages without informing customers that turtle meat was included (Frazier, 1980~).The estimated annual take rose steadily from fewer than 600 turtles in 1970 to some 150,000 turtles in 1979 (Frazier, 1980c; Green and Ortiz-Crespo, 1982). Ecuador had ratified CITES in 1975, s o export of the skins was in contravention to this treaty, and in 1981. the international trade in skins was stopped, thereby complying with CITES regulations (Frazier and Salas, 1982; Hurtado, 1982). Farther south in Peru, marine turtles have been taken offshore in small-scale fisheries for decades. In the late 1970s it was reported that 7-10 small, uncovered boats from Pisco specialized in turtle fishing, landing an average of 10-30 turtles per day (Hays Brown and Brown, 1982). Nearly 20 years later, a brief survey reported that 50-80 tangle nets were being used in ports south of Lima and that estimated catches could be 30-40 turtles in t w o days (Arauz, 1999). The vast majority of the turtles caught in Peru are normally C. mydas; a city d u m p at San Andres had remains of 25 recently killed turtles, 17 of which were C. mydm and 8 were L. olivacea (Arauz, 1999). From limited information on species composition of several landings, it is assumed that fewer than a quarter of the turtles captured in the Peruvian fishery have been ridleys, and one estimate is that only about 1% of the turtles captured in Peruvian waters are L. olivacea (]. Alfaro, in lift., June 3,2004). In March 1995, a total ban was declared o n catching all marine turtles in Peru, but this did not stop the fishery, In 2001 another law provided for the legal consumption of turtles caught accidentally, which opened u p endless possibilities for the interpretation "accidental catch." L. olivacea does occur in Chilean waters, but it is not common (Frazier and Salas, 1984), and there is n o directed take of any marine turtle. Although formerly Polynesian islanders hunted Human -Turtle Interactions at Sea turtles, today there is n o known directed take of marine turtles on oceanic islands of the eastern Pacific, and furthermore, there is n o evidence that L. olivacea was ever taken in former times. I N C I D E N T A L C A P T U R E . It has been known for some time that L. olivacea in the eastern Pacific is subjected to substantial mortality from incidental capture in shrimp trawls and long lines, but the information available is incomplete (e.g., Pritchard and Plotkin, 1995; NMFS-USFWS, 1998). Hence, estimates of catch numbers and rates often vary considerably, and information on mortality is even more elusive. The estimated annual take of L. olivacea on long lines in Hawaiian waters was 152, and although most of these were released alive, there is n o information on postcapture mortality (NMFS-USFWS, 1998). It is estimated that an average of at least 140 turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific die each year in the tuna purse seine fleet, and most of these interactions occur when nets are set around fish-aggregating devices (FADS); the great majority of the turtles affected are L. olivacea. Estimated annual mortalities from this fishery between 1993 and 2002 have varied from 30 turtles to 109 turtles identified as L. olivacea, and if the figures for "unidentified" turtles (most of which are thought t o be L. olivacea) are added, the values increase by at least 50% (IATTC, 2003b). It is known that long lines present a substantial risk t o marine turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific, but even the scientific staff of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), w h o have been working with by-catch issues for over a decade, d o not have adequate data for making reliable estimates (IATTC, 2003~). There are occasional records of L. olivacea being killed in gillnets and from boat strikes along the west coast of the continental United States and also records of captures in shrimp trawls in the Gulf of California as well as gillnets, traps, pound nets, haul seines, and beach seines in coastal waters of Baja California, but n o numbers seem t o be available (Alvarado and Figueroa, 1990; NMFS-USFWS, 1998). Data from onboard observers pertaining to incidental takes from shrimp trawlers and shark netters along the Pacific coast of Mexico are carefully guarded as confidential by government fisheries officers, s o 279 n o detailed information is generally available. However, besides the obvious generality that there must be significant incidental capture in shrimp trawls, there is evidence that large mesh shark nets set along the Pacific coast of Mexico are catching significant numbers of turtles. For example, on July 22, 2004, it was reported that 125 L. olivacea were drowned in just one shark net about 50-70 m long, set along t h e coast near Santa Maria Tonameca. Oaxaca. Although this incident was reported t o have been a case of incidental capture. it is likely that the turtles caught in shark nets are destined for the well-organized black market (see above), s o this could also be considered t o be part of a directed fishery. masquerading as incidental capture. As in other parts of the tropics. the rapid development of shrimp trawling along the Pacific coast of Central America. beginning in the 1950s. led to incidental capture of L. olivacea as well as other species, and by the late 1970s it has been known that shrimp trawling along the Pacific coast of Central America, particularly Guatemala. Salvador, and Costa Rica, was responsible for the incidental capture and mortality of marine turtles, particularly L. olivacea, but there were onlyrough estimates of the numbers involved (Cornelius, 1982). In Guatemala 150200 carcasses were estimated to wash ashore yearly, with n o information o n species composition; for El Salvador there was evidence of a direct relationship between shrimp trawl activity and numbers of carcasses that washed up, most of which were L. olivacea, but n o numbers were provided; Honduras was thought t o have had occasional takes of turtles in cast-net and set-net fisheries; Nicaragua was thought t o have had few turtles killed in shrimp trawls; in contrast, estimates from Costa Rican shrimp trawlers varied from 600 t o 2,000 turtles caught annually, and u p t o 45 in one haul o r 200 taken per day, most of which were L. olivacea; it was claimed that the Panamanian shrimp fleet released the majority of the turtles that they caught, but it was suspected that in reality there was significant mortality. Overall, it was concluded at the end of the 1970s that the incidental capture and mortality in shrimp trawls was one of the major factors causing the decline of marine turtles along the Pacific coast of Central America (Cornelius, 1982). More recent studies carried o u t in the 1990s provided estimates that bore out the earlier concerns for incidental mortality in shrimp trawls in Pacific Central America (Arauz, 1996). The estimated annual captures for all species of marine turtle were: Guatemala, 10,000; El Salvador. 21,280: Honduras, 0 ( n o Pacific shrimp fleet): Nicaragua, 8,000: Costa Rica, 20,762, totaling more than 60.000 turtles. Later studies indicated that catch per unit effort for the Costa Rican fleet varied depending o n the type of shrimp being targeted (0.01 88-0.0684 turtles / hour drag per 100-foot head rope for white shrimp, and 0.08810.238 turtles/hour drag per 100-foot head rope for pink shrimp). Although overall catch rates for turtles may be less than was originally estimated, based on the finding that more than 90% of the turtles caught were L. olwacea, and nearly 40% were landed dead (Arauz et a].. 1998a'), it is clear that tens of thousands of these turtles are caught and killed each year in the Central American shrimp fishery. and this is not considering the Panamanian fishery. Strandings of dead turtles provide further evidence of incidental capture and mortality at sea. Hundreds of L. olivacea carcasses have been counted over a period of only a few months at Chacocente, Nicaragua. and Ostional, Costa Rica, both sites of mass nesting. Although the offshore areas in front of these t w o beaches are legally closed to fishing, small-scalegillnets, long lines, and also trawlers operate with apparent impunity (Orrego and Arauz, 2005); on rare occasions when authorities have inspected the offshore areas of Chacocente and Ostional Wildlife Refuges, they have found gillnets in no-fishing areas, often with entangled L. olivacea (Arauz, 2002). In addition, surveys along the north Pacific coast of Costa Rica over the 6-month period between August 2001 and January 2001 revealed 423 stranded carcasses. 