Rachel Alcock, Campaign Manager for World Society for the Protection of Animals (UK) (WSPA UK), has responded to Colin Wilson, iNews Cayman’s Editor-in-Chief’s Editorial re WSPA’s insistence to end Cayman’s sea turtle farming and his email to her on 26^th November, 2012.

Wilson’s email said, “I must say I was disappointed to say the least in Roberto Vieto’s statement that grossly exaggerated what occurred at the turtle release. Unfortunately it now questions everything that you say was wrong at CTF. How much was exaggerated in that report? Perhaps you can differentiate between farming of fish and turtles? Neither is domesticated but if turtles were that would be OK? I fail to see the point..”

The Editorial in question can be found at:

http://www.ieyenews.com/2012/11/the-editor-speaks-wspa-still-insist-ctf-end-sea-turtle-farming/

Ms. Alcock’s reply is: “Many thanks for your email, and for the two pieces on our campaign and the CTF. I felt from your email and from the content of your editorial that there were several points raised which I could follow up on. So what I have done is pulled together some of your questions and created the attached question and answer document. I hope that you are able to use this in some way?”

Question – Was WSPA justified in suspecting that more than one turtle was injured? 

We are glad you that you also noticed the turtle with damage to its flipper. At a time when the Farm is under international scrutiny, WSPA was surprised to find such clear evidence of injury amongst the turtles being released.  As you will know, this occurred despite the Farm claiming in a public announcement that; ‘as part of the release programme, turtles are quarantined and reviewed for any disease or defect before release’. It is worrying to think that at this time, when the Farm are trying to justify their conservation efforts, this injured turtle has slipped through the net.

Whilst it is not possible to conclusively identify the type of defect or disease without a closer examination of the turtle, what it does show is that the procedures put in place by the CTF failed. And if this one turtle exposed to public scrutiny at this release had a defect, what condition were the ones in at previous releases?

The CTF has not yet been able to demonstrate that their quarantine procures are adequate, and that they are releasing turtles into the wild which pose absolutely no threat to the wild turtle population. The commercial method of farming practiced at the facility significantly increases the incidence rate of diseases including chlamydiosis, grey patch disease, fibropapillomatosis and lung-eye-trachea disease.

Much of the scientific research conducted at the CTF actually looks at the level and type of diseases found at the Farm, for example the authors of this research paper: http://www.boatswainsbeach.ky/_media/documents/scientific_herpesvirus.pdf studied turtles at the CTF, with particular focus on the spread of grey patch disease. This illness is a herpes type disease which results in skin legions, and is thought to be found in turtles which live in stressful environmental conditions such as overcrowded tanks. The study looked at turtles which were under one year old (so a similar age to those being released) and which currently had grey patch disease. The scientists then artificially infected turtles without grey patch, via skin legions, to show that the disease could be spread from turtle to turtle. The results showed that all turtles which were exposed to the grey patch disease developed the illness.

This study demonstrates that not only is grey patch illness present at the Farm, but that this is an illness which can be easily transmitted.  The authors estimate that 2 to 25% of animals with grey-patch disease die, depending upon the conditions under which they are maintained.

Whilst the CTF may have examined the turtles for physical signs of illness (although they missed the turtle with the damaged flipper) it is possible that some of the green turtles released by the Cayman Turtle Farm are carriers of these sorts of harmful diseases but have yet to develop any observable symptoms. Some of these illnesses can remain dormant within the turtles and will only manifest when the animal is put under stress – stress which could be triggered by being handled when released for example.

The CTF has yet to show that they have put in place appropriate methods to examine each turtle which is planned for release, to guarantee that it does not harbour an illness which could be passed on to a wild turtle. We would like to believe that the Farm is operating strict quarantine procedures to avoid contaminating healthy wild populations, but by refusing to provide any evidence to demonstrate this, we are led to believe that such evidence does not exist. We would ask the Farm to explain to the Caymanian people why they have considered it appropriate to release a turtle with a clear defect, and also how they can guarantee that none of the turtles released by harbouring illnesses which could be passed on to the wild population which are, of course, of symbolic importance to the Cayman Islands.

Question – During the release everyone who picked up the turtles were given lessons in handling the turtles and the children had their hands actually placed around the turtles bodies and were all supervised. The claim ‘freely handle’ gives the impression people were allowed to just go and pick up the turtles and throw them into the sea!

