Marine Turtle Newsletter - 1 Tagged Wild Turtles Will Be Exposed to Trawling with Mandatory Teds

Home , Peter Pritchard

Number 77 April 1997 Editors: Editorial Board: Karen L. Eckert & Scott A. Eckert Nat B. Frazer Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Nicholas Mrosovsky 2595 Ingraham Street David W. Owens San Diego, California Peter C. H. Pritchard 92109 USA James I. Richardson

DISTINGUISHING CAPTIVE-REARED FROM WILD KEMP'S RIDLEYS In 1996, the U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Galveston Laboratory, Gladys Porter Zoo (GPZ, Brownsville, Texas USA) and Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INP) of Mexico initiated tagging of hatchling Kemp's ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii) at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. NMFS, GPZ and INP personnel tagged 3,336 hatchlings with non- magnetized wire tags (Patrick Burchfield, GPZ, pers. comm., January 1997). The tags (manufactured by Northwest Marine Technology, Shaw Island, Washington USA) were injected into the right foreflipper. Plans are to wire-tag up to 10,000 more hatchlings in the left foreflipper in 1997, thus distinguishing them from the 1996 year-class. The purpose of this paper is to alert the sea turtle research community to this tagging program, to provide background information concerning how and why it came about, and to provide criteria for distinguishing captive-reared from wild Kemp's ridleys. Background In 1992, Eckert et al. (1994) conducted a peer review of the Kemp's ridley head-start experiment, clarified its objectives, developed testable hypotheses and made recommendations for improvements (see also Wibbels, 1989 and Donnelly, 1994). They stated explicitly that head-started turtles were the experimental group and wild turtles were the control group. How- ever, a direct comparison between head-started and wild year-classes was not possible, because ages of the wild turtles were unknown. There had been no tagging program for known-age wild turtles (see recommendations of Byles et al., 1996) comparable in magnitude to that for known- age, head-started turtles. To provide a control, Eckert et al. (1994) recommended tagging as large a sample of wild hatchlings as possible in each of two consecutive seasons at Rancho Nuevo, using archival type tags (either internal wire or PIT, passive integrated transponder). The Galveston Labora- tory is conducting PIT-tagging experiments on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) hatchlings, but use of this tag on large numbers of hatchlings released into the wild is cost-prohibitive, especially when the rate of tag returns is expected to be low. Eckert et al. (1994) recognized there were biases in using wild hatchlings as a control. Most head-started year-classes were released during years in which turtle excluder devices (TEDs) were not required in shrimp trawls, whereas the

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 1 tagged wild turtles will be exposed to trawling with mandatory TEDs. The wild turtles are being tagged and released as hatchlings, but the captive-reared turtles were seven months old or older when released (Caillouet et al., 1995). At its October 1993 meeting in North Padre Island, Texas (USA), the Kemp's Ridley Working Group (KRWG) requested laboratory tests of wire-tagging hatchlings, using loggerheads followed by Kemp's ridleys. The KRWG also expressed concern that magnetized wire tags might interfere with magnetic orientation and navigation of hatchlings (see also Eckert et al., 1994), and requested only non-magnetized wire tags be applied to large numbers of hatchlings at Rancho Nuevo. These non-magnetized tags cannot be detected using magnetometers unless they are first magnetized (see Fontaine et al., 1993 for details). However, wire tags can be detected by X-ray. Galveston Laboratory experiments comparing non-tagged to two wire-tagged (non- magnetized and magnetized) groups of hatchlings were conducted on loggerheads of the 1993 year-class, and repeated on Kemp's ridleys of the 1994 and 1995 year-classes (see Table 1). Tagging was done at Rancho Nuevo to simulate on a small scale the situation that would occur in a large scale wire-tagging operation. There were no significant differences in survival, growth or tag retention rates among groups in either species, and tag retention (as confirmed by magnetometer and X-ray) was near 100%. For both year-classes of Kemp's ridleys, the three groups all had magnetized wire tags when released (Table 1). At its November 1995 meeting in College Station, Texas USA, the KRWG cautioned against wire-tagging more than 5,000 hatchlings in 1996, because this method had never been attempted on large numbers of hatchlings under field conditions. Experimental Group We consider head-started turtles to be the 22,205 "yearlings" of the 1978-1992 year- classes obtained as hatchlings from Padre Island National Seashore (PINS) near Corpus Christi, Texas USA or from Rancho Nuevo, captive-reared by the Galveston Laboratory for 7-15 months, tagged and released into the Gulf of Mexico (Table 1). Hatchlings from PINS were produced from eggs collected at Rancho Nuevo. Additional Kemp's ridleys were captive-reared for longer periods (e.g., to develop a captive brood stock during the early years of the head-start experiment). Some of these so-called "super-head-started" turtles (Phillips, 1989:103) were eventually released. We do not consider them typical of head-started turtles, because extended rearing may have habituated them to artificial conditions and predisposed them to exhibit aber- rant behavior when released (Caillouet et al., 1995). Any Kemp's ridleys of the 1978-1992 year- classes that may have been captive-reared by other organizations are not considered head- started. Finally, those of the 1993 and later year-classes captive-reared by the Galveston Labor- atory are not considered head-started. Regardless, we have included in Table 1 all captive-reared Kemp's ridleys released by the Galveston Laboratory or transferred to other organizations which released them. The Galveston Laboratory maintains tag-release records for these turtles, and therefore is the clearing house for their tag returns. Distinguishing Groups Tags applied to captive-reared turtles (Table 1) are the keys to distinguishing them from wild ones, whether tagged or not. Researchers at Galveston Laboratory applied external, metal, foreflipper tags to every turtle released, and applied additional types of tags to most of them (Fontaine et al., 1985; Caillouet et al., 1986; Manzella et al., 1988; Fontaine et al., 1988, 1989a, 1989b; Phillips 1989; Fontaine et al., 1993; Caillouet et al., 1995). In 1996, the first documentation of head-started Kemp's ridley nestings (one each from 1983 and 1986 year-

2 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Table 1. Numbers of captive-reared Kemp's ridleys tagged with various types of tags and then released into the wild (includes head-started, "super-head-started" and other captive-reared turtles). "Internal-tagged" refers to turtles wire-tagged in either the left or right foreflipper. "External-tagged" refers to yearling turtles receiving external metal foreflipper tags. ------Year- Internal-tagged Living- PIT- External- class (left) (right) tagged tagged tagged Total ------1978 9 1 8 2018 2028 1979 1363 1370 1980 180 1723 1723 1981 1639 1639 1982 12 12 436 12 1324 1336 1983 183 190 190 1984 1041 1041 23 1017 1041 1985 1533 1533 1533a 1533 1986 1726 1492 97 1629b 1726 1987 1280 1265 5 1230 1280 1988 910 870 102 808 910 1989 1914 1447 69 1845c 1914 1990 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1991 1944 1944 1944 1944d 1944 1992 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1993 188 188 188 187 188 1994 170 142 170 170 170 1995 168 160 168 168 168 Total 13458 1391 14824 6728 22730e 23102 ______a Correction of the 1,534 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995). b Correction of the 1,630 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995). c Correction of the 1,894 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995). d Correction of the 1,943 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995). e Only the 22,205 from the 1978-1992 year-classes are considered head-started; correction of the 22,255 reported by Caillouet et al., 1995). ______classes) relied on more than one type of tag (Shaver, 1996a, b). Despite being tagged with one to four types of tags, captive-reared turtles can still be misidentified as wild if tags are (a) lost, (b) retained but not detected by persons unfamiliar with the tags or who lack appropriate detection equipment and training or (c) detected but not correctly reported. One or more of the following criteria are necessary to distinguish captive-reared from wild turtles: 1. Captive-reared turtles tagged with magnetized wire tags totaled 14,837 (Table 1), but wire tags in wild hatchlings released at Rancho Nuevo were non-magnetized. Distinguishing

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 3 captive-reared from wild turtles based on this difference will require retention of magnetism by the magnetized tags, and the non-magnetized tags remaining non-magnetized in the wild. Under these conditions, wire tags in the captive-reared turtles should be detectable with a magnetometer, and those in the wild will have to be magnetized with a magnet before they can be detected with a magnetometer (Fontaine et al., 1993). 2. All captive-reared Kemp's ridleys of the 1978-1995 year-classes (23,102 turtles) were tagged with Hasco Style 681, external, metal, foreflipper tags bearing unique individual codes (manufactured by National Band and Tag Company, Newport, Kentucky USA). However, these tags are not permanent. When lost, they leave scars, but the scars sometimes heal and are not recognizable. As long as they are retained, these tags distinguish captive-reared from wild turtles by their unique codes. No other tags are needed to identify a captive-reared turtle when the external, foreflipper tag is retained, observed, correctly read and reported. 3. Most (14,824 turtles) captive-reared Kemp's ridleys were tagged with "living tags" (formed by grafting a small, light-colored piece of plastron tissue to the darker carapace). "Living tags" were placed on different scutes to distinguish year-classes (Caillouet et al., 1986; Fontaine et al., 1988). To our knowledge, no wild Kemp's ridleys have been "living tagged" and released. However, even trained observers sometimes fail to observe "living tags" (Fontaine et al., 1993). It is essential that observers scrub the carapace to remove adhering algae, mud or other debris before examining it carefully for a "living tag." 4. PIT tags (400 kHz; Biosonics, Inc., Seattle, Washington USA) bearing unique individual codes were placed in 6,728 captive-reared Kemp's ridleys. Captive-reared turtles should be distinguishable from wild nesters and other PIT-tagged wild turtles by these codes, assuming they are detected, correctly read and reported. 5. No captive-reared Kemp's ridleys of year-classes 1979-1981 and 1983 were wire- tagged. Only nine of the 1978 year-class and 12 of the 1982 year-class (see Table 2 in Fontaine et al., 1985) that were "super-head-started" and eventually released were wire-tagged. 6. All captive-reared Kemp's ridleys should be larger than the wild turtles tagged as hatchlings at Rancho Nuevo in 1996. Captive-reared turtles of the 1996 year-class have not yet been released. We expect the wire-tagged wild turtles of the 1996 year-class to enter the neritic habitat following 1-2 years in the pelagic stage (see Ogren, 1989; Byles et al., 1996). There they may be encountered by "in-water" researchers, or be found stranded by the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN). It may take more than a decade before any appear on nesting beaches (Byles et al., 1996). On the other hand, we expect captive-reared Kemp's ridleys to be reported for many years hence. Eckert et al. (1994) recommended that nesting beach coverage efforts be increased to examine all nesters and that all field teams be outfitted to detect head- started turtles (Pritchard, 1990; Byles, 1993; Williams, 1993). We urge participants in the STSSN, "in-water" research and nesting beach operations to examine all Kemp's ridleys they encounter, using criteria presented herein (see also Fontaine et al., 1993). Byles, R. 1993. Head-start experiment no longer rearing Kemp's ridleys. Marine Turtle News- letter 63:1-2. Byles, R., C. Caillouet, D. Crouse, L. Crowder, S. Epperly, W. Gabriel, B. Gallaway, M. Harris, T. Henwood, S. Heppell, R. Marquez, S. Murphy, W. Teas, N. Thompson and B. Witherington. 1996. A report of the Turtle Expert Working Group: results of a series of