99% of which were L. olivacea, at least 84 (20%) of which showed hooks, monofilament lines, fractured phalanges, and knife cuts, indicating clear signs of interactions with different coastal fisheries other than trawls (Orrego and Arauz, 2005). Just as the gravity of the situation with shrimp trawling was being appreciated, long line fishing began t o increase along the Pacific coast of Central and South America; in part, the increase in this fishery resulted from the conversion of trawlers into long liners (see Arauz et al., 2000). Some of the only systematic information available on incidental capture of L. olivacea in Latin American waters is from Costa Rica. An initial study yielded catch rates of 14.4124 turtles1 1,000 hooks; L. olivacea comprised 100% of the turtles caught, and mortality on landing was 0% (Arauz et a]., 2000; with corrections from R. Arauz. in litt.,June 26,2004). Additional workinvolving larger sample sizes, also from within the EEZ of Costa Rica, reported that nearly 94% of the turtles were L. olivacea, and including fishes this was the second most commonly captured species: overall catch rate for 39.248 hooks was 6.364 turtles/1,000 hooks; all animals were landed alive (Arauz, 2005). Two additional long line sets west of the Galapagos Islands yielded a catch rare of 19,429 turtles/1,000 hooks, with 55% of the turtles being L. olivacea and mortality at landing 8.8% of the turtles (Arauz et a!., 2000; with corrections from R. Arauz, in litt., June 26, 2004'). As usual for these sorts of studies. there is n o information on mortality after release, so depending o n the type of hooking and trauma caused by handling, there is likely to be tremendous variation in the survivorship of the turtles released. Extrapolating these results t o just the Costa Rican long-line fleet, where 553 vessels are estimated t o deploy over 70,000,000 hooks a year, some 396,000 marine turtles are estimated to be caught annually (Arauz, 2005), a large proportion of which would be L. olivacea. There are general comments about incidental take off the Pacific coast of Colombia and the fact that the turtles are consumed (Amorocho et a]., 1992), but little quantitative information is available. A mass stranding in 1990, which included some L. olivacea, was attributed to incidental capture in shrimp trawls o r possibly tuna and shark fisheries (Rueda-Almonacid, 1992). However, cause of death was not determined. Large numbers of strandings also have been recorded o n the mainland coast of Ecuador; in 1999 it was estimated that thousands of L. olivacea carcasses had washed ashore. Because the Ecuadorian fleet of shrimp trawlers is active in offshore waters, it was thought that they were responsible, although n o definitive determination could b e made (Alava et al., 2000). The capture of marine turtles in nets and long lines in Peruvian waters can be categorized as incidental ^. Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea capture, but because it is usual t o land the animals, and this is legal, this fishery has been discussed above under directed take. Nonetheless, it is estimated that a relatively small proportion of the turtles caught in Peru are L. olivacea (J. Alfaro, in k t . . June 4, 2004). INTERACTIONS OTHER T H A N CAPTURE. There are records of both juvenile and adult L. olivacea being entangled in marine debris around the Hawaiian Islands (Balazs, 1985). It was surmised that debris causing problems with entanglement and ingestion and boat strikes are minor problems along the west coast of the continental United States (NMFS-USFWS, 1998). There are reports of L. olivacea entangled in plastics, discarded sacks from tuna boats, and lost fishing gear (IATTC, 2003a). The webbing that trails from FADS used in open ocean, especially for the tuna fishery, is known t o ensnare and kill turtles; there may be some 240 turtles involved annually, most of which are thought t o be L. olivacea (IATTC, 2003b). The fact that even major, and scientifically advanced, fisheries organizations such as the 1ATTC d o not have even basic information o n the variety of threats posed by nonfisheries anthropogenic activities t o marine turtles at sea (IATTC. 2003a) emphasizes the status of knowledge overall. T h e most remarkable at-sea exploitation of any turtles occurred on the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Ecuador. This intense, legal exploitation directed at breeding and feeding aggregations continued for more than a quarter of a century. In addition t o the official figures, there are estimates of "unofficial" (black market) figures for exploitation, and in some years they are as large as the official figures for exploitation. By the 1980s, t w o mass nesting populations in Mexico had been decimated, and after t w o decades, they still have not recovered: El Playon, Jalisco, and Piedra del Talcoyunque, Guerrero (Martinez and Castellanos, 2006). The mass nesting population at Escobilla, Oaxaca, was also greatly reduced, but after the 1990 complete ban on marine turtle exploitation, it rebounded from some 55,000 nests estimated for 1988 to more than 700,000 nests estimatoed for 1994 (MirquezM. et a]., 1996) and t o over a million nests around CONCLUSIONS. 281 2000 (C. Penaflores S., personal communication). Although much below the values from the 1960s and 1970s, illegal take of L. olivacea continues t o this day. especially in remote costal waters of Pacific Mexico: the supply of skins and leather goods made of this species continues to be sold and confiscated in Mexico and at Mexican-U.S. border crossings (Teyeliz, 2000). In both Pacific Mexico and Ecuador a major motivation for these intense fisheries resulted from the depleted state of crocodile stocks globally, with persistent market demands from producers, tanners, and consumers (Marquez-M. et a]., 1976; Marquez-M., 1996). Hence, in both Mexico and Ecuador, the major attraction for exploitation of turtles has been to provide skins: animals weighing some 45 kg were slaughtered primarily for about 2-7 kg of skin, and at least during part of the fishery, the remainder of the carcasses was discarded, although in both Mexico and Ecuador processed meat was sold in both national and international markets. In the case of Mexico, the majority of the animals taken were reproductively active. It has been estimated that'froh 1965 until 1980more than two million turtles, the vast majority L. olivacea, supplied these major commercial fisheries in the states of Sinaloa, Nayarit, Jalisco, Michoacan, Guerrero, and Oaxaca as well as in Ecuador (Mirquez-M. et a]., 1976; Cahill, 1978: Frazier, 1980c; Cliffton et al., 1982; Mirquez-M. et a].. 1990). Hence, in the annals of human-turtle interactions, these fisheries stand out not only for the massive numbers of turtles exploited but also for long-term damage to what had seemed t o b e robust populations, not to mention wanton waste and greed. Despite the fact that at least t w o major massed nesting populations have been lost (Mismaloya, Jalisco, and Piedra del Talcoyunque. Guerrero), the recuperation of the numbers nesting at Escobilla has shown that at least some populations can recover after protection. This should help promote more interest in embarking o n long-term conservation programs. General Conclusions Human-turtle interactions at sea involving both species of Lepidochelys have had enormous im- portance o n both local and global scales. T h e history of L. kempii, with the catastrophic dedine in numbers nesting during the last half of the twentieth century, has in many ways been the battle cry of marine turtle conservationists. As a result, this turtle has for decades held the dubious distinction of being recognized as critically endangered, and its situation has been used as a poster child to warn both the general public and policymakers about the distinct dangers of extinction as a result of irresponsible human activities. O n the other hand, L. olivacca is considered t o be the most abundant marine turtle species. and far Jess attention has been paid to many conservation issues involving this species. Now that there are numerous indications that even the very large populations have experienced declines in all ocean basins, and indeed some massed nesting populations have been exterminated, this species is now receiving considerable attention. However, although threats in terrestrial habitats are relatively easy t o distinguish, marinebased pressures are more difficult to identify and resolve; legislation and regulations pertaining t o marine resources are also more difficult to enforce. Nonetheless, it is clear that some of the most significant threats t o both species of Lepidochefys involve human-turtle interactions at sea. Beyond directed take, both species are known t o be seriously affected by incidental capture in shrimp trawls, long lines, and other types of fishing gear. Conservation actions taken in response t o these threats have had enormous ramifications o n national policies, with direct impacts o n international conservation activities and even wider policies affecting trade and international relations. The case of the "shrimpturtle" dispute before the World Trade Organization is a clear example of the global ramifications that resulted from concerns about the fate of one species of ridley turtle, L. kempii (see Frazier, 2002; Frazier and Bache, 2002; Bache and Frazier, 2006). The problem of fisheries by-catch and responsible fisheries is a global issue that has attracted considerable attention from many different sectors (SEAFDEC, 1997, 1999; UA-SGCP, 1997; APEC, 1998; Moore and Jennings, 2000; Bache, 2003; FAO, 2005). Because marine turtles are charismatic flagship species (Frazier, 2005b), there is considerable interest in many different countries, from different sectors of society, in resolving by-catch problems involving these reptiles. Innovative experiments with TEDs in Pacific Costa Rica have provided basic information needed to increase the spaces between deflector bars and thereby make the T E D more acceptable t o shrimpers (Arauz et a]., 1998b). The increase in size of the Escobilla, Mexico, nesting population following closure of the fishery also provides impetus for developing long-term conservation programs. Although both species of Lepidochely provide poignant examples of problems caused by irresponsible human-turtle interactions, they also illustrate cases for hope when concerted conservation efforts are made. The dramatic decline in nesting L. kempii has finally been turned around, and at last the species is o n the road to recovery (Turtle Expert Working Group, 2000): at least one depressed nesting population of L. olivacea recently has shown dramatic signs of increase (Marquez-M. et a]., 1996). With the surfeit of conservation problems involving marine turtles, it is essential that the lessons of what should be avoided and corrected be shown in a context of what is possible with adequate conservation activities, with a message that can instill hope for the future. