Content-Type: text/html Cturtlers, Wow. I can say that a I'm glad a dialogue has opened up about the consequences of uplisting loggerhead turtles and I'm sorry I singled out Broward County's past malfeasance concerning the conservation of the species (an action which likely has not contributed to any increases in their population). But, let's review, it has now been shown that nest relocation does not significantly alter the hatch rates of nests when done correctly and in a timely fashion. It has also been documented that nest relocation neither skews sex ratios nor does it produce hatchlings that differ from those in insitu nests from the same beach. Given these FACTS, if we are truly concerned about preserving the species, every effort should be made to move any nest in danger of being washed out or any nest situated where hatchlings will ultimately crawl towards artificial lighting. Too many nests to do so is no excuse if in fact we are dealing with an endangered species. Such was not the mentality chosen when it was decided to protect Kemp's Ridley turtles. Almost every nest was relocated for decades and some turtles were headstarted and we now have a rebounding population in Rancho Nuevo, despite the qualms of past naysayers who now remain silent on the issue. If we call loggerhead turtles endangered than similar measures will have to be taken - including mass nest relocations and rehabilitation. Many facets of what we know as traditional means by which to protect loggerhead turtles will have to change or else the government will be skating the fine line of hypocrisy with regards to their protection of other endangered turtles like Kemp's ridleys. There are no categories like 'a little endangered' or 'really really endangered', it's just 'endangered' And, loggerhead turtles are nowhere close to being endangered with respect to other 'endangered' turtle species. Maybe in Australia but not in the eastern US. I have seen the data from annual trawler surveys from the Carolinas to Florida where hundreds of subadult loggerhead turtles are tagged annually as neophytes and even had the state coordinators from these regions tell me 'there are a lot of turtles out there'. These turtle will become nesters in another 15-20 years and will likely make up for the declines seen in nesting in Florida from 1998 to the present (and likely even in South Carolina). It just takes time for this 'changing of the guard' to happen. Data from Georgia indicates that the nesting population is stable, or as the state coordinator says 'indiscernibly declining' (whatever that means). We have yet to learn some of the most elementary aspects of loggerhead natural history. Given this, can you imagine what it will be like to get permits to conduct general natural history studies on loggerheads if they are listed as endangered? Universities will be out of the running left and right to conduct wonderful and illuminating research projects and non-profits will have an even harder time continuing their conservation efforts.Turtle walks that are integral for endearing the general public to loggerheads will be overly regulated or totally forbidden. Research projects that enlist the help of the general public to conduct night-time tagging and conservation will become so highly regulated that only the 'select' will be able to experience the beauty and wonder of working directly with these magnificent animals. I began work on such a project in high school and this type of opportunity, along with turtle walks on Juno Beach, Florida, inspired me to become a turtle biologist - working now for over 20 years with turtles. Likewise, many general public volunteers I have worked with have since become turtle biologist after having the chance to work directly with loggerhead turtles - a species they were able to become acquainted with because they were listed 'only' as threatened and not 'endangered', had loggerheads been uplisted at the time these people would never have been permitted to be introduced and trained to conduct hands-on research and conservation with sea turtles. Moreover, some of these volunteers were middle-aged and had already spent their earlier years in college becoming lawyers or nurses or whatnot (not biologists); however, through their experience working on our program they have been qualified to be hired elsewhere in the world working with sea turtles (not because they had a degree in biology but because they gained hands on experience in the field). Now they have begun second careers as researchers, field biologists and champions for the preservation of sea turtles. If the resulting restrictions surrounding the status of endangered had been placed on loggerheads during this time, the sea turtle community would be that much smaller and would not include some of the leading experts in the field today. We also have to consider whether or not marine ecosystems could support the numbers of loggerhead turtles historically observed in some areas. Humans destroy marine livebottoms when trawling and harvest many marine species for consumption that are also consumed by loggerhead turtles. Are the necessary resources there to allow for the continued increase of loggerhead populations? Is this a realistic doable endeavor to re-establish historic loggerhead populations? If it isn't, then loggerhead turtles will be on the endangered species list for eons - because we will never be able to 'replenish' their populations according to the goals and numbers set by the current recovery plan. It seems to me that conservation of a depleted species should aim for stability rather than posting monumental gains for many years in a row. We have stability in loggerhead populations in some areas and to me this means that the populations are planing out with respect to available resources. I am a proponent for habitat protection, but this is not achieved by placing a single resident in these areas on the endangered species list. If this were the case than the loggerhead turtle uplisting would never have to be considered. There are already dozens of marine species on the endangered species list that frequent the habitats also occupied by loggerheads, and their endangered status has not lead to the protection of these habitats. What makes us think by adding another endangered species (the loggerhead turtle) to the list of other endangered animals in these habitats will make a difference? It hasn't made a difference before. Maybe we should rethink the means by which we propose legislation to protect these habitats other than placing a bullseye on a particular species head to lead the charge to protect these areas. Such was almost detrimental to the spotted owl. There has to be ways to protect loggerheads other than surrounding them with red-tape that will ultimately exclude potential individual workers and future conservationists that are necessary for loggerhead management. There will be no sympathy offered to my position by some 'well-known' turtle biologists because they will have the privelege of working with 'endangered' loggerheads because they work for the permitting institutions. These individuals are also proponents for the uplisting of loggerheads because they have nothing to lose by doing so. They will always be able to put their hands on a turtle or gain increasing and invaluable experience by doing so. They will not understand what it is like to be an average joe looking to gain experience in order to get an 'in' in the world of sea turtle field biology. But, I am not asking for their sympathy. I am asking for the ears of those who know exactly where I'm coming from. We should exhaust every means to propagate loggerheads before throwing our hands up and asking for 'federal assistance'. These means have not been exhausted yet and we have yet to prove unequivocally that loggerheads are endangered. As long as there is a shadow of a doubt, which there is, no US court should rule in favor of uplisting loggerheads. And the petitioning organizations should consider the possible deleterious effects of their actions prior to submitting such hubris. We haven't even covered the economic consequences of a loggerhead uplisting that would foment negative attitudes towards the turtles we love by certain individuals in the general public: those who livlihoods will be dramatically altered or terminated as a result of a loggerhead uplisting. This will be covered in PT 2. Believe me, uplisting loggerheads is not a simple straight-forward matter. It could potentially open up a can of worms that may generate the most negative press in the general media that we've ever witnessed. Would this be fair to loggerhead turtles; for us to use them as patsies in order to push political agenda? Mike Frick <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> To leave the CTURTLE list, send a message to: [log in to unmask] with the message: signoff CTURTLE If you experience difficulty, send an email to: [log in to unmask] <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>