4 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 deliberations held in Miami, Florida, June 1995-June 1996. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, Miami, Florida. Unpubl. rept. Caillouet, C. W., Jr., C. T. Fontaine, S. A. Manzella, T. D. Williams and D. B. Revera. 1986. Scutes reserved for living tags. Marine Turtle Newsletter 36:5-6. Caillouet, C. W., Jr., C. T. Fontaine, S. A. Manzella-Tirpak and D. J. Shaver. 1995. Survival of head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) released into the Gulf of Mexico or adjacent bays. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1(4):285-292. Donnelly, M. 1994. Sea Turtle Mariculture: A Review of Relevant Information for Conserva- tion and Commerce. The Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 113 pp. Eckert, S. A., D. Crouse, L. B. Crowder, M. Maceina and A. Shah. 1994. Review of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle headstart program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-3, 10 pp. U. S. Dept. Commerce. Fontaine, C. T., S. A. Manzella, T. D. Williams, R. M. Harris and W. J. Browning. 1989a. Distribution, growth and survival of head started, tagged and released Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) from year-classes 1978-1983, p.124-144. In: C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and A. M. Landry, Jr. (Editors), Proc. First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M Univer- sity, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-89-105, vi + 260 pp. Fontaine, C. T., K. T. Marvin, T. D. Williams, W. J. Browning, R. M. Harris, K. L. W. Indelicato, G. A. Shattuck and R. A. Sadler. 1985. The husbandry of hatchling to yearling Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi). NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- SEFC-158, iv + 34 pp., 10 Tables, 22 Figures, 2 Append. U. S. Dept. Commerce. Fontaine, C. T., D. B. Revera, T. D. Williams and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1993. Detection, veri- fication and decoding of tags and marks in head started Kemp's ridley sea turtles, Lepi- dochelys kempii. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-334, iii + 40 pp. U. S. Dept. Commerce. Fontaine, C. T., T. D. Williams and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1988. Scutes reserved for living tags: an update. Marine Turtle Newsletter 43:8-9. Fontaine, C. T., T. D. Williams, S. A. Manzella and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1989b. Kemp's ridley sea turtle head start operations of the NMFS SEFC Galveston Laboratory, p.96- 110. In: C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and A. M. Landry, Jr. (Editors), Proc. First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M University, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-89-105, vi + 260 pp. Manzella, S. A., C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and C. T. Fontaine. 1988. Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempi, sea turtle head start tag recoveries: distribution, habitat, and method of recovery. Marine Fisheries Review 50(3):24-32. Phillips, P. 1989. The Great Ridley Rescue. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. 180 pp. Ogren, L. H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridley turtles: preliminary results from the 1984-1987 surveys, p.116-123. In: C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and A. M.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 5 Landry, Jr. (Editors), Proc. First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M University, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-89-105, 260 pp. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1990. Kemp's ridleys are rarer than we thought. Marine Turtle Newsletter 49:1-3. Shaver, D. J. 1996a. A note about Kemp's ridleys nesting in Texas. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75:25-26. Shaver, D. J. 1996b. Head-started Kemp's ridley turtles nest in Texas. Marine Turtle News- letter 74:5-7. Wibbels, T., N. Frazer, M. Grassman, J. Hendrickson and P. Pritchard. 1989. Blue ribbon panel review of the National Marine Fisheries Service Kemp's ridley headstart program. Report to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. 11 pp. Williams, P. 1993. NMFS to concentrate on measuring survivorship, fecundity of head-started Kemp's ridleys in the wild. Marine Turtle Newsletter 63:3-4. CHARLES W. CAILLOUET, JR., BRADLEY A. ROBERTSON, CLARK T. FONTAINE, THEODORE D. WILLIAMS, BENJAMIN M. HIGGINS and DICKIE B. REVERA, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston Laboratory, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, Texas 77551 USA.

RANGE EXTENSION: NESTING BY DERMOCHELYS AND CARETTA IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL Nesting by sea turtles has been reported along the south Atlantic coast of Brazil as far south as the Biological Reserve of Comboios (19°45'S, 39°55'W), Espírito Santo (Marcovaldi and Albuquerque, 1982; Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1987). This report describes the first evidence of nesting further south. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are involved (Table 1). Collected material was deposited in the Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí (MOVI).

Table 1. First records of sea turtle nesting in Brazil south of 26°S.

6 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Complementary Data 1. Nesting occurred at Quilombo Beach, City of Penha. Onlookers witnessed the event, which lasted about two hours. Biometric data were not collected. Grain size analysis revealed a predominance of coarse sand. Hatching took place the night of 28 February 1995 after 62 days of incubation. A newborn (catalogued photos MOVI-05419), 46 x 35 mm straight-line carapace length x width, was kept in captivity and fed a carnivorous diet of Sardinella sp. (Clupeidae), Callinectes sp., Xiphopenaeus sp. (Decapoda) and Illex sp. (Cephalopoda). At the end of one month, its dimensions were 71 x 58.5 mm straight-line carapace length x width. 2. Nesting occurred at Paraíso Beach, City of Torres, and was reported by onlookers. Bio-metric data were not collected. Grain size analysis revealed a predominance of fine sand. The beach has a gradual slope, which led the animal to distance itself about 90 m from the sea, passing two small dunes and laying its eggs next to a pile of trash. Hatching took place on 5 March 1995 after 64 days of incubation. For two days post-hatching, the nest attracted the interest of two specimens of Didelphis albiventris (Mammalia, Marsupialia), but no plundering was observed. Four days after the primary emergence, more hatchling tracks were observed. However, since the nest could not be precisely located, it was impossible to prove that these hatchlings were from the same nest. 3. Nesting occurred at Plataforma Entremares, Rincao Beach, City of Içara. Onlookers witnessed the event (emergence from the sea, nest preparation, egg-laying, return to the sea), which lasted about three hours. Biometric data were not collected. Grain size analysis revealed a predominance of fine sand. After 60 days of incubation, the nest was exhumed. None of the 104 eggs showed any embryonic development. 4. Nesting occurred at Grande Beach, City of Penha. Grain size analysis revealed a predominance of coarse sand. The female was seen returning to the sea after egg-laying. Seven days later, the eggs were collected by beachgoers. The eggs were examined by museum specialists who confirmed that they had been developing until their intrusive removal from the nest. Eighty -eight eggs were counted; 50 (56.81%) had conjoined shells (Siamese, or "dumbbell shape"). We will add to this record a female (curved carapace length of 151 cm) found dead on 21 November 1991, a victim of a fishing incident. She was carrying dozens of developing eggs, whose shells had not yet calcified. Photographs were catalogued (MOVI-00574). Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the assistance of Marco A. Baylon (CEPSUL / IBAMA) for information on the nesting at Quilombo Beach; Linoberto M. da Rosa for information on the nesting at Paraíso Beach; Joao L. Betiol for information on the nesting at Rincao Beach; Fernando C. Luz for information on the nesting at Grande Beach; and Armand H. Amin Jr. (LOG / UNIVALI) for grain size analyses. Marcovaldi, G. G. D. and J. C. B. Albuquerque. 1982. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Bol. FBCN 17:70-74. Marcovaldi, M. A. D. and G. G. D. Marcovaldi. 1987. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Areas de desova, épocas de reproduçao, técnicas de conservaçao. Bol. FBCN 22:95-104. JULES M. R. SOTO, RODRIGO C. P. BEHEREGARAY and ROBERTO A. R. de P. REBELLO, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar - FACIMAR, Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí - MOVI, Cx. P. 360 CEP 88302-202 Itajaí, SC, BRAZIL.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 7 NEW RECORDS OF LEPIDOCHELYS OLIVACEA (ESCHSCHOLTZ, 1829) AND ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA (LINNAEUS, 1766) IN THE SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC There are few literature records of olive ridleys in the southwest Atlantic. D'Amato (1992) reports an adult specimen 69 cm in carapace length at Mel Island (25°30'S, 48°20'W) in the state of Paraná, Brazil. Frazier (1984), commenting on the first record of the species in the western South Atlantic based on two specimens, one 51.5 cm straight carapace length and the other without data, stated that one of the specimens was still on display in a restaurant at Punta del Diablo, Department of Rocha, Uruguay. Lema (1994) cites the occurrence of L. olivacea in the states of Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul, based on fragmentary information. The primary nesting area for the olive ridley turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea, in Brazil is the state of Sergipe (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1985); however, the southernmost recorded nesting in the western Atlantic is the Biological Reserve of Comboios (19°45'S, 39°55'W) in the state of Espírito Santo (Marcovaldi and Albuquerque, 1982). In this report we document four adult olive ridleys south of 26°S (Table 1). The contention that the specimens are adults is based on the size of breeding females at Eilanti, Suriname, where Schulz (1975) reports an average straightline carapace length of 68.5 cm (range 63-75 cm, n=500).

Table 1. New records of Lepidochelys olivacea in the southwest Atlantic. The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, is the most tropical of all marine turtles (Witzell, 1983). There are virtually no literature records of this species from our area. In his study of Argentina and Uruguay, Frazier (1984) concluded there was no evidence of the presence of this species in the southwest Atlantic. Lema and Ferreira (1990) mistakenly reported that adult specimens had been caught by fishing boats off the coast of Rio Grande in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil and kept alive in the Museu Oceanogr fico de Rio Grande. Museum offi-cials have clarified the matter in personal communication, stating that the origins of these speci-mens had been examined and certified as being from northeastern Brazil. Lema (1994), in refer-ring to this species, revises the count to a single record in the same locale, without mentioning the specimen in question. The principal nesting areas for the hawksbill turtle in Brazil are between Forte Beach and the beaches of the Parque Interlagos condominium complex in the northern part of the state of Bahia (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1985, 1987). Breeding populations are reduced in Brazil, and thus only a small percentage of the hatchlings emerging from the nation's beaches are of this species (D'Amato and Marczwski, 1993). All the records we describe are of large juveniles or subadults, based on Witzell's (1983) definition of "subadults" as having a carapace length of 34-65 cm.