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Jacqueline Castilhos (Projeto TAMARIBAMA, Sergipe) for sharing information about L. olivacea mortality in Sergipe. Leandro Bugoni, Andres Estrades, and Alejandro Fallabrino provided information o n southern Brazil and Uruguay; Damian White and Scott Whiting provided information o n northern Australia; and Juan Carlos Cantu provided information from Mexico. T h e above geographic sections were compiled by J. Frazier, based o n selected contributions provided by a team of specialists: southwestern Atlantic (eastern South America), Johan Chevalier and Matthew H. Godfrey; eastern Atlantic (western Africa), Angela Formia and Jacques Fretey; eastern Indian Ocean, Kartik Shanker; eastern Pacific, Randall Arauz; Mexico, Rene Marquez-M. Manjula Tiwari trans- Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea lated Jacques Fretey's contribution i n t o English: Charles Caillouet a n d Wallace Jay Nichols m a d e valuable c o m m e n t s o n a n earlier draft. J. Frazier was supported by a grant from the Department o f Conservation Biolgy, Conservation a n d Research C e n t e r , National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution. LITERATURE CITED Abe. 0. 1999. Sea turtle conservation and management in Japan. In Report of the S E A F D E C - M N Reg~iinalWorkshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Management, July 26-28, 1999, Kuala Terenganu, Malaysia, pp. 108-1 17. Alava, J. J., Chiriboga, C., Peiiafiel, M.. Calle. N., Jimenez, P., Aguirre, W., Amador, P., and hfolina. E. 2000. Datos historicos sobre la mortalidad de tortugas marinas en varies sitios de la costa ecuatoriana y observaciones reciente acerca de una mortalidad masiva de Lepidochelys olivacea (Reptilia, Cheloniidae). Guayaquil. Ecuador: Fundacion Natura. Alvarado,).. and Figueroa, A. 1990. The ecological recovery of sea turtles of Michoacan, Mexico. Special attention: the black turtle, Chelonia agassizi. Final Report 1989-1990, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviced and WWF-USA. Amorocho, D. F., Rubio T.. H., and Diaz R., W. 1992. Observaciones sobre el estado actual de las tortugas marinas en el Pacifico Colomb i a n ~In . Rodriguez Mahecha, J. V , and Sanchez Paez. H. (Eds.). Contrihucion a1 Conocimiento de las T o r t u p .\1annas de Colombia, Libro 4. Santa Fe de Bogota: Serie de Publicaciones Especiales del INDERENA, pp. 155-179. Anderson, R. C., Zahir, H., Sakamoto. T.. and Sakamoto, I . 2003. Olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Maldivian waters. Rasain (Annual FisheriesJournal of the Ministry of Fishcries, Agriculture and Marine Resources) 23:171-184. Andrews, H. V. Krishnan, S., and Biswas, P. 2001. The status and distribution of marine turtles around the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago. GO1 UNDP Sea Turtle Project Report. Tamil Nadu, India: Madras Crocodile Bank Trust. Andrews, H. V, Krishnan, S., and Biswas, P. 2006. Distribution and status of marine turtles in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 33-57. Anonymous. 2002. Experts advocate closure of Oswal Plant. Kachhapa 7:22. 283 Arauz. R. 1996. A description of the Central American shrimp fisheries with estimates of incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles. In Keinath, J., Barnard, D., Musick J. D., and Bell, B. A. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387, pp. 5-9. Arauz, R. 1999. Description of the Eastern Pacific HighSeas Longline and Coastal Gillnet Swordfish Fisheries of South America, Including Sea Turtle Interactions, and Management Recommendations. Unpublished report submitted to Dr. Jim Spotila, Drexel University, Philadelphia. Arauz, R. 2002. Sea turtle nesting activity and conservation of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in Playa El Mogote, Rio Escalante Chacocente Wildlife Refuge, Nicaragua. Unpublished report submitted to the authorities of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), Direccion General de Areas Protegidas (DGAP), Managua, Nicaragua. Arauz, R.2005. Incidental capture of sea turtles by high seas longline pelagic fisheries in Costa Rica's exclusive economic zone (EEZ)-A second look. In Coyne, M., and Clark, R. D. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Consetzvation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-528, pp. 40-42. Arauz, R. M, Vargas, R., Naranjo, I., and Gamboa, C. 1998a. Analysis of the incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles in the shrimp fleet of Pacific Costa Rica. In Epperly, S. P., and Braun, J. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 1-5. Arauz, R., Naranjo, I., Rojas, R., and Vargas, R. 1998b. Evaluation of the super shooter and Seymour turtle excluder devices with different deflector bar spacing in the shrimp fishery of Pacific Costa Rica. In Epperly, S. P., and Braun, J. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415, pp. 114-117. Arauz, R., Rodriguez. O., Vargas, R., and Segura, A. 2000. Incidental capture of sea turtles by Costa Rica's longline fleet. In Kalb, H., and Wibbles, T. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Consetvation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-443, pp. 62-64. Arenas, P., and Hall, M. 1992. The association of sea turtles and other pelagic fauna with floating ob- 284 JACK FRAZIER ET A1 jects in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In Salmon, M.. and Wyneken,J. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum Nh4FS-SEFSC-302, pp. 7-10. Aridjis, H . 1990. Mexico proclaims total ban on h a r ~ vest of turtles and eggs. Marine Turtle Newsletter SO:]-3 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Marine Resources Conservation Working Group (APEC) 1998. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Impacts of Destructive Fishing Practices on the Marine En'nronwent, December 16-18, 199;. Hong Kong: Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Astuti. R. 1995. People of the Sea: Identity and Descent among the \'ezo o f Madagascar. New York: Cambridge University Press. Aureggi. M.. and Chantrapornsyl, S. 2003. Conservation project: Sea turtles at Phra Thong Island, South Thailand. Kachhapa 9:3-5. Bache, S. J. 2003. M a n ~ i e\i'ildlfc Bycatch Mitigation: Globs! Trends, International Action and the Chall e n g e s f o r h t r a l i a . Ocean Publications, Centre for Maritime Policy: University of Wollongong. Australia. Bache, S. J., and Frazier,). 2006. International instruments and marine turtle conservation. In Shanker, K.. and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad. India: Universities Press, pp. 324-353. Balazs, G. H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In Shomura, R. S., and Yoshida, H. 0. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debns. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-54, pp. 387-429. Baldwin, R. M., and Al-Kiyumi, A. A. 1999. The ecology and conservation status of sea turtles of Oman. In Fisher. M., Ghazanfar, S. A., and Spalton, A. (Eds.). T h e Natural History of Oman: A Festschrift for Michael Gallagher. Leiden: Backhuys, pp. 89-98. Barnett, 1.K., Emms, C . Jallow, A., Mbenga Cham. A., and M0rtimer.J. A. 2004. The distribution and conservation status of marine turtles in The Gambia, West Africa: a first assessment. O r y x 38:203-208. Behera, C. R. 2006. Beyond TEDs: The TED controversy from the perspective of Orissa's trawling industry. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Manne Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 238-243. Bhaskar, S. 1979. Sea turtle survey in the Andaman and Nicobars. Hamadryad 4:2-19. Bhaskar. S. 198-1. The distribution and status of sea turtles in India. In Proccediiigs of the Workshop on Sea Turtle Con.~t.n.~~tuin. CMFRJ Special Publication 18-21-35. Bhaskar. S. 1993. The Status and Ecoloa of Sea Turtles in the Andaman and .Vicobar Islands. Chennai: Centre for Herpetology, Publication ST 1\93. Bhupathy, S.. and Saravanan. S. 2002. Sea turtles along the Tamil Nadu coast. India. Kachhapa 7:7-13. Bhupathv, S.. and Saravanan. S. 2003. Exploitation of sea turtles along the southeast coast of Tamilnadu. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 100:628-63 1 Bhupathy S., and Saravanan, S. 2006. Marine rurtles of Tamil Nadu. In Shanker. K., and Choudhury, B. C. E d s . I..Miinnc Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad. India: Universities Press, pp. 58-67. Biswas. S. 1982. :\ report on the olive ridley, Lepi(fochdysolivacea i Eschscholtz'~(Testudines: Cheloniidae~of Bay of Bengal. Records of the Z d o g i c a l Swry o f India 79:275-302. Bjorndal. K . .\. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In Lutz. F! 1..and Musick,l. A. I Eds. I. The Bioloa of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 199-231. Bowen. B W.. Clark. A M., Abreu-Grobois, F. A., Chaves. A.. Reichart, H . A., and Ferl, R. J. 1998. Global phylogeography of ridley sea turtles (Lepidorhely spp.) as inferred from mitochondria] DNA sequences. Gcnetica 101:I 79-189. Brongersma, L . 