Following public pressure from nearly 180,000 individuals across 150 countries (WSPA, 2012), WSPA was encouraged to see that the Cayman Turtle Farm  (CTF) responded to our animal welfare concerns by commissioning an independent inspection to establish whether its operation was conducted in  ‘a humane manner i.e. non-cruel manner’ (Balazs et al, 2013).  However, following a thorough review of the resulting report, WSPA has concluded that it cannot view this publication as an authoritative piece of work that is able to serve as the basis for ongoing constructive dialogue.

Firstly, WSPA has significant concerns regarding the scientific and technical caliber of the report that was publically released by Balazs et al., (2013) following their three-day inspection of the CTF in December 2012. WSPA acknowledges that the inspectors are recognized experts in the field of sea turtle biology and have a proven track record of publishing their research in peer-reviewed format (CayCompass, 2012). It is therefore extremely surprising that their report lacks the level of detail required for the reader to confirm that the report’s findings represent an accurate and unbiased reflection of the CTFs operation.

Specifically, the report provides a lack of information regarding the scientific methods used by the inspectors to gather or analyze any of the data during their visit. For example, with regards to slaughter practices employed at the CTF, the report   simply states that the inspection panel ‘observed capture, movement and slaughter process with additional Q&A with production staff’ and concluded that  ‘the slaughter was carried out humanely and hygienically’ (Balazs, 2013). No further details are provided regarding how the panel assessed this aspect of the CTF’s operation or what they actually observed. As such the reader is unable to review the situation and confirn1 that the slaughter process does not represent a threat to animal welfare or human health.

Further to this, with insufficient data to prove otherwise, WSPA remains concerned that the recommendations provided within the report do not represent a truly unbiased opinion. Several of the it1spectors have had prior (and perhaps ongoit1g) formal research collaborations \With CTF staff.  Indeed, several of them   have published peer-reviewed scientific   papers and technical reports that have endorsed the CTF and its operatit1g model (e.g. Godley, 2002; Bell et al., 2005; CTF, 2012). As such, WSPA is concerned that their findings, and perhaps more importantly there following recommendations, may be influenced by personal/professional relationships and /or concerns regarding their own professional reputation.

Related to this point, WSPA holds concerns regarding the manner in which the ‘independent assessment’ was arranged and executed. To clarify, a panel of individuals conducted the inspection at a time and date selected by the CTF itself. As a result, it must be acknowledged that the CTF was not only able to facilitate a more favorable assessment than it may otherwise have received, but also had the title to ensure that operatit1g standards were at their optimum durit1g the it1spection period. As such, WSPA feels that the it1dependent nature of the inspection, subsequent report and recommendations within can be legitimately called it1to question.

WSPA acknowledges that the report confirms many of our animal welfare concerns (e.g. disease, injuries and high mortality rates) are genuine and represent continuing areas of concern (Balazs, 2013).  However, there are several key findings that contradict evidence collated via our own ongoing in-depth investigation into the CTF and its operating methods. To be specific, WSPA challenges the following statements made in the report: (1) that there are ‘ no significant issues of concern in the public facing aspect of the operation’; (2) that the  ‘handling of animals by guest represents no area of concern for both animals and guests’; and (3) that there is ‘strong evidence for the positive conservation impact of the CTF’ (Balazs et al., 2013).

To further expand on these points, WSPA staff visited the CTF in January 2013 and obtained photographic   evidence of animal health and welfare concerns   such as inadequate captive conditions, stereotypic behaviors, injuries and disease in the public facing area of its operation. With regards to the handling of animals, it is well documented that wild reptiles demonstrate a physiological response to this stressful stimuli, which can prove ultimately harmful (Warwick et al, 2004). Furthermore, a recent peer-reviewed scientific paper documents the human health threats posed by the CTF  (Warwick et al, 2013). Lastly in terms of conservation impact the existing literature clearly indicates that the true impact of the CTF on wild populations should be considered extremely limited, un-assessed and undetermined at best (Bell et al 2005).

In addition, WSPA is also extremely concerned   regarding many of the recommendations provided within the report, which focus on ‘developing a set of short and long term goals to rectify existing issues’ (Balazs et al, 2013). WSPA encourages any initiatives that will improve the immediate animal welfare problems documented at the CTF.  However, it is clear that these recommendations  (e.g. management action to minimize morbidity and mortality) represent actions aimed at addressing the symptoms of the problem i.e. the health of the animals) rather than addressing the root causes (i.e. the conditions compromising their welfare). As such, WSPA is concerned that despite the CTF’s best efforts severe animal welfare concerns will remain an ongoing major issue at the facility.

Lastly, as originally feared, the recommendations provided within the report are fundamentally flawed as they are based on the false assumption that the green sea turtles housed at the CTF represent domesticated animals (Cayman Turtle Farm, 2013). In reality there is no proof that there has a change in their phenotypical expression or genotype that enables them to cope better in intensive captive conditions than their wild counterparts (Driscoll eta! 2009)- Consequently, WSPA believes that the green turtles within the CTF should be considered as wild animals and that the CTF cannot be ‘directly compared with standards of practice that would apply to a comparable intensive livestock production facility in the UK or the USA’ (Balazs et al, 2013).

In summary, following a thorough review of the resulting report produced by Balazs et al, (2013), WSPA is concerned that the ‘independent assessment’ does not represent an accurate and unbiased reflection of the CTF’s current operation. In addition, WSPA has evidence which contradicts     some of the main findings presented in this report and believes   that   the recommendations provided therein represent actions aimed at addressing symptoms rather than the root causes of the welfare problems within the CTF.  Furthermore, WSPA believes that the recommendations provided by the inspection panel in this report are fundamentally flawed as the fail to recognize that the green turtles within the CTF are wild animals that cannot be compared with other types of domestic livestock. Based on these concerns WSPA has concluded that it cannot view this publication as an authoritative piece of work that is able to serve as the basis for ongoing constructive dialogue.