8 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Table 2. New records of Eretmochelys imbricata in the southwest Atlantic. All of the new specimens mentioned here were victims of fishing incidents involving nets or fishhooks. Both curved and straight carapace lengths were obtained from the leading edge of the precentral scute to the posterior edge of the postcentral scute. All material was deposited in the Museu Oceanogr fico do Vale do Itajaí (MOVI). We are grateful for the collaboration of Dr. Carlos N. Gofferjé. Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja California. Ithaca, Comstock Publ. Assoc., Cornell Univ. Press. 542 pp. D'Amato, A. F. 1992. Ocorrência de Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz,1829) (Testudines: Cheloniidae) para o Estado do Paraná - Brasil. Acta Biol. Leopoldensia 14(1):95-97. D'Amato, A. F. and M. Marczwski. 1993. Aspectos da biologia de tartarugas marinhas (Cheloniidae) na regiao de Praia do Forte, Município de Mata de Sao Joao, Bahia, Brasil, Durante o período reprodutivo 1990-1991. Arq. Biol. Tecnol. 36(3):513-519. Frazier, J. 1984. Las tortugas marinas en el Oceano Atlantico Sur Occidental. Asoc. Herp. Arg. Sér. Divulg. 2:2-21. Lema, T. de. 1994. Lista comentada dos répteis ocorrentes no Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Comun. Mus. Ciênc. Tecnol. PUCRS, Sér. Zool., Porto Alegre 7:41-150. Lema, T. de and T. S. Ferreira. 1990. Contribuiçao ao conhecimento dos testudines do Rio Grande do Sul (Brasil) - Lista sistemática comentada (Reptilia). Acta Biol. Leopoldensia 12(1):125-164. Marcovaldi, G. G. D. and J. C. B. Albuquerque. 1982. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Bol. FBCN 17:70-74. Marcovaldi, M. A. D. and G. G. D. Marcovaldi. 1985. Projeto Tamar/MA-IBDF: Areas de desova, ocorrência e distribuiçao das espécies, época de reproduçao, comportamento de postura e técnicas de conservaçao das tartarugas marinhas no Brasil. Brasília, Brasil. MA-IBDF. 47 pp.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 9 Marcovaldi, M. A. D. and G. G. D. Marcovaldi. 1987. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Areas de desova, épocas de reproduçao, técnicas de conservaçao. Bol. FBCN 22:95-104. Schulz, J. P. 1975. Sea Turtles Nesting in Surinam. Nederl. Commiss. Intern. Natuurbes., Sticht. Natuurbeh. Sur. 23(3):1-143. Witzell, W. N. 1983. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Hawksbill Turtle, Eretmochelysimbricata (Linnaeus, 1766). FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 137. 78 pp. JULES M. R. SOTO and RODRIGO C. P. BEHEREGARAY, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar - FACIMAR, Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí - MOVI, Cx. P. 360 CEP 88302-202 Itajaí, SC, BRAZIL.

CHELONIA MYDAS IN THE NORTHERN REGION OF THE PATOS LAGOON, SOUTH BRAZIL The Patos Lagoon (30°20' - 32°00'S, 50°40' - 52°20'W) in Rio Grande do Sul is the largest lagoon in Brazil and the second largest in South America. Covering an area greater than 10,000 km2, it is approximately 300 km long and 80 km wide at its widest points, and as deep as 7 m (Diretoria de Hidrografia e Navegaçao, 1968). It connects to the ocean through a single channel 740 m wide. Tapes Bay (30°45'S, 51°21'W) is situated in the northeastern sector of the lagoon between Dona Helena Point and Santo Antônio Spit (Figure 1). Tapes, a city with a small community of fishermen, is situated at the foot of the bay. On 31 January 1992, a live C. mydas was found in the catch of these fishermen. The turtle was released offshore by helicopter; thus began an informal investigation on the occurrence of marine turtles in the bay.

Figure 1. Tapes Bay, Patos Lagoon, on the southern Atlantic coast of Brazil.

10 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Based on interviews with fishermen, a total of 11 specimens (Table 1) were cataloged over a period of four years (January 1992 - January 1996). These specimens were caught by fishing nets (8-14 cm mesh between knots) which extend from the sea bed to the surface; the nets are 60 m in total length and 4 m in height. The captured turtles are all juveniles, and their occurrence in the bay is seasonal during spring and summer months.

Table 1. Specimens of C. mydas caught in Patos Lagoon, Brazil, January 1992 - January 1996. Material collected was deposited in the Museu Oceanogr fico do Vale do Itajaí (MOVI). Diretoria de Hidrografia e Navegaçao. 1968. Carta náutica N° 2140. Marinha do Brasil. JULES M. R. SOTO and RODRIGO C. P. BEHEREGARAY, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar - FACIMAR, Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí - MOVI, Cx. P. 360 CEP 88302-202 Itajaí, SC, BRAZIL.

SEA TURTLE DEATHS COINCIDE WITH TRAWLING ACTIVITIES IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA The threats posed by shrimp trawling to the survival of sea turtles have been well documented in the United States (e.g., National Research Council, 1990). In Australian fisheries, limited, yet conflicting, data exist on the impact of prawn (shrimp) trawling on sea turtle populations. Early authors confused the issue by comparing high annual harvests of green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles in Indonesia and New Guinea with incidental drowning of mainly flatback (Natator depressus), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in Northern Australia, and thereby deducing the

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 11 trawler induced mortality (9%) to be at a level which was not of immediate concern (Poiner et al., 1990; Poiner and Harris, 1994). Sea turtle mortality from incidental capture by trawler operators in Queensland was estimated at 1%, but may be as high as 6% (Robins, 1995). Loggerheads are prone to higher mortalities when trawling activities overlap with feeding aggregations near nesting beaches (Limpus and Reimer, 1994; Tucker et al., 1996). Trawling has significantly contributed to the decline of loggerheads in eastern Australia (Limpus and Reimer, 1994; Heppell et al., 1996). Few data are available for non-breeding turtles trawled on feeding grounds which are not associated with nesting aggregations. In the United States, the coincidence of sea turtle strandings on beaches with the peak of shrimp trawling activities offshore has been demonstrated many times (e.g., Whistler, 1989; Amos, 1989; Caillouet et al., 1992; Steiner, 1994; Shaver, 1994, 1995). Yet reports of similar coincidences between sea turtle mortalities and trawling activities are unknown from the Northern Prawn Fishery which extends across the sparsely populated coastline of northern Australia (see Poiner et al., 1990). Herein is reported a stranding of four species of sea turtle that coincided with trawling activities in the Northern Prawn Fishery. On 2-3 September 1995, 15 dead sea turtles washed ashore along 20 km of coastline at Dundee Beach, Fog Bay, Northern Territory Australia (12°43'S, 130°21'E). Twelve were olive ridleys with curved carapace lengths (CCL) between 51-67 cm; also, one loggerhead (CCL =70 cm), one sub-adult green (CCL=40 cm) and one flatback (CCL=71 cm). An aerial survey of 60 km of coastline in the vicinity revealed no other strandings. This is the same locality where numerous sea turtles were killed by a bottom-set gill net in 1991 (Guinea and Chatto, 1992). Most of the flesh had decomposed from the carcasses leaving only the carapace and plastron. There was no sign of human-induced physical damage from what remained of each animal. Judging by their advanced decomposition, we estimated that the animals had been dead for at least a week. As four species, each with a different diet, were involved, it was unlikely that a toxin in the food chain was responsible. The cause of death remains unknown but it is reasonable to consider the potential impact of human activities in the Fog Bay region at the time. Prawn trawlers using otter trawls operated windward of the beach and about 12 km from shore. Inshore, the users included an unknown number of recreational anglers and a professional crab pot (trap) fisher. Of these activities, trawling was the most likely to have caused the death of the turtles. Vessels in the Northern Prawn Fishery are not required, at the present time, to record incidental captures of sea turtles, or to use Trawl Efficiency Devices (TED's) which exclude bycatch species including sea turtles. The lack of previous reports of sea turtle mortality during trawling activities in the Northern Prawn Fishery may be attributable, in part, to a minimal negative impact of trawlers (Poiner et al., 1990; Poiner and Harris, 1994; Robins, 1995), or possibly, to the extensive, largely uninhabited northern Australian coastline, or even, to the low density of sea turtles over some of the trawling grounds. Fog Bay is exceptional in having a small but lucrative prawn fishery (Grey, 1978), a coastal community of environmentally-conscious people who report dead turtles, and a large sea turtle population. These factors make the area suitable for assessing the impact of trawling on sea turtles on a feeding ground and thereby providing an independent test of the efficiency of sea turtle excluding devices or the usefulness of incidental catch log- books by the fishing industry.

12 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Netting and trawling activities pose a real threat to the five species of sea turtle that live in Fog Bay. The high relative frequency of olive ridleys amongst beach-washed specimens, is of particular concern as so little is known about the Australian population (Limpus, 1982; Guinea, 1990; Harris, 1994). The demand for prawns and other marine products from northern Australia is high and is likely to increase. Modifications to existing fishing gear with Trawl Efficiency Devices (Mounsey et al., 1995; Robins-Troeger et al., 1995) and more selective fish-ing traps (Buckworth, 1995) which reduce the threat to sea turtles, are overdue developments. Australian fishers have been receptive to these innovations, but await the results of extension work before deciding to trial the new technologies. Acknowledgement: We are grateful to Dr. Colin Limpus (Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage) who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft. Amos, A. F. 1989. Recent strandings of sea turtles, cetaceans and birds in the vicinity of Mustang Island, Texas, p.51 (abstract). In: C. W. Caillouet Jr. and A. M. Landry (Editors), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, 1-4 October 1985. TAMU-SC-89-105. Buckworth, R. C. 1995. The non-trawl capture of prawns: the commercial feasibility of trapping. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Fisheries Division, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Northern Territory, Australia. 46 pp. Caillouet, Jr., C. W., M. J. Duronslet, A. M. Landry, Jr. and D. J. Shaver 1992. Sea turtle stranding and shrimping effort on coasts of southwestern Louisiana and Texas, p.24- 27.In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (Compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Work-shop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- SEFSC-302. U. S. Dept. Commerce. Grey D. 1978 The Fog Bay banana prawn fishery. Department of Primary Production, Northern Territory, Australia. 14 pp. Guinea, M. L. 1990. Notes on the sea turtle rookeries on the Arafura Sea islands on Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Northern Territory Naturalist 12:4-12. Guinea, M. L. and R. Chatto, 1992. Sea turtles killed in Australian shark fin fishery. Marine Turtle Newsletter 57:5-6. Harris, A. 1994. Species review: olive ridleys, p.58-61. In: R. James (Editor), Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Queensland Department of Envi- ronment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Heppell, S. A. , C. J. Limpus, D. T. Crouse, N. B. Frazer, and L. B. Crowder. 1996. Popu-lation model analysis for loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta in Queensland. Wildlife Research 23:143-59. Limpus, C. J. 1982. The status of Australian sea turtle populations, p.297-303. In: K. A. Bjorndal (Editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 13 Limpus, C. J. and D. Reimer 1994. The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland: a population in decline, p.39-60. In: R. James (Editor), Proceedings of the AustralianMarine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Mounsey, R. P., G. A. Baulch and R. C. Buckworth. 1995. Development of a trawl efficiency device (TED) for Australian prawn fisheries I. the AusTED design. Fisheries Research 22(1995):99-105. National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles, Causes and Prevention. Natl. Acad. Press. Washington, D. C. 259 pp. Poiner I. R., R. C. Buckworth and A. N. M. Harris. 1990. Incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles in Australia's Northern Prawn Fishery. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 41:97-110. Poiner, I. R. and A. N. M. Harris. 1994. The incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles in Australia's northern prawn fishery, p.127-135. In: R. James (Editor), Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Queensland Department of Environ- ment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Robins, J. B. 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the east cost otter trawl fishery of Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 74:157-167. Robins-Troeger, J. B., R. C. Buckworth and M. C. L. Dredge 1995. Development of a trawl efficiency device (TED) for Australian prawn fisheries II. field evaluations of the AusTED. Fisheries Research 22(1995):107-117. Shaver, D. J. 1994. Sea turtle strandings along the Texas coast reach alarming levels. Marine Turtle Newsletter 66:8-9. Shaver, D. J. 1995. Sea turtle strandings along the Texas coast again cause concern. Marine Turtle Newsletter 70:2-4. Steiner, T. 1994. Shrimpers implicated as strandings soar in the USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter 67:2-5. Tucker, A. D., N. N. FitzSimmons and C. J. Limpus 1996. Conservation implications of internesting habitat use by loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in Woongara Marine Park, Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 2(2):157-166. Whistler, R. G. 1989. Kemp's ridley sea turtle strandings along the Texas coast, 1983-1985, p.43-50. In: C. W. Caillouet Jr. and A. M. Landry (Editors), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, 1-4 October 1985. TAMU-SC-89-105. MICHAEL L. GUINEA and SCOTT WHITING, Faculty of Science, Northern Territory University, Darwin 0909, Northern Territory, AUSTRALIA and RAY CHATTO, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory P. O. Box 496, Palmerston 0831, Northern Territory, AUSTRALIA.