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Leiden: Zoologische Verhandelingen. Brongersma, L. 1982. Marine turtles of the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington. DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 407-41 6. Burchfield. P M., Dierauf, L., and Byles. R. A. 1997. Report on the Mexico'United States of America Population Restoration Project for Lepidochelys kempii. on the Coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Byles. R. A. 1988. Satellite Telemetry of Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, i n the Gulf of Mexico. Report t o the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Cahill, T. 1978. The shame of Escobilla. Outside (February):22-27,62-64. Caillouet, C. W., Jr., Shaver, D. J., Teas, W. G., Nance, J. M., Revera, D. B., and Cannon, A. C. 1996. Relationship between sea turtle stranding rates and shrimp fishing intensities in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 1986-1989 versus 1990-1993. U. S. Fishery Bulletin 94237-249. Human--Turtle Interactions at Sea Cantii. J. C.. and Sanchez, M. E.. 1999. Trade in Sea Turtle Products in Mexico. Mexico C i n : Teyeliz, A.C. Carr. A. 1955 The riddle of the ridley. Animal Kingdom 58(5):146-156. Carr, A. 1977. Crisis for the Atlantic ridley. Manne Turtle Newsletter 4:2-3. Chada. S., and Kar, C. S. 1999. Bliitarkanika: M f i and Reality. Dehra Dun, India: Natraj. Chan. E. H., and Liew, H. C. 1988. A review on the effects of oil-based activities and oil pollution on sea turtles. In Proccedmgs of the Eleventh Annual Seminar of the Malaysian Society of Marine Sciences, pp. 159-1 67. Chan, E. H., Liew, H. C., and Mazlan, A. G. 1988. The incidental capture of sea turtles in fishing gear in Terengganu, Malaysia. Biolopcal Conservation 43:l-7. Chandraratne, R.M. M. 1997. Some reptile bones from the Gedige excavation in 1985. the Citadel of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. Lynocekpalus 3(2): -15. Chantrapornsyl, S. 1994. Status of marine turtles in Thailand. In Nacu, A., Trono, R., Palma, J. A.. Torres. D., and Agas, F.,Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the First ASEAN Symposium-Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation. Manila: World Wildlife Fund, pp. 123-129. Charuchinda, M., and Chantrapornsyl, S. 1999. Status of sea turtle conservation and research in Thailand. In: Report of the SEAFDEC-.4SEAN Regonal Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Management, July 26-28, 1999, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, pp. 160-1 74. Chatto, R., Guinea, M., and Conway, S. 1995. Sea turtles killed by flotsam in northern Australia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 69:17-18. Chevalier, J. 2001. Etude des captures accidentelles de tortues marines liees a la peche au filet derivant dans I'ouest guyanais. Unpublished report for DIREN Guyane, ONCFS. Chevalier.!., Cazelles. B.. and Girondot, M. 1998. Apports scientifiques i la strategic de conservation des Tortues luths en Guyane franpis. JATBA. Revue d'Ethnobiologe 40:485-507. Choudhury, B. C. 2003. TEDs in India: From conflict to consultation. Kackkapa 8:l-2. Chowdhury, B. R., Das, S. K., and Ghose, P. S. 2006. Marine turtles of West Bengal. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 107-1 16. Cliffton, K., Cornejo, D. O., and Felger, R.S. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea 285 Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian institution Press. pp. 199-209. Cornelius. S. 1982. Status of sea turtles along the Pacific coast of middle America. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservmtion of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington. DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 21 1--219. Cruz. R.D. 1999. Research. conservation and management of marine turtles in the Philippines. In Report of the SEAFDEC-ASEANRegional Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservat~onand Management, July 26-28, 1999. Kuala Tereitgganu, Mala)l.';ia, pp. 146-152 Das. 1. 1985. Marine turtle drain. Hamadryad 10:16. Das. 1. 1989. Sea turtles and coastal habitats in s o u ~ k eastern Bangladesh. Project report to the Sea Turtle Rescue Fund, Centre for Marine Conservation. Washington. DC. Dash. M. C.. and Kar. C . S. 1990. Thc Turtle Paradise Gahirmat ha (An Ecological Analysis and Consewahon Strategy,).New Delhi. India: Interprint. Da Silva. A. C. C. D.. de Casti1hos.I. C., Rocha. D. A. S.. Oliveira, F. L. C.. and Weber. M. 2002. Mortalidade de tartarugas marinhas n o entorno de sitios de reproduqao no estado de Sergipe, Brasil. In XXIV Congresso Brasilero de Zoolopa, 17-22 Fevereiro 2002. Santa Catarina: UNIVALI, ltajai, Abstract 141 14. Dattatri. S., and ~ ~ m a r a j i vD. a . 1982. The Status and Conservation o f Sea Turtles in Sri Lanka. A project of the sea turtle rescue fund. Center for Environmental Education, Washington DC. De Grazia. T.. and Smith. W. N. 1970. The Sen Indians. A Pnmitive People of Tiburon Island in the Gulf of California. Flagstaff, A Z : Northland Press. Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1939. The Tetrapod Reptiles of Ceylon, vol 1. Testudinates and Crocoddians. London: Dulau & Co. De Silva, A. 2006. Marine turtles of Sri Lanka: A historic account. In Shanker. K.. and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.1. Marine Turtles o f the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad. India: Universities Press, pp. 188-199. DF-GUM (Department of Fisheries. Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. Government of the Union of Myanmar). 1999. Sea turtle conservation and protection activities in Myanmar. In Report of the SEAFDEC-ASEAN Regional Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Management, July 26-28, 1999, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, pp. 134-141. Dharani, S. 2003. Turtle conservation by local communities in Madras. Kachhapa 8:22. Dileepkumar. N., and Jayakumar, C. 2002. Field Study and Networking for Turtle Conservation in Kerala. A CO1-UNDP Sea Turtle Project Report. Trivandrum. India: THANAL Conservation Action and Information Network. Dintheer. C., Gilly, B. J. Y., Le Gall, M., Lemoine, M., and Rose, J. 1989. La recherche et la gestion de la pecherie de crevettes penkides en Guyane Francaise de 1958 i 1988: trente annees de surf. Equinoxe 28:21-33. Dobie. J. L. 1996. Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley turtle). Feeding on insects. Herpetological Review 27(4):199. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federacion). 1990. Acuerdo que establece veda total para todas !as especies y subespecies de tortugas marinas en aguas de jurisdiction nacional de 10s litorales del Oceano Pacifico, Golfo de Mexico y Mar Caribe. Diano Oficial de la Federacion. Mexico (Mayo 31): 21-22. Dongre, S. K. M. 2003. School education to support sea turtle conservation: Experiences from Goa and Onssa. Kachhapa 8:20-21. Eckert. K . L. 1993. The Biology and Population Status of Marine Turtles in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-186. Epperly, S. P., Braun, J., Chester, A. J., Cross, F. A., Merriner, J. V., Tester, P. A,, and Churchill. J. H. 1996. Beach strandings as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turt1es:Bulletin of Marine Sci-.ence. 59:289-297. Estrades A,, Domingo, A., Laporta, M., LopezMendilaharsu, M., and Fallabrino A., A. In press. Implementation and advances of the first Sea Turtle National Tagging Program in Uruguay In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC. FA0 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2005. Committee on Fisheries; Twenty-sixth Session, Rome, Italy, 7-1 1 March 2005. Outcome of the Technical Consultation on Sea Turtles Conservation and Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand, 29 November - 2 December 2004. Rome: FA0 COFIl2005 17. FA0 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2006. Report of the workshop on assessing the relative importance of sea turtle mortality due t o fisheries. Rome: FA0 GCPI 1NT.9191JPN. Felger, R. S., and Moser, M. £31991. People of the Desert and Sea: Ethnobotany of the Seri Indians. Tucson: University of Arizona. Firdous, F. 2000. Sea turtle conservation and education in Karachi, Pakistan. In Pilcher, N., and Ismail, G. (Eds.). Sea Turtles of the Jndo-Pacific: Research, Conservation and Managotient. London: ASEAN Academic Press. pp. 45-55. Foley, A. M., Dutton, P. H., Singel, K. E., Redlow. A. E., and Teas. W. G . 2003. The first records of olive ridleys in Florida, USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:23-25. Formia, A. 2002. Population and genetic structure of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in West and Central Africa; implications for management and conservation. PhD diss. Cardiff University. Cardiff, UK. Frazier, J. G. 1980a. Marine turtles and problems in coastal management. In Edge, B. 1.(Ed.). Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 3. pp. 2395.- 241 1 . Frazier, J. 1980b. Exploitation of marine turtles in the Indian Ocean. Human Ecolop 8:329-370. Frazier, J. 1980c. Marine turtlefisheries in Ecuador and Mexico: The last of the Pacific ndley? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Zoological Research, National Zoological Park. Smithson ian Institution, Washington. DC. Frazier. J. 1982. Subsistence hunting in the Indian Ocean. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Bioloa and Conservation o f Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995) Washington. DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 391-396. Frazier J. 1985. Misidentification of marine turtles: Caretta caretta and Lepidochelys ohvacea in the East Pacific. Journal of Herpetology 19:l-1 I . Frazier, J. G. 1991. La presencia de la rortuga marina Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz), en la Republica Oriental del Uruguay. Revista de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias. Serie Ciencias Biofb@cas, 3a ipoca 2(6):1-4. Frazier, J. 1997. Sustainable development: modern elixir o r sack dress? Environmental Conservation 24:182-193 Frazier, J. 1998. Recommendations on future CMS activities for marine turtle conservation. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Eighth meeting of the CMS Scientific Council, Wageningen, The Netherlands, June 3-5, 1998. Frazier, J. 2000. Kemp's ridley sea turtle. In Reading, R. P., and Miller, B. (Eds.). Endangered Animab: A Reference Guide to Conflicting Issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 164-1 70. Frazier, J. (Ed.). 2002. International instruments and marine turtle conservation. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 5:l-207. Frazier J. 2003. Prehistoric and ancient historic interactions between humans and marine turtles. In Lutz, P. L., Musick. J. A., and Wyneken, J. (Eds.). The Biology o f Sea Turtles. Volume 2. Boca Raton. FL: CRC Press, pp. 1-38. Frazier, J. 2004. Marine turtles of the past: a vision for the future? In Lauwerier, R. C. G. M . . and Plug, I . (Eds.). The Future from the Past: Archaeozo010 insWildl~feConservation and Heritage Management. Proceedings of the 9th Con-ferenceof the International Council for,4rchaeological Zooloe-y, Durham, August 2002, Volume 3. Oxford- Oxbow Books, pp. 103--116. Frazier.). 2005a. Marine Turtles: The Ultimate Tool Kit. A Review of worked bones in marine rurties. In Luik, H.. Choyke, A. M., Batev, C. E.. and Lougas. L. (Eds.). From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use o f Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings the 4th Meeting of the JC.42 Worked BoneResearch Group at Tallinn, 26th-31st o f Augi~.