To a tourist visiting the Cayman Islands it might seem like a wonderful experience to hold a young turtle and release it into this ocean. Yet despite being giving instruction on how to handle turtles, it is the actual handling itself which is extremely stressful for the animals. We have raised this issue with the Farm directly, outlining our concerns, and have tried to encourage the Farm to end all unnecessary handling of the turtles.

The turtles held at the release can be observed flapping and struggling, these behaviours are signs of severe distress. In the wild you would only observe this type of behaviour in a turtle if they were under attack.

It is worth remembering that whilst the turtles at the release may only have been held for short periods, the juvenile turtles at the Farm in the touch tanks and handled multiple times on a daily basis, and so will be in a constant state of stress.

WSPA was also concerned to see that those people who were holding turtles were not wearing gloves. Young turtles’ skin is sensitive, and contamination with certain substances can be toxic. It is essential that young turtles do not come into contact with non-natural substances such as sun cream or insect repellent.

WSPA believes that the handling of turtles should only be carried out when absolutely necessary and those handling turtles should always wear latex gloves.

Can the Farm guarantee that none of the turtles released were affected by being handled or by coming into contact with chemicals which are toxic to the animal concerned?

Question – What is the difference between farming of fish and turtles? Neither is domesticated but if turtles were that would be OK? What is the difference between farming turtles compared to the farming of cattle or fish? With some of the recent video of cattle farming, milking and the treatment of chickens and turkeys it makes the CTF look like a 5 star hotel!

The sub-standard conditions and poor animal husbandry at the Farm would be cause for concern for WSPA regardless of the type animal being reared. WSPA is an international welfare charity which opposes the intensification of all farming methods involving animals.

However, there is a fundamental difference between farming domesticated animals like cows or chickens, and the farming of turtles. Unlike these animals which have taken at least several hundreds of years to become domesticated, sea turtles never have. The domestication process involves adaptation to captive conditions, over a number of generations. So for example cows have been domesticated for a period of at least 5000 years and already possessed particular pre-adaptive traits that lent themselves to human-environment sharing. The small number of animals that have been domesticated is not a random selection: these animals were domesticated because they had suitable characteristics, characteristics which turtles do not have.

Even turtles that have been bred in captivity have strong drives to behaviours that the Farm’s intensive breeding conditions do not permit. In the wild, sea turtles are solitary creatures that swim long distances and dive to great depths. They are not able to adapt to the artificial environment of the farm or to interaction with humans. Continuing to captive breed turtles for a few more generations would by no means be enough time to domesticate the species.

With regards to similarities between farming fish and turtles, WSPA emphasises that much more attention should be given to the welfare of fish, particularly because of the very fact that they are not domesticated. For example, salmon (the main species farmed in the UK) are not only undomesticated but also have two major features that are problematic for captivity – they are carnivorous and migratory, and the conditions in which they are kept do not take account of those features. Furthermore, most fish are kept in very large groups in barren conditions, which prevents care for, or even monitoring of, individuals.

We do also oppose the farming of new species (including fish species), for the reasons concerning domestication as detailed above.

Question – Is WSPA attacking a cultural tradition?

Farming of sea turtles is not a historical Caymanian cultural tradition, but was developed to meet the demand for legal turtle meat after the hunting of wild turtles was made illegal in the early 80s.

WSPA spent considerable time interviewing Caymanian people to develop a deeper understanding of the problem and the cultural importance of turtles is clear. However, our investigation shows that the Cayman Turtle Farm is not an appropriate solution to this conflict as it is failing in its conservation efforts.

Information obtained from the Cayman Turtle Farm shows that in the last five years there has been a clear decrease in the amount of turtles sold for meat. In 2007 1632 turtles were sold for meat, whereas this number had fallen to 762 in 2011.

It is worth also contrasting the number of turtles sold for meat against the amount of money being paid by the Caymanian Government in order for the Farm to continue to operate. The Farm has been making an average loss of well over nine million Cayman dollars a year over the past five years, only surviving so far thanks to extensive government subsidies. Is this a price worth paying in order to for a small proportion of the population to consume turtle meat?

WSPA firmly believes that this money would be far better spent on developing an effective release and rehabilitation centre for sea turtles, and to employ appropriate and effective measures to protect the wild turtle population.

We have created a way for anyone who has concerns or questions surrounding this campaign to contact us directly. We would encourage your readers to email us at [email protected] as we would welcome the chance to provide more information to people who have further questions for WSPA.