14 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION IN GUATEMALA The Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Association (Asociación Rescate y Conservación de Vida Silvestre, ARCAS) is a Guatemalan non-profit conservation organization committed to preserving Guatemalan wildlife and wildlife habitat. Best known for its Animal Rescue Center in the Peten rain forest region of Guatemala, it also carries out sea turtle conservation activities on a natural reserve on the south cost near the village of Hawaii. The reserve consists of man-grove estuaries, dry tropical forests, and volcanic sand beaches. The beaches are of the "high energy" type characteristic of much of the Pacific coast (i.e., relatively steep and narrow with strong waves and tides; no offshore reef formations). The rainy season at Hawaii occurs annually between June and October. The olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting season corresponds with the rainy season, peaking in September, but low density nesting (ca. 2-4 turtles per night) occurs throughout the year. There are no arribadas (mass nesting events) at Hawaii. The olive ridleys seem to prefer dark nights, a setting or rising moon, and strong southeast winds (turtles will even nest during the day in the presence of such winds). On the 15 km of coastline monitored by ARCAS, nesting frequency is generally 10-15 nests per night during the peak nesting months of August, September and Octo- ber. Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are much rarer than olive ridleys. Leatherback nesting occurs in November and December, when only 2-3 turtles arrive to nest per night on the beach at Hawaii. Turtle eggs are prized by local populations as a supplement to their income and diets. Competition for turtle nests is intense, and it is extremely rare that a nest escapes plunder. Turtle eggs are sold to local buyers who transport them to ceviche (a pickled seafood cocktail) restaurants in the nation's capitol. Sea turtle eggs have a reputation for being aphrodisiacs, not a basic need in Guatemala where the population growth rate is 2.6%. Prices for olive ridley eggs vary from 12 quetzals (6 quetzals = 1 US$) per dozen during the height of the nesting season, to more than 36 quetzals in the off-season. Leatherback eggs range from 16-40 quetzals per dozen. An average nest can, therefore, bring in roughly 140 quetzals; roughly one quarter of the monthly income of an agricultural worker or local fisherman. According to local villagers, the number of ridleys and leatherback turtles that nest on area beaches is rapidly declining. Many report that even just 15 years ago, an egg collector could expect to collect 2-3 nests per night during the nesting season. Now, due to fewer turtles and more competition for nests, collectors may find only 2-4 nests per year. Many fear that if present trends continue, the turtles will stop returning to the beaches altogether. Hawaii Sea Turtle Conservation Program: The Hawaii Sea Turtle Conservation Pro- gram, managed by ARCAS, in cooperation with DIGEBOS (the Guatemalan forestry agency), encourages a donation by local egg collectors of one dozen eggs per nest. The eggs are reburied in protected hatcheries. Egg collectors who donate one dozen eggs are given a receipt which gives them the right to "legally" sell the rest of the nest. [ N.B. According to formal Guatema- lan law, sea turtles are endangered species and their eggs cannot be collected or eaten for any reason. Informally, however, the one dozen eggs "donation system" has been in place since about 1980 to ensure that at least some hatchlings are returned to the sea. Unfortunately, at best only half of the egg collectors participate. ] More than 5,000 hatchlings in 1993, 7,000 in 1994 and 10,000 in 1995 were released from the ARCAS hatchery at Hawaii. The Hawaii hatchery is by far the most productive in Guatemala. Hatcheries in Guatemala are typically enclosed with corrugated tin or fiberboard and lightly roofed (thatched) with palm. Depredation by cats (domestic), opossums, jay-birds, ghost

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 15 crabs and other predators on hatchlings is a problem and is controlled by the use of "scarecrows" and weighted nest cages. This is the situation at the ARCAS hatchery, where the fenced enclo-sure is sited on the upper beach and thatched with palm fronds. The hatchery enclosure is 10 m x 6 m and typically holds 300-400 nests per year. Groups of one dozen eggs are combined into "clutches" of 24 eggs and buried at a depth of 30-35 cm. Nests are shaped to resemble the orig-inal "flask" form and buried roughly 30 cm apart from one another. Each nest is marked with a numbered stake. Hatch success ranges from 88-95%. In addition to protecting sea turtle eggs, ARCAS is involved with other aspects of sea turtle conservation. For example, dead turtles wash ashore on the south coast of Guatemala after being caught and drowned in fishing gear offshore; mainly shrimp trawls operated by Guatemalan and foreign boats. In 1995, there were numerous strandings (perhaps 3-5 per week on the 15 km monitored by ARCAS) during the beginning of the nesting season (June and July). In response, ARCAS wrote several articles for the Guatemalan press on this "turtle massacre". Whether due to the publicity caused by these articles or several patrols subsequently conducted by the Guatemalan Navy, the shrimp trawlers moved further offshore and no more strandings were seen for the rest of the season. In 1996, the Guatemalan shrimp fleet installed TEDs, an action which seemed to reduce incidental capture and drowning because very few turtles washed ashore dead on the beaches. ARCAS also conducts environmental education activities in area schools and manages three school hatcheries where students collect and bury their own eggs and release the hatchlings when they emerge. ARCAS also has a crocodile and iguana captive breeding program and con-ducts mangrove reforestation. Lessons Learned: There are several aspects of the Hawaii Sea Turtle Conservation Project, and of sea turtle conservation in general in Guatemala, that distinguish it from conservation activities in other countries, and these differences may be of interest to readers of the Marine Turtle Newsletter. One aspect is that sea turtle conservation in Guatemala is a highly decentralized activity. Conservation efforts (mainly hatcheries) are carried out at the initiative of a disparate group of actors ranging from private landowners to the military to a high school. Government involvement in turtle conservation is limited and uncoordinated. Three separate government agencies run turtles hatcheries, but regulation of the egg harvesting industry as a whole is virtually nonexistent. Buses and other vehicles known to transport turtle eggs to mar- ket are only sporadically searched by authorities. There are few national parks and no marine reserves in Guatemala, and no focus to government conservation initiatives or personnel training.

In addition to this lack of government involvement, there is also a lack of involvement by national and international conservation non-government organizations (NGOs). This is due, in part, to a kind of "brain drain" to the Mayan Biosphere Reserve in Peten, a United Nations- declared natural heritage site and a major focus for international conservation efforts. It is also due to the perception of the south coast and its coastal plains (prime agricultural lands rich in volcanic loam) as environmentally "lost". Moreover, the Guatemalan sea turtle conservation movement is relatively young and unsophisticated, especially when compared to similar move- ments in countries such as Costa Rica, México and the U. S. The main focus has been and continues to be on establishing hatcheries. There have been very few attempts to address other issues, such as changing environmentally harmful fishing practices or reducing demand for turtle eggs among Guatemala consumers. The decentralized nature of turtle conservation activities in Guatemala has its pluses and minuses. The minuses include the fact that there is little formal oversight of hatchery operations. Hatcheries are often operated by untrained local personnel or volunteers using outdated

16 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 methods. Due to limited funding and technical expertise, hatchery personnel often fail to gather even basic data regarding clutch size, incubation duration and hatch success. The "plus side" of turtle conservation in Guatemala is that there is relatively strong local support for activities. Although some egg collectors refuse to cooperate with the "one dozen eggs" donation system, there are also many who gladly give and realize that this is an effort to conserve the resource for their children. There are 23 hatcheries in Guatemala, and certain communities take pride in how many eggs they are able to bury. There has even arisen a spirit of competition among hatcheries as to which collects the most eggs. Successful turtle conservation efforts in other parts of the world (e.g., Ostional, Costa Rica; Matura, Trinidad; Colola, Michoac n, México) have clearly shown the need to work closely with local communities. This is especially true in a country like Guatemala where there are limited opportunities to focus formal conservation effort (e.g., there are few national parks and no arribada sites) and the resources and/or the will to impose stringent conservation measures are lacking on the part of authorities. Given the realities of the Guatemalan political and conservation environment, what is needed is technical and material support to existing hatcheries and an effort to strengthen the government, non-governmental and private turtle conservation network. Research and data collection are sorely needed, and should directly support concrete conservation goals (e.g., improving hatchery techniques, lobbying for the use of TEDs, preserv-ing nesting habitat). Of equal importance is the harnessing and encouraging of local, indigenous efforts to conserve sea turtles. How To Help: ARCAS has volunteer programs at both the Hawaii Sea Turtle Conserva- tion Project and at its Animal Rescue and Rehabilitation Center in Peten. For a copy of the volunteer guidelines, please send US$ 10.00 to ARCAS, Section 717, P. O. Box 52-7270, Miami, Florida 33152-7270 USA. For more information, contact the authors at the Miami address, or the ARCAS office in Guatemala City. RICARDO JUAREZ and COLUM MUCCIO, ARCAS, 11 Calle 6-66, Zona 2, 01002 Cuidad de Guatemala, GUATEMALA; Tel/Fax: (502) (2) 535329; E-mail: [email protected]