~t 2003. Aluinasaja Teadm 15 (Estonia), pp. 359-382. Frazier.). (Ed.) 2005b. Marine turtles as flagships. MAST / Maritime Studies Special Issue 3(2)/4(1). 1-303. Prazier, J.. and Bache. S.J. 2002. Sea turtle conscrva~ tion and the "big stick": the effects of unilateral U.S. embargoes on international fishing activities. In Foley, A., and Moser, A. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477, pp. 11 8-121 Frazier. J., and Salas, S.. 1982. Ecuador closes commercial turtle fishery. Marine Turtle Newsletter 20:5-6. Fra2ier.J , and Salas, S. 1984. Tortugas marinas en Chile. Boletin del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Santiago, Chile. 3953-73. Frazier,)., Frazier, S., Hanbo, D., Zhujian, H.,)i, Z., and Ling, L. 1988. Sea turtles in Fujian and Guangdong Provinces. Acta Herpetologica Sinica. 6:16-46. Fretey, J . 1989. Reproduction de la tortue olivatre (Lepidochelys olivacea) en Guyane Franqaise pendant la saison 1987. Nature Guyanaise 1:8-13. Fretey, J. 1999. Repartition des tortues du genre Lepidochelys Fitzinger, 1843. I. L'Atlantique ouest. Biogeographica 75:97-117. Fretey, J. 2001. Biogeography and Conservation of Marine Turtles of Atlantic Coast of Africa/Biogeographie et conservation des tortues marines de la cote atlantique de 1'Afrique. CMS Technical Series Publication No. 6, UNEPICMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Fretey,J., Dontaine, J.-F., and Billes, A,, 2001. Tortues marines de la facade atlantique de I'Afrique, genre Lepidochelys. 2. Suivi et conservation de L. olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) (Chelonii, Cheloni- of idae) i S i o Tome et Principe. Bulletin de la Societe Ht-rpetologique d e France 98:43-56. Fretev,).. Scgniagbeto. G. H., Dossou-Bodjrenou. . and Soumah. M'h4. In press. Use of marine turtles in West African pharmacopoeia and voodoo. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NhlFSSEFSC. Fntts. T. H.. Stinson, M. L., and Marquez-M., R. 1982. Status of sea turtle nesting in southern Baja California, Mexico. Bulletin of the Southern Cal!fornia Academy of Science 81(2):51-60. Gardner, S. C., and Nichols, W J . 2001. Assessment of sea turtle mortality rates in the Bahia Magdalena region, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:197-199. Gebremariam. T.. Amer, A.. Gebremariam, S., and Asfaw. hl. 1998. Shrimp fishery in Eritrea: ex^ ploitation and legislation. In Wamukoya. G. M., and Salm, R. V. 1Eds.j. Report o f the Western Indian Ocean Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Traiiiing Workshop, Mottibasa, Kenya, Jatiuary 27-31. 1997. Nairobi. Kenya: 1UCN East Africa Regional Office, pp. 12-13. Giri. V. 2001. Survey of marine turtles along the coast of Maharastra and Goa. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the National Workshopfor the Development of a National Sea Turtle Conservation Action Plan, Bhubaneshwar. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Institute of India, pp. 77-79. Giri, V , and Chaturvedi, N. 2003. Status of marine turtles in Maharashtra, India. Kachltapa 8: 11-15. Gin. V., and Chaturvedi, N. 2006. Sea turtles of Maharashtra and Goa. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 147-155. Godfrey, M. H., and Chevalier,J. 2004. The status of olive ridley sea turtles in the West Atlantic. Unpublished report prepared for the 1UCN 1 SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group. http:// members.seaturtle.org/godfreym/ Godfrey2004 MTSG-pdf. Gove, D., Pacule, H., and Gonqalves, M. 2004. The impact of Sofala Bank (Central Mozambique) shallow water shrimp fishery on marine turtles and the effects of introducing TED (turtle excluder device) on shrimp fishery. Unpublished report. Green, D., and Ortiz-Crespo, F. 1982. Status of sea turtle populations in the central eastern Pacific. In Bjorndal, K.(Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 221-233. Grottanelli. V. 1.1955. Pescatari dell'Oceano indiano: safgio ettiologico preliminare sui Bagiuni, Bantu cosicnJell'Oltreguba. Rome: Cremonese. Guada, H . 2001. Marine turtle work in Venezuela and the Venezuelan STRAP In Schoueten, A.. Mohadin, K.. Ashn, S.. and McClintock, E. (Eds.). Proccedmgs of the V Regional Marine Turtle Symposium for the Guiai~us,Paramaribo, September 25-27,2001. W F technical report no. GFECP-9,pp. 41-48. Gudger. E. W 1919a. On the use of the sucking-fish for catching fish and turtles: Studies in Echeneis or Remora. 11. Thf American Naturalist 53:446-467. Gudger. E. W 1919b. On the use of the suckingfish for catching fish and turtles: Studies in Erheneis or Remora, 111. The American Naturalist 53:515-525. Gueguen, E 2000. Captures accidentelles de tortues marines par la flottille crevettiere de Guyane Franqaise. Bulletin Societf Herprtologie Fran(aise 93:27-93. Guinea, M. L . . and Chatto. R. 1992. Sea turtles killed in Australian shark fin fishery. Marine Turtle Newsletter 57:5-6. Guinea, M. L.. and Whiting. S. 1997. Sea turtle deaths coincide with trawling activities in northern Australia. hlanne TurtleNewsletter 77:11-14. Gunawardene, P S. 1986. h'ationdsea turtlesurvey progress report. Unpublished Report for the National Aquatic Resources and Development Agency, Colombo. 1986 (cited in Kapurusinghe and Cooray. 2002, p. 6). Hare, S. 1991. Turtles caught incidental to demersal finfish fishery in Oman. Marine Turtle Newsletter 53:14-16. Haule, W. V.. Kalikela. G.. and Mahundu, 1. 1998. Some information on the sea turtles of Tanzania. In Wamukoya, G. M., and Salm, R. V. (Eds.). Report of the Westerit Indian Ocean Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Training Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya, January27-31, 1997. Nairobi, Kenya: 1UCN East Africa Regional Office. pp. 21-22. Hays Brown. C., and Brown, W. M. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the southeastern Pacific: Emphasis on Peru. In Bjorndal. K. (Ed.). Biology and Consewation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 235-240. Hendrickson, J. R. 1980. The ecological strategies of sea turtles. In Symposium on the Behavioral and Reproductive Biology of Sea Turtles. American Zoologist 20:597-608. Hewavisenthi, S. 1990. Exploitation of marine turtles in Sri Lanka: historic background and present status. Marine TurtleNewsletter 48:14-19. Higginson. J. 1989. Sea turtles in Guatemala: threats and conservation efforts. Marine Turtle Newsletter 45:l-5. Hildebrand, H . H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga lora Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la costa occidental de Golfo de Mexico (Rept., Chel.). Ciencia, Mexico 22:105-112. Hildebrand, H . H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the Western Gulf of Mexico. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 447-453. Hoekert, W. E. J., Schouten, A. D., van Tienen, L. H. G., and Weijerman, M. 1996. Is the Surinam olive ridley on the eve of extinction? First census data for olive ridleys, green turtles, and leatherbacks since 1989. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75:l-4. Hurtado, M. 1982. The ban on the exportation of turtle skin from Ecuador. Marine Turtle Newsletter 20:l-4. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2003a. Review of the status of sea turtle stocks in the eastern Pacific. Working Group on Bycatch: Fourth Meeting. Kobe, Japan, January 14-16, 2004. Document BYC-4-04. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (1ATTC). 2003b. Interactions of sea turtles with tuna fisheries, and other impacts on turtle populations: Interactions in the purse-seine fishery. Working Group on Bycatch; Fourth Meeting, Kobe, Japan, January 14-16,2004. Document BYC-4-05a. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2003c. Interactions of sea turtles with tuna fisheries, and other impacts on turtle.populations: Interactions in longline fisheries. Working Group on Bycatch; Fourth Meeting, Kobe, Japan, January 14-16,2004. Document BYC-4-05a. Islam, M. 2.2002. Threats t o sea turtles in St. Martin's Island, Bangladesh. Kachhapa 6:6-10. Jackson, J. B. C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:5411-5418. Jinadasa, 1. 1984. The effect of fishing on turtle populations. Loris 16:311-314. Jones, S., and Fernando, A. B. 1968. The present state of the turtle fishery in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. In Symposiuum of Living Resources of the Seas Around India, Cochin, December, 1968. pp. 712-715. Kalim, M. H., and Dermawan, A. 1999. Marine turtle research and conservation in Indonesia. In Report of the SEAFDEC-ASEAN Regional workshop on sea turtle conservation and management,]uly 26-28, 1999, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, pp. 78-103. Human Turtle Jnte~actton.':at Se'i Kamarruddin, I. 1994. The status of marine turtle conservation in Peninsular Malaysia. In Nacu, A., Trono, R., Palma, J. A., Torres, D., and Agas, F.,Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the First ASEAN Syrnvoslum-W'orfohop on marine turtle conservation. Manila: World Wildlife Fund, pp. 87-103. Kapurusinghe, T., and Cooray, R. 2002. Marine turtle by-catch in Sri Lanka. Survey Report. Panadura, Sri Lanka: Turtle Conservation Project. Kar. C. S. 1980. The Gahirmatha turtle rookery along the coast of Orissa, India. Marine Turtle Newsletter 15:2-3. Kar, C. S., and Bhaskar, S. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the eastern Indian Ocean. In Bjorndal, K. A. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 365-372. Kar, C. S.. and Dash, M. C. 1984. Conservation and status of sea turtles in Orissa. In Silas, E. G. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Special Publication 18, pp. 93-107. Kotas, J. E., dos Santos, S., de Azevedo, V. G., Gallo, B. M. G., and Barata, I? C . R. 2004. Incidental capture of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriaeea) sea turtles by the pelagic longline fishery off southern Brazil. Fishery Bulletin 102:393-399. Kuriyan. G . K. 1950. Turtle fishing in the sea around Krusadai island.]ournal of the Bombay Natural History Society 49509-512. Kutty, R. 2001. Community based conservation of sea turtle nesting sites in India. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the National Workshopfor the Development of a National Sea Turtle Conservation Action Plan, Bhubaneshwar. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Institute of India, pp. 86-89. Kutty, R. 2006. Community-based conservation of sea turtle nesting sites in India: Some case studies. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 171-189. Laurent, L. 1999a. Etude prkliminaire sur les interactions entre les populations reproductrices de tortues marines du Plateau des Guyanes et les pecheries atlantiques. Draft report for W W F France. Laurent, L. 1999b. Sea turtle and fishery interactions in Trinidad and Tobago. Draft report for WWF Suriname, Agreement FH- 13. Laurent, L., Charles, R., and Lieveld, R. 1999. Guayana Shield Sea Turtle Conservation Regional Strategy Action Plan 2000-2005: Fishery 289 Sector Report. Draft report for U T V F Sunname, Agreement FH-13. Lima, E. H . S . M . . Brosig. C . . and Ximenes. M . C . A . 2002. Tartarugas marinhas capturadas acidentalmente e m Almofala, Ceari. XXIV Congress0 Brasilero de Zoologia. 17-22 Fevereiro 2002. UNIVALI, Itajai. Santa Catarina, Abstract 14022. Limpus, C. J. 1994. The worldwide status of marine turtle conservation. In Nacu. A,. Trono. R., Palma. J. A., Torres. D.. and Agas. F. jr. (Eds.'~. Proceedings o f the First ASE.4.V Symposium-Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation. Manila: World Wildlife Fund. pp. 43-63. Limpus, C . J. 1995. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: A 1995 overview. In Bjorndal, K. A. (Ed.). Biology'and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington. DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp 605-609. Limpus, C. J. 1997. Marine turtle populations ofSoutheast Asia and the western Pacific region. distribution and status. In Noor. Y.R., Lubis, 1. R., Ounsted, R.. Troeng. S.. and Abdullas, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop on .Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia,]embcr, EastJava, November 1996. Bogor, Indonesia: Wetlands International! PHP.41 Environment Australia, pp. 37-[73?]. Lopez-Mendilaharsu, M.. Fallabrino, A.. Estrades, A., Hernandez, M.. Caraccio, N.. Lezama, C., Laporta, M., Calvo, V.. Quirici. V, Bauza, A,, and Aisenberg, A. 2003. Proyccto Karumbi: Tortugas marinas del Uruguay. Libra de R h e n e s ; 2asjornadas de Conservation 3 uso Sustentable dc la fauna marina; 1 Reunion de ln~wstigaciony Conservacibn de las Tortugas Marinas del Atlantico Sur Occidental. Montevideo: UNESCO. p. 70. Lutcavage, M. E., Plotkin, P.. Witherington, B., and Lutz. P. L. 1997. Human Impacts 011 Sea Turtle Survival. In Lutz, P. L.. and Musick, J. A. (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 387-409. Mack, D., Duplaix, N., and Wells, S. 1982. Sea turtles, animals of divisible parts: International trade in sea turtle products. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 545-562. Madhyastha, M. N., Sharath, B. K., and Jayaprakash Rao, I. 1986. Preliminary studies on marine turtle hatchery at Bengre beach, Mangalore. Mahasagar Bulletin of the National Institute of Oceanography 19:137-140. Magane, S., Sousa, L., and Pacule, H . 1998. Summary of turtles and fisheries resources information for Mozambique. In Wamukoya, G . M., and 290 J A C K F R A Z I E R El' A 1 Salm, R. V (Eds.), Report o f the Western Indian Ocean Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Training Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya, January27-31, 7997. Nairobi: IUCN East Africa Regional Office. pp. 18-20. Man, E. H . 1883. On the Aboriginal Inhabitatits of the Andaman Islands (reprint. 1978). New Delhi: Prakashak. Manzella. S. A., Caillouet. C . , Jr., and Fontaine, C. 1988. Kemp's ridley. Lepidochelys kempi, sea turtle head start tag recoveries: Distribution. habitat, and method of recovery. Marine Fisheries Renew 50(3):24-32. Marcano, L. A,, and Alio M., J. J. 2000. Incidental capture of sea turtles by the industrial shrimping fleet off northeastern Venezuela. In AbreuGrobois, F. A., Brisefio-Duehas, F. A.. Marquez. R., and S a m , L. (Compilers;. Proceedings o f the Eighteenth lnternat~onalSea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC436, p. 107. Marcovaldi, M. A. 2001. Status and distribution of the olive r~dleyturtle, Lepidochel?)~olivacea, in the western Atlantic Ocean. In Eckert, K. L.. and Albreu-Grobois, F. A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Regional Meeting "Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: a Dialogue for Effective Regional Management. Santo Domingo, November 16-18, 1999: WIDECAST, IUCN-MTSG, WWF, and UNEP-CEP, pp. 52-54. Marcovaldi, M. A,, da Silva, A. C. C . D., Gallo. B. M. G., Baptistotte, C., Lima, E. I?, Bellini, C., Lima, E. H. S. M.. de Castilhos, J. C., T h o m e , J. C. A.. Moreira, L. M. P., and Sanches, T. M. 2000. Recaptures of tagged turtles from nesting and feeding grounds protected by Projeto TAMARIBAMA, Brasil. In Kalb, H. J., and Wibbels, T. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC443, pp. 164-166. Marcovaldi, M. A., Gallo, B. G., Lima. E. H. S. M., and Godfrey, M. H. 2001. Nem tudo que cai na rede ipeixe: An environmental education initiative t o reduce mortality of marine turtles caught in artisanal fishing nets in Brazil. In Borgese. E. M., Chricop, A,, and McConnelI, M. (Eds.). Ocean Yearbook 15. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 246-256. Marcovaldi, M. A., T h o m e , J. C., Sales, G., Coelho, A. C., Gallo, B., and Bellini, C. 2002. Brazilian plan for reduction of incidental sea turtle capture in fisheries. Marine Turtle Newsletter 96: 24-25. Margavio, A. V, and Forsyth, C . J. 1996. Caught in the net: The Conflict between Shrimpers and Conserva" tionists. College Station: Texas A & M University Press. Mirquez-M., R. 1990. Sea Turtles of the World, an Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue o f Sea Turtle Species Known to Date. F A 0 Species Catalogue. F A 0 Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Volume 11. Marquez-M., R. 1994a. Sinopsis dedatfw biolbgicos sobre la tortuga lora, Lepidochelys kempi (Garnian, 1880). FA0 synopsis sobre la Pesca, No. 152; Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Marquez-M., R. 1994b. Synopsis of Biological data on the Kemp's ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-343. Mirquez-M., R. 1996. Las Tortugas Mannas y Nuestro Tiempo. Mexico: La Ciencia para Todos, Fondo Cultural Econbmico (2d. Ed. 2000). Mirquez-M., R., Villanueva O., A,. and Peiiaflores S., C. 1976. Sinopsis de datos Biolhg~cossobre la Tortuga GoIfina, Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz,1829). Mexico: Instituto Naciond de la Pesca 1NP Sinopsis sobre la Pesca. No. 2. SAST-Tormga Golfina. Marquez-M., R.. Vasconcelos P.,).. and Peiiaflores S., C. 1990. XXV"At% de Investigation, conservation y proteccton de la tortuga manna. Mexico: Secretaria de Pesca, Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Mirquez-M., R., Peiiaflores. C., and Vasconcelos, J. 1996. Olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) show signs of recovery at La Escobilla, Oaxaca. Marine Turtle Newsletter 735-7. Martinez T.. C., and Castellanos M., R. 2006. Synchronized nesting of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Chalacatepec, Majahuas and Mismaloya beaches. Jalisco, Mexico. In Pilcher. N. J. (Compiler). Proceedings of the Twen ty-Third Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-536. pp. 174-1 76. Mast, R. B., Hutchinson, B. J., and Pilcher, N. J. 2004. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group news, first quarter 2004. Marine Turtle Newsletter 104:21-22. McGee W. J. 1898. T h e Sen Indians. In Accompanying Papers to 17th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Part I. 1895-1896, Washington, DC, pp. 1-344. Meylan, A. B., and Sadove, S. 1986. Cold stunning in Long Island Sound, New York. Marine Turtle Newsletter 37:7-8. Milton, S., Lutz, P, and Shigenaka, G. 2003. Oil toxicity and impacts o n sea turtles. In Shigenaka, G. (Ed.). Oil and sea turtles: Biology, planning, and response. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA's National Ocean Service, Office of Re- Human-Turtle Intcractions at Sea sponse and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division. Seattle, WA, pp. 35-47. Moein Bartol, S.. and Musick, J. A. 2003. Sensory biology of sea turtles. In Lotz, I? L., Musick, J. A,, and Wyneken. 1. (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume 2. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 79-1 02. Mohanty, B. 2002a. Effluents from Oswal Fertilisers threatens olive ridley sea turtles on the Orissa coast. Kachhapa 6:20. Mohanty, B. 2002b. Comments. Kachhapa 7:22. Moore. G.. andJennings, S. (Eds.). 2000. Commercial Fishing: The Wider Ecological Impacts. Cambridge: The British Ecological Society (Ecological Issues Series,!. Murthy, T. S. N. 1981. Turtles: their natural history, economic importance and conservation. Zoologiana 4:5/-65. Nabhan. G. I? 2003. S~ngingthe Turtles to Sea: The Comcaac (Sen) Art and Science of Reptiles. Berkeley: University of California Press. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NhlFS-USFWS). 1998. Recovery Planfor US Pacific Populations of the Olive Ridley Turtle (1-epidochelys olivacea). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service. National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nichols. W J. 2003a. Sinks, sewers, and speed bumps: the impact of marine development o n sea turtles in Baja California, Mexico. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biololgy and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-503, pp. 17-18. Nichols, W. J. 2003b. Biology and conservation of sea turtles in Baja California, Mexico. Ph.D. diss. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Science, University of Arizona. Tucson. Orrego V, C. M., and Arauz, R. 2005. Mortality of sea turtles along the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. In Coyne, M., and Clark, R. D. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528, pp. 265-266. Palma, J. A. M. 1997. Marine turtle conservation in the Philippines and initiatives towards a regional management and conservation program. In Noor, Y. R., Lubis, I. R., Ounsted, R., Troeng, S., and Abdullas, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia, Jember, EastJava, November 1996. Bogor, Indonesia: Wetlands International/PHPA/Environment Australia, pp. 121-138. 291 Pandav. B. 2000. Conservation and management of olive ridley sea turtles on the Orissa coast. Ph.D. diss. Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar, India. Pandav, B. 2003. Letter to the Editor. Kachhapa 826. Pandav, B., Choudhury, B. C., and Kar, C. S. 1994. A status survey of olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) and its nesting habitats along the Orissa coast, India. Dehra Dun. India: Wildlife Institute of India. Pandav, B., Choudhury, B. C., and Kar, C. S. 1997 (revised ed.). L. olivacea Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) and Its Nesting Habitats along the Onssa coast, India. A Status Survey. Dehra Dun, India: Wildlife Institute of India. Pandav, B., and Choudhury, B. C. 2006. Migration and movement of olive ridley turtles along the east coast of India. In Shanker. K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Sea Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 365-379. Pandav, B., Choudhury, B. C., and Kar, C. S. 2006 Sea turtle nesting habitats on the coast of Or~ssa. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.V Sea Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 88-106. Perera, L., 1986. National Sea Turtle Summary Report. Unpublished report submitted for National Aquatic Agency (NARA), Colombo, 1986 (cited in Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002, s sources P. 6). Pinedo, M. C., and Polacheck, T. 2004. Sea turtle bycatch in pelagic longline sets off southern Brazil. Biological Conservation 119:335-339. Pitman, R. L. 1990. Pelagic distribution and biology of sea turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific. In Richardson, T. H., Richardson, J. I., and Donnelly, M. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278, pp. 143-148 Pitman, R. L. 1992. Sea turtle associations with flotsam in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. In Salmon, M., and Wyneken, J. (Compilers). Pro ceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-302, p. 94. Plotkin, I? T., Byles, R. A., and Owens, D. W. 1993. Migratory and reproductive behavior of Lepidochelys olivacea in the eastern Pacific Ocean. In Schroeder, B. A , , and Witherington, B. E. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorand u m NMFS-SEFSC-341, p. 138. Polunin, N. V C., and Sumertha Nuitja, N. 1982. Sea turtle populations in Indonesia and Thailand. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington. DC: Snlith~ sonian Institution Press, pp. 353-362. Pritchard, P. C . H. 1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bulletin of Florida State Museum 13:85--140. Pritchard, F! C. H. 1973. International migrations of South American sea turtles i,Cheloniidae and Dermochelidae). Animal Behaz~~our 21 :I 8- 27 Pritchard. P. C. H. 1997. Evolution. phylogeny, and current status. In Lutz. P. I... and Musick.!. A. (Eds.). The B i o l o ~ o fSea Turtles. Boca Raton. FL: CRC Press. pp. 1-28. Pritchard. P. C . H., and Plotkin. P. T. 1995. Olive r ~ d ley sea turtle, Lejdochrly olivacea. In Plotkin. ? ! T. (Ed.). National Afannc F~.iht-r~e.~ Service and U. S. Fish and Wildljfr Service Status Renewsfor Sea Turtles Listed under the Eitdar1scred Speeds Act of 1973. Silver Spring. MD' National Marine Fisheries Service. pp. 123-139. PROFEPA. 2003. Aseguramicntos de productos y subproductos de tortuga manna de 1995-2003. Oficio DGVP294.03. 18 septiembre del 2003. Qureshi, T. 2001. Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands: Ormara Turtle Beaches. Pakistan. Unpublished Report. Karachi: IUCN Pakistan. Qureshi. M. T. 2006. Sea turtles in Pakistan. In Shanker. K., and Choudhury. B. C. i.Eds.\ Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press; pp. 21 7-224. Rajagopalan, M.. Vivekanandan, E., Pillai, S. K.. Srinath, M., and Bastion Fernando, A. 1996. Incidental catch of sea turtles in India. Manne Fisheries Information Service. Technical and Extension Series 143:U-16. Rajagopalan, M . , Vivekanandan. E., Balan, K.. and Narayana Kurup, K. 2001. Threats to sea turtles in India through incidental catch. In Shanker, K.. and Choudhury. B. C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the National Workshopfor the Development of a National Sea Turtle Conservation Action Plan. Bhubaneshwar. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Institute of India, pp. 12-14. Raja Sekhar, I? S., and Subba Rao, M. V 1988. Conservation and management of the endangered olive ridley sea turtle Lt-pidoche+ ohvacea (Eschscholtz) along the northern Andhra Pradesh coastline, India. (British Chelonia Group) Testudo 3(5):35-53. Rakotonirina, B., and Cooke. A. 1994. Sea turtles of Madagascar-their status, exploitation and conservation. Oryx 28:51-61. Ramli, M. N., and Hiew. K. W. F? 1999. Marine turtle management, conservation and protection programme in Malaysia. In Report of the SEAFDECASEAN Regional Workshop on Sea Turtle Conserva- tion and Management, July 26-28, 1999. Kuala Tt~engganu,Malaysia, pp. 122-1 30 Randriamiarana. H., Rakotonirina, B., and Mahara\ o, J. 1998. TED experience in Madagascar. In Wamukoya. G. M . . and Salm, R. V. (Eds.). Report of the Western Indian Ocean Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Traitnng Workshop, Mombasa, Kenya. january27-31, 1997. Nairobi: IUCN East Africa Regional Office. pp. 16-17. Rashid, S. h4. A,. and Islam, h3. 2. 2006. Status and conservation of marine turtles in Bangladesh. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 200-216. Raut. S. K.. and Nandi, N.C. 1988. Present status of marine turtle conservation and management in West Bengal. In Silas, E. G. (Ed.) Proceedings o f the Symposium on Endangered Marine Animals and Manne Parks. Cochin, India: Marine Biological Association of India, pp. 255-259. Reichart, H. A. 1993. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys ohvacea (Eschscholtz. 1839) in the Western Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC336. Reichart. H. A,. and Fretey, J. 1993. WIDECAST Sea Turtle Recovery Action Plan for Suriname. In Eckerr, K. 1.(Ed.). CEP Technical Report No. 2. Kingston, Jamaica: UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme. Riding, A. 1985. Distant Neighbors. A Portrait of the Mexicans. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Roeger, S. 2004. Entanglement of Marine Turtles in Netting: Northeast Arn hem Land, Northern Territo^, Australia. Report to: Alcan Gove Pty Limited; World Wide Fund for Nature (Australia); Humane Society International; Northern Land Council. Dhimurru Land Management Corpora tion; Nhulunbuy Northern Territory, Australia. Ross, J. P., and Barwani, M. A.. 1982. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area. In Bjorndal, K. A. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 373-383. Roychoudhury, B. 2001. Survey of sea-turtles in the coasts of West Bengal. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury B. C. (Eds.). Proceedings of the National Workshopfor the Development of a National Sea Turtle Conservation Action Plan, Bhubaneshwar. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Institute of India, pp. 50-52. Rueda-Almonacid, J. V. 1992. Anotaciones sobre u n caso de mortalidad masiva de tortugas marinas en la costa Pacifica de Colombia. In Rodriguez Mahecha, 1. V, and Sanchez Paez, H. (Eds.). Con- Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea tnbuci6n a1 Conociiiiicnto de las Tortugas "¥farina de Colombia, Libro 4. Serie de Publicaciones Especiales del INDERENA. Santa Fe de Bogota. pp. 181-190. Sankar, 0 . B.. and Raju, M . A. 2003. Implementation of the Turtle Excluder Device in Andhra Pradesh. Kackhapa 8:2-5. Sankar, 0. B., and Raju, M. A. 2006. In~plementat~on of the TED in Andhra Pradesh. In Shanker. K.. and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.).Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad. India: Universities Press, pp. 262-267. Schulz,J. I? 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologiscke Verhandelingen 143:1-1 43. SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Developn~ent Center). 1997. Proceeding of the Regional Workshop 011 Responsible Fishing, Bangkok, Thailand, bne24-27, 1997. Samut Prakarn, Thailand: SEAFDEC. SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center). 1999. Regional Guidelinesfor Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia. Bangkok. Thailand: SEAFDEC. Sekhsaria. I? 2004a. Caught in a corporate web. The Hindu Sunday Magazine March 28,2004. Sekhsaria, P. 2004b. Reliance vs. the olive ridley turtle. Infochange News t~ Features, www.info changeindia.orglfeaturesl77.jsp.June 14, 2004. Serafina, T. 2.. Soto,J. M. R., and Celini, A. A. 0 . S. 2002. Registro da captura de tartaruga-olivicea. Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz. 1829) (Testudinata, Cheloniidae), por espinhel-peligico n o Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. XXIV Congresso Brasileriro de Zoologia, INIVALI, Itajal Santa Catarina. Shanker, K. 2003. Thirty years of sea turtle conservation on the Madras coast: A review. Kachhapa 8:16-19. Shanker, K., and Kutty, R. 2005. Sailing the flagship fantastic: Different approaches to sea turtle conservation in India. In Frazier, J. (Ed.). MAST/ Maritime Studies Special Issue: Marine turtles as flagships 3(2)/4(1): 213-240. Shanker, K., and Pilcher, N. J. 2003. Marine turtle conservation in South and Southeast Asia: Hopeless cause of cause for hope? Marine Turtle Newsletter 100:43-51. Shanker, K., Pandav, B., and Choudhury. B. C. 2003. An assessment of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting population in Orissa, India. Biologtcal Conservation 115:149-160. Shanker, K., Ramadevi, J., C h o u d h u ~ B. , C., Sing, L., and Aggarwal, R. K. 2004. Phylogeography of olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) on the east coast of India: implications for conservation theory. Molecular Ecology 13:1899-1909. 