MARINE TURTLE NESTING IN THE GÖKSU DELTA, TURKEY, 1996 A 1988 survey of the Turkish coastline revealed 17 areas to be important nesting sites for marine turtles, one of which is the region of the Göksu Delta (Baran and Kasparek, 1989). In 1990, this area was designated a Special Protection Area by the Turkish authorities. Subsequent surveys in 1991 (van Piggelen, 1993) and 1992 (Peters and Verhoeven, 1992) confirmed that these beaches support nesting by both loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) turtles. Within the Mediterranean, this is one of the few sites, other than Cyprus, where both species nest. During the period 19 June to 13 August 1996, students from the University of Glasgow monitored the beaches of the Göksu Delta every 7-10 days, completing a total of six surveys per beach (a similar methodology characterised the initial 1988 survey). Observers counted and identified tracks in order to record the distribution and number of nests of both species. Species identification was possible using criteria pertaining to track and nest pit morphology (Broderick and Godley, 1996). Whilst carrying out nesting surveys, potential threats to turtle and nest survival were assessed.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 17 In 1996, as in previous years, Caretta dominated, but fewer nests were recorded than in 1991 or 1992 (see Glen et al., 1996, for details). The difference is likely due, in part, to the fact that the surveys in 1991 and 1992 (when beaches were monitored regularly for the full nest-ing season) were more comprehensive than the surveys in 1996 or 1988. It is possible, how-ever, that these data reflect actual inter-annual variation in the number of nesting females. Rela-tively low nesting numbers of both species were also recorded in Northern Cyprus (Godley and Kelly, 1996) and at other sites in Turkey (Baran et al., 1996) in 1996. ------Species 1988 1991 1992 1996 ------C. caretta 45 117 89 36 C. mydas 0 20 14 3 TOTAL 45 137 103 39 ______Threats to sea turtles in the Göksu Delta include sand removal, beach inundation, high levels of nest depredation by canids, pollution, and human use of habitat largely related to tour- ism. Fifteen stranded turtle carcasses were recorded, 12 of which were juvenile C. mydas. Injuries sustained by most individuals suggested incidental catch in local longline and driftnet fisheries as the cause of mortality. No direct conservation action was undertaken as part of the 1996 survey effort, but participating Glasgow students met and exchanged methodologies with both Turkish and international volunteers working at other marine turtle monitoring and conservation projects at Kazanli, Anamur and Akyatan. These exchanges were beneficial to all concerned. We recommend, based on the results of our field work and discussions with relevant authorities, that detailed ongoing surveys of marine turtle nesting be carried out to enable a more complete assessment of the importance of this area to marine turtles. In conjunction with these studies, the long term status of these populations would be improved by undertaking a pro-gramme of nest screening (to reduce the effects of predation) and strict enforcement of conser-vation laws afforded by the area's protected status. The Turkish authorities and the Society for the Protection of Nature (DHKD) should be applauded for the valuable inroads which have been made into conservation awareness in the region; we recommend that conservation awareness programmes continue, and that targeting fishermen be a priority. Addendum: The authors have since been informed that DHKD intends to carry out detailed surveying of these beaches in tandem with local universities during the 1997 nesting season. Acknowledgements: This project was largely supported by a grant from the British Council, Ankara. Accommodation was generously provided by the Institute of Marine Sci- ences, Middle Eastern Technical University. In addition we would like to thank Professors Ilkay Salihoglu and Umit Unluata of the Institute for their advice and support, Drs. Ali Cemal Gucu and Ahmet Kideys for their expert advice, and the rest of the staff and students for their help. Thanks also to all at DHKD, Tasucu for their collaboration over the years. Baran, I. and M. Kasparek. 1989. Marine Turtles in Turkey: Status survey 1988 and Recom- mendations for Conservation and Management. WWF Publication.

18 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Baran, I., O. Türkozan, Y. Kaska, Ç. Ilgaz and S. Sak. 1996. Research on the marine turtle populations of Dalyan, Fethiye, Patara and Belek beaches: Final Report. 44pp. Unpubl. Broderick, A. C. and B. J. Godley. 1996. Population and nesting ecology of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Northern Cyprus. Zoology in the Middle East 13:27-46. Godley, B. J. and A. Kelly. 1996. Glasgow University Turtle Conservation Expedition to Northern Cyprus 1996: Expedition Report. Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Univer- sity of Glasgow Veterinary School. 23 pp. Unpubl. Glen, F., B. J. Godley and A. Kelly. 1996. Marine turtle monitoring in Turkey by students from the University of Glasgow: A report to the British Council, Ankara. 14 pp. Unpubl. Peters, A. and K. J. F. Verhoeven. 1992. Breeding success of the loggerhead, Caretta caretta, and the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Göksu Delta, Turkey. Rapport 310. Depart-ment of Animal Ecology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 26 pp. Unpubl. van Piggelen, D. C. G. 1993. Marine turtle survey in the Göksu Delta, Turkey, June - August 1991. Report 314. Department of Animal Ecology, University of Nijmegen, The Nether- lands. 35 pp. Unpubl. FIONA GLEN, BRENDAN J. GODLEY, ANDREW KELLY and ANNETTE C. BRODERICK, Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND.

THE YOLNGU PEOPLE OF NORTHEAST ARNHEM LAND (AUSTRALIA) SAY "NO" TO BEACH CLEANERS The traditional Aboriginal owners of north east Arnhem Land in Australia, or Yolngu as they call themselves, have said "no" to the use of beach cleaning equipment. Their decision, voiced through their land and resource management agency, the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation (or, Dhimurru), was made because of concerns about the environmental damage that beach cleaners can cause, including the potential disturbance to sea turtle nesting habitat. The Yolngu live in the remote north east corner Arnhem Land in the Northern Terri-tory of Australia. Arnhem Land is a vast area of tropical wet-dry Australia -- some 97,000 km2 of mainland and 6,000 km2 of offshore islands -- that is owned and managed by Aboriginal people. Unlike much of the rest of Australia, it remains largely unmodified by European settle-ment and is sparsely populated. Dhimurru is based in the mining township of Nhulunbuy on the Gove Peninsula. Nhulunbuy was established in the late 1960's to accommodate the employees of an open cut bauxite mine. The mine and township occupy a mining lease which is effectively an excision of the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve. Management of the town lease and provision of essential services is the responsibility of the Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. Other than a nearby mission station at Yirrkala, established in 1934, there was no permanent European presence in this area prior to the establishment of the mine. Nhulunbuy has since grown to become a regional centre, servicing other remote Aboriginal communities, and now has a permanent population of approximately 3,500 mostly non-Aboriginal people.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 19 Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation was established by traditional owners in 1992, primarily to manage designated recreation areas outside of the leases which are made available for recreational use by residents of Nhulunbuy and visitors to the township. It now has a broader role in land and resource management in the region. In 1995, the Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. was considering how to spend government funds in implementing an anti-litter campaign. The purchase of a tractor and beach cleaner was strongly favoured, and the idea was canvassed with community organisations, including Dhimurru. The beach cleaner was to be used to remove litter from Gadalathami, the 'town beach' area. There is a fluctuating population of permanent and transitory Yolngu people camp- ing in the immediate vicinity Nhulunbuy, primarily at Gadalathami. Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. considered that the refuse generated by the 'town campers' was aesthetically unpleasant, represented a significant health risk, and reduced potential recreational use of the location. Although most of the litter was found within the town lease boundary, the Nhulunbuy Corpora- tion Ltd. did not provide any garbage collection or removal services to Gadalathami. The proposed beach cleaner is drawn by a tractor and operates by removing the top 15- 20 cm of sand and passing it through a screening mechanism to filter out debris, rocks, shells and litter. The anticipated cost of the tractor and beach cleaner was $80,000 (Aus). Dhimurru's concerns about the use of the beach cleaner included its detrimental impact on sea turtle nests and nesting activity, as well as on other biota within the littoral zone (e.g., shellfish). There were also concerns about the destruction of beach-stabilising vegetation such as grass, vines and seedling trees, and damage to the root systems of larger trees. Replanting the area would be required to prevent erosion but there were no commitments or funds to ensure that this would occur. Furthermore, reestablishment of the plants would be very difficult during the dry season, when an intensive watering program would be required to sustain replanted trees, vines, grasses, and shrubs. Essentially, they felt that the machine represented a quick 'techno- fix' to a problem that had deeper social roots that required time, effort and consultation to solve. Initially Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. expressed skepticism about Dhimurru's concerns and its credibility in commenting on environmental matters. To better inform and strengthen its response, Dhimurru sought information from other resource management organisations on the en-vironmental impact of beach cleaners. With only a few days notice to prepare a formal response, Dhimurru turned to the global electronic network "CTURTLE". Rapid responses from several individuals and organisations such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (USA) provided information that supported Dhimurru's concerns about the impact of beach cleaners. The information provided through the CTURTLE network brought international experience and know-ledge to the debate. Ultimately, this support and information played a key role in encouraging Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. to drop the proposal to purchase a beach cleaner. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members and organisations have begun a coop-erative effort to develop alternative strategies to address the underlying causes of beach litter. The work is supported by a government grant ($100,000) to the Aboriginal health service (Miwatj Health Inc.), and includes the hand collection of rubbish, mainly wine casks, bottles and cans. A work team of 15 Yolngu women patrol the beach and consult with town campers about ways to reduce litter. Alcohol consumption has been identified as a major factor contributing to litter; an education program to address social and environmental problems caused by drinking is underway. KELVIN LEITCH, Dhimurru Aboriginal Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, P. O. Box 1551, Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory 0881, AUSTRALIA and ROD KENNETT, North Australia Research Unit, The Australian National University, P. O. Box 41321, Casuarina, Northern Territory 0810, AUSTRALIA. 20 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 1996 WORKSHOP ON MARINE TURTLE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT: EAST JAVA, INDONESIA Marine turtle research and management in Indonesia and surrounding countries were discussed at a workshop conducted in Jember, East Java, Indonesia, from 18-22 November 1996. The workshop was undertaken as part of the bilateral cooperation programme between the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) of the Federal Government of Australia, with the assistance of Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme. Participants from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines, as well as from Indonesian government agencies, universities, national and international NGO's, and representatives of the private sector, attended the workshop. The workshop's aim was to identify a future research plan and management progamme for marine turtles in Indonesia. Several presentations were given on the subject of the status of marine turtle populations and conservation efforts in the region. Following these presentations, workshop participants discussed three specific topics: marine turtle research and management, marine turtle utilisation, and public awareness and education initiatives. The discussions resulted in the workshop adopting statements and recommendations regarding these three aspects of marine turtles. A majority of the workshop participants also attended the field trip to Sukamade beach in Meru Betiri, East Java, where Dr. Colin J. Limpus of the Queensland Department of Environ- ment and Heritage gave presentations about marine turtle biology and conservation, and also provided practical training. The field trip offered an opportunity for discussion about the regional aspects of marine turtle conservation. This discussion resulted in priorities for the regional conservation of marine turtles being agreed upon by the workshop participants. These priorities included conservation management training, research and monitoring, and regional awareness and education programmes. Participants felt that networking among marine turtle researchers and managers within the region is of major importance if marine turtle management is to improve. Proceedings for the workshop are currently being compiled and will be announced in the Marine Turtle Newsletter upon completion. For further information about the workshop and the proceedings, please contact Wetlands International - Indonesia Programme (address below). YUS RUSILA NOOR and SEBASTIAN TROENG, Wetlands International - Indonesia Programme, P. O. Box 254/BOO - Bogor 16002, INDONESIA.

RECENT PAPERS ACUÑA-MESEN, R. A. 1996. Monosporium apiospermum Saccardo (Fungi, Deuteromycetes), associated with sea turtle eggs Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz 1829) in Costa Rica. Brenesia 38:159-162. R. Acuña-Mesen, Dept. Anatomia Comparada, Escuela Biol., Univ. Costa Rica, San José, COSTA RICA. (in Spanish) [ N.B. listed in MTN 75 without an author address. ] AIME, S., M. FASANOI, S. PAOLETTI, F. CUTRUZZOLA, A. DESIDERI, M. BOLOGNESI, M. RIZZI and P. ASCENZI. 1996. Structural determinants of fluoride and formate binding to hemoglobin and myoglobin: Crystallographic and 1H-NMR

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 21 relaxometric study. Biophysical Journal 70(1):482-488. S. Aime, Dept. Inorganic, Physical Materials Chem., Univ. Turin, Via Pietro, Giuria 7, 10125 Turin, ITALY. BARAN, I. and O. TÜRKOZAN. 1996. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, on Fethiye Beach, Turkey, in 1994. Chel. Conserv. Biol. 2(1):93-96. I. Baran, Dokuz Eylül Üniv., Buca Egitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü, Buca-Izmir, TURKEY. BASKAR, S. 1996. Renesting intervals of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) on South Reef Island, Andaman Islands, India. Hamadryad 21:19-22. S. Baskar, Centre for Herpetol., Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Post Bag 4, Mamallapuram, Tamil Nadu 603 104 INDIA. BORKENT, A. 1995. Biting midges (Ceratopogonidea: Diptera) feeding on a leatherback turtle in Costa Rica. Brenesia 43-44:25-30. A. Borkent, Royal British Columbia Museum, 1171 Mallory Road, R1-S20-C43, Enderby, British Columbia V0E IV0, CANADA. BUDEN, D. W. 1996. Reptiles, birds, and mammals of Pakin Atoll, eastern Caroline Islands. Micronesica 29(1):37-48. D. Buden, Div. Mathematics Sci., College of Micronesia, P. O. Box 159 Kolonia, Pohmpei, Federated States of Micronesia 96941. CHAUDHURI, T. K. and N. K. SINHA. 1996. Refolding of trypsin-subtilisin inhibitor from marine turtle eggwhite. J. Protein Chem. 15(3):315-320. T. Chaudhuri [ no address ]. CHIN, C. C. Q., R. G. KRISHNA, P. J. WELDON and F. WOLD. 1996. Characterization of the disulfide bonds and the N-glycosylation sites in the glycoprotein from Rathke's gland secretions of Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi). Analytical Biochemistry 233(2):181-187. C. Chin, Dept. Biochem. Mol. Biol., University Texas Medical School, P. O. Box 20708, Houston, Texas 77225 USA. COWAN, J., T. WIBBELS, D. ROSTAL, D. OWENS and R. BYLES. 1995. BKM DNA fingerprint analysis of the olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. Annual Meeting of the American Society of Zoologists, December 26-30, 1995. American Zoologist 35(5):38A. J. Cowan, Univ. Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 USA. CROWDER, L. B., S. R. HOPKINS-MURPHY and J. A. ROYLE. 1995. Effects of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) on loggerhead sea turtle strandings with implications for conservation. Copeia 1995:773-779. L. Crowder, Duke Univ. Sch. Environ., Mar. Lab., 135 Duke Marine Lab. Rd., Beaufort, N. Carolina 28516-9721 USA. CUNNINGTON, D. C. and R. J. BROOKS. 1996. Bet-hedging theory and eigenelasticity: A comparison of the life histories of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian J. Zoology 74(2):291-296. D. Cunnington [ no address given ]. DE LEON, G. P. P., L. GARCIA PRIETO and V. LEON REGAGNON. 1996. Gastrointestinal digenetic trematodes of olive ridley's turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) from Oaxaca, México. Taxonomy and infracommunity structure. Journal of the Helminthological Society of Washington 63(1):76-82. G. De Leon [ no address given ]. FRANZ, R., C. K. DODD, Jr. and S. D. BUCKNER. 1996. A review of herpetology of the Bahamian Archipelago. Bahamas J. Sci. 3(3):22-30. R. Franz, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA.

22 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 GARCIA, A., R. ADAYA and G. CEBALLOS. 1996. Sea turtle conservation in Cuixmala, Jalisco: The role of nest translocation in small beaches. 1996 Annual Combined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecologists/Biologists as Problem Solvers, Provi-dence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):155. A. Garcia, Fundacion Ecol. Cuixmala, A.C., A.P. 161, San Patricio, 48980 Jalisco, MEXICO. GATES, C., R. VALVERDE, C. MO, A. CHAVES, J. BALLESTEROS and J. PESKIN. 1996. Estimating arribada size using a modified instantaneous count procedure. J. Agri- cultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 1:275-287. C. Gates, Department of Statistics, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas 77843 USA. GREGORY, L. F., T. S. GROSS, A. B. BOLTEN, K. A. BJORNDAL and L. J. GUILLETTE, Jr. 1996. Plasma corticosterone concentrations associated with acute captivity stress in wild loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 104:312-320. L. Gregory, Dept. Zoology, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA. JUPP, B. P., M. J. DURAKO, W. J. KENWORTHY, G. W. THAYER and L. SCHILLAK. 1996. Distribution, abundance, and species composition of seagrasses at several sites in Oman. Aquatic Botany 53(3-4):199-213. B. Jupp [ no address given ]. KROGH, M. and D. REID. 1996. Bycatch in the protective shark meshing programme off south-eastern New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 77(2-3):219-226. M. Krogh [ no address given ]. LAZAR, B. and N. TVRTKOVIC. 1995. Marine turtles in the eastern part of the Adriatic Sea: preliminary research. Nat. Croat. 4(1):59-74. B. Lazar, Dept. Zool., Croatian Natural History Museum, Demetrova 1, HR-41000 Zagreb, CROATIA. LOOP, K. A., J. D. MILLER and C. J. LIMPUS. 1995. Nesting by the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) on Milman Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Wildl. Res. 22(2):241-252. K. Loop, Queensland Department of Environment, P. O. Box 5391, Townsville, Qld 4810 AUSTRALIA. Present address: Inst. Marine Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, 4700 Ave U. (Bldg 303), Galveston, Texas 77551 USA. MROSOVSKY, N. 1996. Sea turtles, past and present utilisation, p.88-96. In: H. Roth and G. Merz (Editors), Wildlife Resources: A Global Account of Economic Use. Springer. N. Mrosovsky, Dept. Zoology, 25 Harbord St., Univ. Toronto, Toronto M5S 3G5 CANADA. HOOGMOED, M. S. 1995. In Memoriam: Prof. Dr. Leo Daniel Brongersma (1907-1994). Zoologische Mededelingen (Leiden) 69(15-29):177-201. M. Hoogmoed, Natl. Natuur- historisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, THE NETHERLANDS. NARO, E. F. S., N. MROSOVSKY and M. A. MARCOVALDI. 1996. Thermal profiles of marine turtle hatcheries and nesting areas at Praia do Forte, Brazil. 1996 Annual Combined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecologists/Biologists as Problem Solvers, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):320. E. Naro, Yale Univ., New Haven, Connecticut 06520 USA.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 23 PANDAV, B., B. C. CHOUDHURY and C. S. KAR. 1997. Mortality of olive ridley turtles, Lepidochelys olivacea due to incidental capture in fishing nets along the Orissa coast, India. Oryx 31(1):32-36. B. Pandav, Wildlife Inst. of India. P. O. Box 18, Dehradun- 248001, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA. PEARE, T., P. G. PARKER and M. IRWIN. 1996. Paternity analysis of green sea turtle clutches. 1996 Annual Combined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecol-ogists/ Biologists as Problem Solvers, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):345. T. Peare, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA. PENICK, D. N., F. V. PALADINO, A. C. STEYERMARK and J. R. SPOTILA. 1996. Thermal dependence of tissue metabolism in the green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 113(3): 293-296. F. Paladino, Purdue Univ., Rm G80 Kettler Hall, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805 USA. PETRUZZELLI, R., G. AURELI, A. LANIA, A. GALTIERI, A. DESIDERI and B. GIARDINA. 1996. Diving behaviour and haemoglobin function: The primary structure of the alpha- and beta-chains of the sea turtle Caretta caretta and its functional implications. Biochemical Journal 316(3):959-965. R. Petruzzellli, Instituto Scienze Bio- chimiche, Facolta Medicina, Universita Chieti, Via dei Vestini, 66100 Chieti, ITALY. PLATT, T. R and D. BLAIR. 1996. Hapalotrema looss, 1899 (Digenea): Proposed designation of H. loossi Price, 1934 as the type species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2):89-91. T. Platt [ no address given ]. POINER, I. R. and A. N. M. HARRIS. 1996. Incidental capture, direct mortality and delayed mortality of sea turtles in Australia's Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine Biology (Berlin) 125(4):813-825. I. Poiner, CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories, P. O. Box 120, Cleveland, Qld. 4163 AUSTRALIA. POLICANSKY, D. D. 1996. Science, management, and decision making. 1996 Annual Com- bined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecologists/Biologists as Problem Solvers, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):356. D. Policansky, Natl. Res. Council, Washington, D. C. 20418 USA. READ, M. A., G. C. GRIGG and C. J. LIMPUS. 1996. Body temperatures and winter feeding in immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in Moreton Bay, southeastern Queensland. J. Herpetol. 30(2):262-265. M. Read, Queensland Department of Environment, P. O. Box 5391, Townsville, Qld. 4810 AUSTRALIA. REYNOLDS, J. E. III and S. A. ROMMEL. 1996. Structure and function of the gastrointestinal tract of the Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus latirostris. Anat. Rec. 245(3):539-558. J. Reynolds, Eckerd Coll., 4200 54th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 USA. ROBINS, J. B. 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery of Queensland, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 74(3):157-167. J. Robins, Southern Fisheries Ctr., Queensland Dept. Primary Ind., P. O. Box 76, Deception Bay, Qld. 4508, AUSTRALIA.