293 Sharath. B. K. 2002. Status survey of sea turtles along the Karnataka coast, India. A GO1 UNDP Project Report. Department of Biosciences, University of Mysore, Karnataka. Sharath, B. K. 2006. Sea turtles along the Karnataka coast. In Shanker. K., and Choudhury, B. C. i,Eds.).Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad. India: Universities Press, pp. 141-146. Shigenaka, G. (Ed.). 2003. Oil and Sea Turtles: Biology, Plaiitiitig, and Response. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA's National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, WA. Silas, E. G.. Rajagopalan, M., Fernando, A. B.. and Dan, S. S. 1983a. Marine turtle conservation and management: A survey of the situation in Orissa 1981 i82 and 1982/83. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. Cochin, India. Marine Fisheries Information Service 50: 13-23. Silas. E. G., Rajagopalan. M.. and Dan. S. S. 1983b. Marine turtle conservation and management: A survey of the situation in West Bental 1981 182 and 1982183. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. India. Marine Fisheries Information Service 50:24-32. Silas, E. G., Rajagopalan. M., Dan, S. S., and Bastian Fernando, A. 1984. Observations on the mass nesting and immediate postmass nesting influxes of the olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea at Gahirmatha, Orissa-1984 season. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. Cochin, India. CMFR1 Bulletin 35:76-82, Plates. I-1V Singh, A.. Andrews, H., and Shanker, K. 2003. Report on the G01-UNDP Sea turtle workshop, Andaman & Nicobar Island, India. Kachhapa 9:19-20. Siraimeetan, E? 1988. Observations on the green turtle Chelonia mydas along the Gujarat Coast. In Silas, E. G. (Ed.). Proceedings of the Symposium on Endangered Manne Animals and Marine Parks. Cochin, India: Marine Biological Association of India, pp. 290-297. Smith, W. N. 1974. The Sen Indians and the sea turtles. Journal of Arizona History 15:139-1 58. Somander, K. 1963. Jaffna's turtle trials. Loris 9: 312-314. Soto, J. M. R., and Beheregaray, R. C. E? 1997. New records of Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) and Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766) in the Southwest Atlantic. Marine Turtle Newsletter 77:s-9. Stevens, S. W. L. 1998. Present Status of ShrimpMarine Turtle Interaction in Pakistan: a Literature Overview. Unpublished Report, IUCN Pakistan. 294 JACK FRAZIER ET A L Sunderraj, S. F. W., Vijay Kumar, V, Joshua,[., Serebiah, S., Patel, I. L., and Saravana Kumar, A . 2001. Status of the breeding population of sea turtles along the Gujarat coast. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C . (Eds.). Proceedings o f the National Workshopfor the Development o f a National Sea Turtle Conservation Action Plan, Bhubaneshwar. Dehradun, India: Wildlife Institute of India, pp. 65-69. Sunderraj, S. F. W . Joshua, J., and Vijay Kumar, V. 2006. Sea turtles and their nesting habitats in Gujarat. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 156-1 69 Taha, S. H. M. 1999. The management and conservation of marine turtles in Brunei Darussalam: Country report. In Report of the SEAFDECASEAN Regional Workshop on Sea Turtle Consetvation and Management,July 26-28, 1999, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, pp. 64-68. Tambiah, C. R. 1994. Saving sea turtles or killing them: The case of US. regulated TEDs in Guyana and Suriname. In Bjorndal. K. A., Bolten, A. B., Johnson, D. A., and Eliazar, P.J. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC351, pp. 149-151.Teas, W G. 1993. species composition and size class distribution of marine turtle strandings on the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast United States coasts, 1985-1991. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-3 15. Teyeliz, A. C. 2000. Historia del Trafico de Tortugas Marinas en Mexico antes de 1990. Unpublished report. Mexico City. Thome, J. C. A., Marcovaldi, M. A., Marcovaldi, G. G. D., Bellini, C., Gallo, B. M. G., Lima, E. H. S. M., da Silva, A. C. D. D., Sales. G., and Barata, I? C. R. 2003. An overview of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA's activities in relation t o the incidental capture of sea turtles in Brazilian fisheries. In Seminoff, J. A. (Compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503. pp. 119-120. Thorbjarnarson, J. B., PIatt, S. G., and Khaing. S. T. 2000. Sea turtles in Myanmar: Past and present. Marine Turtle Newsletter 88:lO-11. Tow, S. K., and Moll, E. 0 . 1982. Status and conservation of estuarine and sea turtles in West Malaysian waters. In Bjorndal, K. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles (reprinted 1995). Washington. DC: Smithsoi>ianInstitution Press. pp. 339-347. TRAFFIC. 2004 The trade in marine turtle products in Vier Nam. A report prepared for the Marine Turtle Conservation and Management Team. Vier Nam. Hanoi: Traffic Southeas Asia-Indochina. Tripathy, B. 2002. Is Gahirmatha the world's largest sea turtle rookery? Current Science 83(11j: 1299. Tripathy, B., Choudhury, B. C., and Shanker. K. 200 Marine turtles of Lakshadweep Islands. India. Kachhapa 7:3-7. Tripathy, B.. Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. 20C Important nesting habitats of olive ridley turtle (Lepidochel>~sohvacea) along the Andhra Pradesl coast of eastern India. Oryx 37:454-463. Tripathy, B., Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B.C. In press. The status of sea turtles and their habita in the Lakshadweep Archipelago. India. Journal the Bomb~>f hratural History Society. Tripathy. B., Shanker, K., and Choudhury. B.C. 2006. Sea turtles and their habitats in the Lakshadweep Islands. In Shanker, K.. and Choudh u ~B., C. (Eds.).Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 119-1 35. Try, 1. 1999. Country report on status of sea turtle in Cambodia. In Report of the SEz4FDEC-ASEA!' Regional Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation an Management, July 26-28, 1999, Kuala Terenftganu Malaysia, pp. 72-74. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2000. As sessment Update for the Kemp's Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the We ern North Atlantic. N0.M Technical Memor; dum NMFS-SEFSC-444. Ulaiwi, W. 1997. Marine turtle research and mans ment in Papua New Guinea. In Noor, Y. R., Lubis, 1. R., Ounsted, R., Troeng, S.. and Abd las, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indo nesia,Jember, EastJava, November 1996. Bogor. Indonesia: Wetlands lnternational/PHPAi Environment Australia, pp. 111-120. Univeristy of Alaska Sea Grant College Program (UA-SGCP). 1997. Fisheries Bycatch: Consequen and Management. Alaska Sea Grant College P gram Report No. 97-02, University of Alaska Fairbanks. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National M a n Fisheries Service (USFWS-NMFS). 1992. Rec ery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Li dochelys kempii). St. Petersburg, FL: National Marine Fisheries Service. Human-Turtle Interactions at Sea Valliapan. S , and Pushparaj. S. 1973. Sea turtles in Indian waters. Cheetal 16:26-30. Vinh, C . T , and Thuoc. P. 1999. Research. Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles in Vietnam. In Report of the SEAFDEC-.4SE.4.\' Repondl Workshop on Sea Turr le Conservation and Managemerit, July26-28, 1999, Kuala Tert-iiggaiiu, Malaysia, pp. 178-187. Wamukoya, G. M.. Mbendo, 1. R.. and Eria. J. 1998. Bycatch in shrimp trawls in Kenya with specific reference t o sea turtles. In Wan~ukoya.G. M . . and Salm. R. V (Eds.). Report of the Western Indian Ocean Turtle Excluder Device (TED) Training Workshop, M o m b a . ~ ,Kenya, January 27-31, 1997. airobi: 1UCN East Africa Regional Office, pp. 14-15. Weber, M. 1995. Kemp's ridley sea turtle. In Plotkin, P. T. (Ed.). National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and \\Whfe Service Status Reviews of Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Silver Spring. MD: National Marine Fisheries Service; Washington, DC: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pp. 109-122. Weber, M. 1996. Book Review: Caught in the net: The conflict between shrimpers and conservationists. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75:3 1-32. Weber, M., Crouse, D., Irvin, R., and ludicello, S. 295 1995. Delay and Denial: A Political History o f Sea Turtles and Shrimp Fishntg. Washington, DC: Center for Marine Conservat~on. Wickremasinghe, S. 1981. Turtles and their conservation. Lons 15:313-315. Witzell. W. N. 1994a. T h e U.S. Commercial Sea Turtle Landings. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-350. Witzell, W. N. 1994b. The origin, evolution, and demise of the U.S. Sea turtle fisheries. Marine Fisheries Bulletin 56(4):8-23. WMS-EA (Wildlife Management Section, Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia). 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles i n Australia. Canberra: Environment Australia. WPS1 (Wildlife Protection Society of India). 2003. Operation Kachhapa News. K a c h h a p 826-27. Wright, B.. and Mohanty, B. 2002. Olive ridley mortality in gill nets in Orissa. Kachhapa 6:18. Wright, B., and Mohanty, B. 2006. Operation Kachhapa: An NGO Initiative for Sea Turtle Conservation in Orissa. In Shanker, K., and Choudhury, B. C. (Eds.). Sea Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad, India: Universities Press, pp. 290-302. BIOLOGY A N D CONSERVATION O F RIDLEY SEA TURTLES Edited by P A M E L A T. P L O T K I N T H E J O H N S H O P K I N S U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS ~ i m