24 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 SIDDEEK, S. M. and R. M. BALDWIN. 1996. Assessment of the Oman green turtle (Cheloniamydas) stock using a stage-class matrix model. Herpetological J. 6(1):1-8. S. Siddeek [ no address given ]. SIVASUNDAR, A. and K. V. DEVI PRASAD. 1996. Placement and predation of nest in leatherback sea turtles in the Andaman Islands, India. Hamadryad 21:36-42. A. Siva- sundar, S lim Ali School of Ecology, Pondicherry Univ., Pondicherry 605 014, INDIA. TUCKER, A. D., N. N. FITZSIMMONS and C. J. LIMPUS. 1996. Conservation implications of internesting habitat use by loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, in Woongarra Marine Park, Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 2(2):157-166. A. Tucker, Department of Zoology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072 AUSTRALIA. TÜRKOZAN, O. and I. BARAN. 1996. Research on the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, of Fethiye Beach. Tr. J. Zool. 20(1996):183-188. O. Turkozan, Dokuz Eylül Üniv., Buca Egitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü, Buca-Izmir, TURKEY. WILLIAMS, E. H., Jr. and L. BUNKLEY-WILLIAMS. 1996. The earliest Pacific record and unconfirmed hawksbill records of fibropapillomas in Hawaiian sea turtles. Rec. Hawaii Biol. Survey for 1995, Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 46:46-49. E. Williams, Dept. Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, P. O. Box 908, Lajas, Puerto Rico 00667.

TECHNICAL REPORTS

AGUIRRE, A. A. 1996. Plasma biochemistry values of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) with and without fibropapillomas in the Hawaiian Islands. NOAA/NMFS/SWFSC Admin. Report H-96-10C. 15 pp. Available from: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service (Publication Officer), Honolulu Lab., 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA. BARTHOLOMEW, B. (Compiler) 1997. 1996 Herpetological Index. Bibliomania. 151 pp. Available from:B. Bartholomew, Bibliomania, 195 W. 200 North, Logan, Utah 84321 USA. [ Price: $20 for the book; $15 for computer disks, specify Macintosh or DOS. ] BOLTEN, A. B., J. A. WETHERALL, G. H. BALAZS and S. G. POOLEY (Compilers). 1996. Status of marine turtles in the Pacific Ocean relevant to incidental take in the Hawaii- based pelagic longline fishery. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-230. U. S. Dept. Commerce. 167 pp. Available from: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service (Publication Officer), Honolulu Lab., 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA. BOWEN, B. W. and W. N. WITZELL. 1996. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation Genetics, 12-14 September 1995, Miami. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-396. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 173 pp. Available from: W. Witzell, NOAA/ NMFS/SEFSC, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149 USA. (Written requests only; include a self-addressed mailing label.) CAILLOUET, C. W., Jr. 1997. Publications and Reports on Sea Turtle Research by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston Labor-atory, 1979-1996. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-397. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 21 pp. Available from: C. Caillouet, NMFS/SEFSC Galveston Lab, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, Texas 77551-5997 USA.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 25 GLEN, F., B. J. GODLEY and A. KELLY. 1996. Marine Turtle Monitoring in Turkey by Students from the University of Glasgow: A Report to the British Council, Ankara. 14 pp. Available from: B. Godley, DEEB, Graham Kerr Bldg., Univ. Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ U.K. GODLEY, B. and A. KELLY. 1996. Glasgow University Turtle Conservation Expedition to Northern Cyprus 1996: Expedition Report. University of Glasgow Veterin. School, Glasgow. Available from: B. Godley, DEEB, Graham Kerr Bldg., Univ. Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ U.K. IUCN. 1996. A Marine Turtle Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for the Western Indian Ocean. Prepared by IUCN East Africa Regional Office and IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group. World Conservation Union (IUCN). 24 pp. Available free from: IUCN Publications Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL U.K. LAURENT, L., M. N. BRADAI, D. A. HADOUD and H. E. GOMATI. 1995. Marine turtle nesting activity assessment on Libyan coasts. Phase I: survey of the coast between Egyptian border and Sirte. RAC/SPA (MAP-UNEP), Tunis. 51 pp. +tab. Available from: Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA), Boulevard de l'Envionnement B.P. 337, 1080 Tunis Cedex TUNISIA. MARQUEZ M., R. 1996. Las Tortugas Marinas y Nuestro Tiempo. La Ciencia/144. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México. 197 pp. [ ISBN 968-16-4436-0 ] Limited copies available from: R. M rquez M., INP/CRIP, Playa Ventanas S/N, A.P. 591, Manzanillo, Colima, MEXICO, CP 28200. Please include US$8 for orders within the Americas; US$12 else- where. For additional information, contact the publisher: Fondo de Cultura Económica, Av. Picacho Ajusco no. 227, Col. Bosque del Pedregal, Delegacion Tlalpan, C.P. 14200, México D.F. MEXICO. VALKERING, N. P., P. VAN NUGTEREN and T. J. W. VAN EIJCK. 1996. Sea Turtle Conservation on Bonaire: Sea Turtle Club Bonaire 1995 Project Report and Long-Term Proposal. Verslagen en Technische Gegevens No. 68:1-103. Univ. van Amsterdam. Limited copies available from: STCB, c/o T. J. W. van Eijck, Madurastraat 126 hs, 1094 GW Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS.

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS ADAMANY, STEPHANIE LYNNE. 1996. Nest Caging as a Sea Turtle Management Strategy: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs on Urban Beaches? Master of Science Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX13-80714] GLENN, JOHN LAWRENCE. 1996. The Orientation and Survival of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Hatchlings (Caretta caretta L.). Master of Science Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX13-78634] GOFF, MATTHEW DOUGLAS. 1996. The Magnetic Compass of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta, L.): Can Surface Waves Establish Magnetic Directional Preference? Master of Science Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX13-78637]

26 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 LOOP, KIRSTIN ANNE. 1996. Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Nesting at Milman Island, Queensland, Australia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX96-34799] RATNASWANY, MARY JOSANNE. 1995. Raccoon Depredation of Sea Turtle Nests at Can- averal National Seashore, Florida: Implications for Species Management and Conserva- tion (Caretta caretta, Procyon Lotor, Chelonia mydas). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX96-35816] SIVASUNDAR, ARJUN. 1996. Studies on the Nesting of Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermo- chelyscoriacea) in the Andaman Islands. Master of Science Thesis, Salim Ali School of Ecology, Pondicherry University, India. VALVERDE, ROLDAN ARTURO. 1996. Corticosteriod Dynamics in a Free-Ranging Popula- tion of Olive Ridley Sea Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea Eschscholtz, 1829) at Playa Nancite, Costa Rica, as a Function of their Reproductive Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX97-01728]

17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION The 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation was held at the Delta Orlando Resort in Orlando, Florida USA from 4-8 March 1997. The Symposium was hosted by Florida Atlantic University, Mote Marine Laboratory, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, and the Comité Nacional para la Conservación y Protección de las Tortu- gas Marinas (México). The Symposium was the largest to date, 720 biologists, students, regu- latory personnel, managers, and volunteers participated from 38 countries. Vendors displayed scientific equipment, books and periodicals, original art, and gifts. In addition to 79 oral, two video, and 120 poster presentations, three workshops (Population Modeling, Veterinary Medi- cine, Conservation on Nesting Beaches) filled to capacity. P. C. H. Pritchard presented a thoughtful retrospect on the late Archie Carr. Through stories and reading from Carr's writ-ings, Pritchardÿ20showed many sides of a complex man who studied and wrote about sea turtles; it was a presentation that none of us will forget.

The winner of the Archie Carr Best Student Presentation (oral presentation category) was Amanda Southwood (University of British Columbia, Vancouver): "Heart rates and diveÿ20behavior of the leatherback sea turtle during the internesting interval." ÿ20The runners- up were Richard Reina (Australian National University, Canberra): "Regulation of salt gland activity in Chelonia mydas" and Singo Minamikawa (Kyoto University): "The influence that artificialÿ20specific grav-ity change gives to diving behavior of loggerhead turtles." The winner of the Archie Carr Best Student Presentation (poster presentation category) was Mark Roberts (University of South Flor-ida, Tampa): "Global population structure of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) using microsat-ellite analysis of male-mediated gene flow." The runners-up were Larisa Avens (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill): "Equilibrium responses to rotational displacements by hatchling sea turtles: maintaining a migratory heading in a turbulent ocean" and Annette Broderick (Uni-versity of Glasgow): "Female size, not length, is a correlate of reproductive output." Winners receive $400 and a subscription to Chelonian Conservation and Biology; runners-up receiveÿ20$100. The Symposium is grateful to A. G. J. Rhodin, Director of the Chelonian Research Foundation, for co-sponsoring the awards.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 27 The Symposium adopted six Resolutions; four are reprinted in this issue. [ N.B. The Orissa Resolution was not available at press time; the final Resolution was a letter to Rolland Schmitten, Director of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. ] All six Resolutions will be published in their entirety in an upcoming issue of Chelonian Conservation and Biology. David Owens (Texas A&M University) was elected President of the 19th Annual Symposium. Alberto Abreu (Universidad Nacional Autónomous de México), President of 18th Annual Sym-posium, announced that sites in México were under consideration for 1998; members were clearly supportive of this option. The Symposium delivered a heartfelt "Thank You", including tributes from several past Presidents, to Thelma Richardson who has served as Symposium Sec-retary and Registrar since the symposium began more than a decade ago. Her tireless service and the work load she has shouldered on our behalf is evidenced by the very real likelihood that the Symposium will need to recruit a whole team of professionals to replace her! Thanks to the devoted efforts of Karen Eckert, Jack Frazier and Marydele Donnelly, and those who donated money to the Symposium on behalf of international travel assistance, the Symposium sponsored the attendance of 38 colleagues from 28 nations around the globe. In emphasizing international participation, we all learn a great deal more about the biology and conservation of sea turtles than would otherwise be the case; beyond the knowledge gained, we benefit from professional contacts and enjoy new friendships. The Symposium Auction raised nearly $8,000 for the 1998 International Travel Fund! We owe many thanks to Auctioneer Bob Shoop, who kept the bidding high, fast-paced, and entertaining. As the Symposium has grown from a small Florida gathering to an international event, it has remained in its heart always open and cordial. It is a meeting in which pretenses are dropped, good science is presented, and friendly, open communication is the rule. The camaraderie ultimately translates into under- standing and cooperation. These aspects, combined, have gone and will go a long way toward helping to protect sea turtles and the habitats upon which they depend around the world. It was an honor to serve as President of the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. To the dozens and dozens of members and others who made my job possible, Thank You. See you next year! JEANETTE WYNEKEN, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431-0991 USA.

RESOLUTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE 17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION on the INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF SEA TURTLES

To: All Governments of the Americas; FAO, UNEP, UNDP, OAS, OLDEPESCA, ALEP, IUCN, WWF, sea turtle specialists and managers, and all other concerned parties.

Whereas the assembled members of the 16th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation (1996) passed a resolution supporting the adoption of the measures outlined in the Inter-American Convention for the Pro-tection and Conservation of Sea Turtles;

Whereas information regarding this convention has been somewhat slow in reaching many sectors of society which should be involved in its implementation;

28 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 Whereas the limited knowledge about and appreciation of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Con-servation of Sea Turtles has resulted in a lack of support from many sectors of society which should be involved in its implementation;

Whereas there is a pressing need to inform these sectors of society about this Convention;

We therefore urge that members of the conservation, academic, scientific, and management communities - and in particular sea turtle specialists - identify and make use of all mechanisms of communication to ensure that there is greater knowledge of that Convention in all sectors of society.

Whereas the acceptance and ratification of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles has been open for signature by all Parties in the Americas since December 1996;

Whereas to date (February 1997) six countries have already signed the Convention, and the minimum number needed for this Convention to enter into force is eight;

We strongly urge all concerned Parties to sign and ratify the Convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

Passed overwhelmingly 6 March 1997, Orlando

RESOLUTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE 17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION on the FAO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES

To: Governments represented in these Annual Symposia; FAO, UNEP, UNDP, OAS, OLDEPESCA, ALEP, IUCN, WWF, sea turtle specialists and managers, and all other concerned parties.

The assembled members of the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation strongly support the concepts and procedures described in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries published by the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] of the United Nations, Rome in 1995.

Recognizing that in general the world's fisheries resources are in decline and that the fate of human societies and cultures is threatened by the scarcity and lack of security from food resources, in particular, fisheries resources, it is critical that these trends not only be stopped, but reversed;

Whereas the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries provides numerous and diverse recommendations for meet-ing this pressing goal, while at the same time respecting the rights of sovereign states, the rights of rarely represent-ed indigenous and other rural peoples, and the needs of artisanal fishermen;

Recognizing that, unfortunately, relatively few people in the scientific, conservation and fisheries production com-munities know of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; and that this lack of familiarity with and appreci-ation of the value of the document greatly reduces its effectiveness and impact;

We therefore emphatically urge that all governments, all fisheries organizations both governmental and nongovern-mental and all other groups involved in the exploitation, management, conservation, and investigation of marine living resources and the environments fundamental for the survival of these organisms adopt the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and fully implement the recommendations therein.

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 29 In order to accomplish this, we urge that every possible effort be made to identify and make use of all possible means and mechanisms to disperse reliable information about the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This effort in public education must include all sectors of society, notably: the fishery industry at all levels, fisheries production, processing, and marketing; scientific; academic; educational; conservation; political; judicial; consum-er; and all other relevant entities.

Passed unanimously 6 March 1997, Orlando

RESOLUTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE 17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION on the REAUTHORIZATION OF THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

WHEREAS the U.S. Endangered Species Act is one of the most important and fundamental laws globally for the conservation of biological diversity, balancing long-term economic, social, and environmental values with short- term economic interests, and serves as an example to other nations of a commitment to long-term maintenance of natural biotic richness and resources;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation urges the U.S. Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the Endangered Species Act, to provide more effective protection against the loss of species and their habitats, based on the following principles:

I. Prevention. The prevention of endangerment should be encouraged through mechanisms such as consultation and conservation activities for rare and declining species, and ecosystem planning.

II. Recovery. Recovery goals and criteria must be scientifically derived and based, while inclusion of balanced participation of stakeholders may facilitate development of effective implementation strategies for achieving recov-ery goals. Applicants for incidental take permits should be required to: (1) ensure their activities are consistent with recovery of the species; (2) mitigate fully any adverse impacts of their activities on listed species; and, (3) monitor the impacts of their activities and take appropriate action if conservation plans fail to achieve their goals.

III. Science. Federal land management agencies should be required to inventory and monitor the status and trends of listed and rare or declining species and habitats on lands under their jurisdiction. The Secretary should be required, in cooperation with the states, to develop a system for tracking rare and declining species. The Secretary should be authorized to list populations of invertebrates and plants threatened with extinction within the entire U.S. Endangered species policy should protect large contiguous, viable tracts of habitat that support a multitude of spe-cies wherever possible. Opportunities should be provided for independent scientists to review and offer recommen-dations on the development, approval and implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and other non-federal land management plans.

IV. Citizen Participation. Opportunities should be provided for citizens to participate in the development of recovery plan implementation strategies, and review and comment on the development, approval and implementation of HCPs and other nonfederal land management plans. The public should be notified of the initiation of formal Section 7 consultations and the completion of all Section 7 consultations. Documents reflecting Section 7 consultations should be made available for public review.

V. Federal Agency Accountability. Congress should clarify that federal agencies are legally obligated to carry out the "reasonable and prudent measures" identified in Section 7 biological opinions and that federal agency activities outside the U.S. are subject to the requirements of Section 7.

30 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77 VI. Private Citizen Incentives. Congress should provide monetary and tax credit incentives to landowners to carry out conservation measures that go beyond the ESA's requirements. Congress should not pay landowners for carrying out activities required under an incidental take permit and should not authorize incentives to be used as a substi-tute for incidental take permit requirements.

VII. Funding. Significantly increased ESA and Land and Water Conservation Fund funding should be provided for the Act to more effectively conserve species and ecosystems. Additional, non-appropriated funding sources should also be provided.

Passed unanimously 6 March 1997, Orlando

RESOLUTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE 17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION on the ARCHIE CARR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Whereas the beaches of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge host a considerable portion of the second largest nesting population of threatened loggerhead sea turtles in the entire world, as well as hundreds of nests of endangered green sea turtles and a number of endangered leatherback turtle nests;

Whereas the beaches in and around the Carr Refuge rapidly are being developed and critical sea turtle nesting habi-tat is being lost or degraded;

Whereas the Carr Refuge was established to provide protection for this highest U.S. concentration of nests for threatened and endangered sea turtles;

Whereas local and state governments and private foundations have provided more than $80 million for the acquisi-tion of land in and around the Carr Refuge and the federal government has only contributed $8.89 million, or 11 percent, of the total dollars thus far expended;

Whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has ranked the Carr Refuge as #2 in its acquisition priorities for FY 98;

And Whereas the Congress has failed for two years in a row to provide any additional funding for land acquisition within the Carr Refuge;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation urges the U.S. Congress to appropriate $5 million toward acquisition for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in FY 98.

Passed unanimously 6 March 1997, Orlando

MARK YOUR CALENDARS! 18th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION The 1998 Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation will be held at Hotel El Cid, Mazatl n, Sinaloa, México. Registration will begin on Tuesday, 3 March; oral presentations will start Wednesday morning and continue through Saturday, 7 March. See you there!

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 31 The Réunion de Especialisatas Latinoamericanos en Tortugas Marinas will precede the Symposium, convening on Saturday, 28 February, and continuing through Monday, 2 March. The Réunion will be held at and co-sponsored by Centro de Educacion y Capacitacion para el Desarrollo Sustentable. The Centro will donate free room and board for 60 participants, in addition to an auditorium and audiovisual equipment. The agenda will include sea turtle-fishery interactions in Latin America, advances in national conservation programs, and a workshop (conducted by Centro staff) on community participation in sea turtle conservation. F. ALBERTO ABREU GROBOIS, 1998 Sea Turtle Symposium President, Laboratorio de Conservacion y Manejo de Recursos Bioticos y Banco de Informacion sobre Tortugas Marinas (BITMAR), Estacion Mazatl n, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologia - UNAM, A. P. 811, Mazatlan, Sinaloa 82000 MEXICO; Tel: 52 (69) 85-28-45/8; Fax: 52 (69) 82-61-33; Tel: (priv.) 52 (69) 81-22-94; E-mail: [email protected]

VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO PROTECT HAWKSBILLS Volunteers are needed to monitor nesting hawksbills at remote beaches in Hawaii Vol- canoes National Park and on adjacent lands on the island of Hawaii, USA. The hawksbill is very rare on the island; only 67 nests were documented in 1996. Volunteers are needed for the May- December 1997 nesting season. We prefer stays of 8-12 weeks, but will consider shorter periods. Volunteers will camp 3-5 nights/wk. Duties include monitoring nesting hawksbills and basking green turtles, rescuing stranded hatchlings, excavating nests, and trapping and euthani- zing predators (mongooses, feral cats, rats). Some nesting beaches are only accessible by hiking a 6.6 mile trail over recent lava flows; others are reached by 4-wheel drive truck. The weather is hot and very windy. Shared dormitory-style housing is provided near Park Headquarters at the summit of Kilauea Volcano (4,000 ft elevation). A small stipend ($7/day) is provided; sup- plemental personal funds are needed. Contact the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, P. O. Box 52, Hawaii 96718; Tel: (808) 967-8226, Fax: 985-8614, E-mail: [email protected] ______

Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Terri Garland (Soquel, CA), Louise Hamlin (El Segundo, CA), New Brunswick Museum(Canada), Laura Faller (Decatur, GA), Mark Laubach (Mt. View, CA), Robert Parker Hodge(Gig Harbor, WA), Vancouver Aquarium (B.C., Canada), Luc Laurent (Villeurbanne, France), Diana Vineyard (Dallas, TX), Julia Horrocks (St. Thomas, Barbados), Save-A-Turtle (Islamorada, FL), David Addison (Naples, FL), Sneed Collard (Milton, FL), Elizabeth Mitchell (Eugene, OR), Ric and Elvia Zambrano (W. Palm Beach, FL), Brian & Ruthellen Bowen(Gainesville, FL), Linda Righetti (San Francisco, CA), Richard Byles (Albuquerque, NM), Antonio & Bety Resendiz (B.C.S., Mexico), Lisa Richman (Raleigh, NC), Coastal Conservation Foundation (Tucson, AZ), Peter Pritchard (Oveido, FL), The Chelonian Research Foundation, Columbus Zoo, Sea World Inc., Cayman Turtle Farm Ltd., and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Angela Mast translates and produces the Spanish edition, Noticiero de Tortugas Marinas. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editors, the Editorial Board, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, Conservation International, or any individuals or organizations providing financial support.

32 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77