Marine Turtle Newsletter

No. 33 May 1985

Editor: Nat B. Frazer Editorial Advisors:

Marine Policy Center Peter C. H.Pritchard Woods Hole Oceanographic Anders G. J. Rhodin Institution Harold F. Hirth Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA N. Mrosovoky

MTN BACK ISSUES NOW AVAILABLE

The Chelonian Documentation Center has recently reprinted issues 1-30 (1976-1984) of the Marine Turtle Newsletter in a limited edition of 500 copies. Although individual issues are not available separately, the entire set may be ordered from the CDC for US $12.50 (Surface Mail included). Orders should be sent directly to: Chelonian Documentation Center, PO Box 125, 8700 AC Bolsward, Netherlands.

CITES MEETING - BUENOS AIRES 1985: DECISIONS ON SEA TURTLES

Suriname ranch: This proposal for ranching green turtles was considered at the 1983 Botswana meeting of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). At that time the biological aspects were approved overwhelmingly (43 to 3) but overall approval was withheld contingent on Suriname providing details about labelling of their ranched products (see 1983 MTN 25:6-9). This matter was referred to the Technical Committee; at the Brussels meeting of the Committee in 1984 the marking system was found acceptable in principle. It was considered desirable that Suriname showed the actual labels and documentation to the parties In Buenos Aires. However, in Buenos Aires the USA proposed that uniform marking schemes should be applied to products from ranches, with the first ranch approved for a given species providing the model to be followed. The USA proposals, which included additional safeguards, were adopted at Buenos Aires (25 to 14). This introduced a new element, in that countries proposing ranching had not come prepared to meet these new requirements, and it was considered arbitrary to base the model scheme on which proposal came up first in the agenda. In any event, Suriname, France and the UK (Cayman Islands) agreed to institute a uniform system and to follow the USA proposals. In the plenary session the Chairman limited debate to the marking scheme. Suriname requested a secret ballot. Some parties were not clear if they were voting just on the marking, or on the overall proposal, but since the biological aspects had already been approved in Botswana, it probably amounted to the same thing. There were 26 votes in favor, 22 against, and 15 abstentions. Since a two-thirds majority was required, the Suriname proposal was rejected.

Réunion ranch: France's proposal to ranch green turtles was more straight- forward in that it was considered for the first time as a whole by the Plenary session. It was not approved. The votes cast in secret ballot were 25 in favor, 32 against, 7 abstentions.

Cayman Islands (UK) proposals: This was another complex case because although the Cayman Turtle Farm (CTF) has not taken turtles from the wild since 1978, the request to trade was put in as a ranching proposal. The UK argued that the proposal met the ranching criteria, while others argued that since there was no local population being drawn from, or being benefitted by the ranch, it could not meet the ranching criteria. The proposal was rejected in a secret ballot (27 in favor, 32 against, 7 abstentions). However, a second vote then followed on a resolution put forward on the recommendation of the CITES Secretariat. The Secretariat's opinion was that the CTF should not be considered under the ranching criteria but in the format of a special resolution. The Secretariat stressed the unique aspect of the CTF, such as their stock being acquired prior to the definition of "bred in captivity," and the retrospective nature of legislation affecting the CTF. A further contentious point was that the special resolution would have only required a straight majority to pass. However, after a secret ballot it was defeated (26 in favor, 32 against, 4 abstentions, 1 invalid ballot).

Indonesian greens and hawksbills: Indonesia proposed to downlist its green turtles from Appendix I to II of the Convention, with a quota of 2000 to be reached in stages over a number of years from a level of 10,000. The delegate said that 30,000 green turtles had been landed in 1984, but it was not clear how many of these entered trade. The proposal was rejected (2 in favor, 24 against). A similar proposal for hawksbills, with a quota starting at 1000 and falling to 500 was also rejected (3 in favor, 27 against). One factor in these votes was the widespread opinion that the Indonesian proposals provided insufficient information.

Seychelles hawksbills: This proposal was to downlist the Seychelles hawksbills from Appendix I to II and permit trade with a quota of 100 animals. The Seychelles said they would comply with standardized marking systems, although they were not ranching. The proposal was rejected in a secret ballot (17 in favor, 33 against).

Comment: This short account does not do justice to the complexity of CITES or to preconvention activities. Dissatisfaction was repeatedly voiced about the processes by which decisions were made, and the little time for discussion of scientific matters. There was a sharp division of opinion between those who saw these decisions as a sad day for CITES and as a rejection of turtle ranching as a viable tool for conservation, and those who felt that the conservation of sea turtles had been furthered by maintaining official restrictions on trade. But on one matter there was general agreement: this is not the end of a battle that has already consumed untold energy and money.

N. MROSOVSKY, Depts. Zoology & Psychology, U. Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, CANADA.

GREEN TURTLE RESEARCH PROGRAM IN OGASAWARA

Four species of marine turtles are known in the Ogasawara Islands: the green turtle, (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), loggerhead

- 2 -

(Caretta caretta) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). Only green turtles breed in the Ogasawara Islands, one of the northernmost (latitude ca. 27ºN) rookeries of this species in the Western Pacific Ocean. Nesting commences during the middle of May, reaches its peak between late June and early July, and declines to a very low level by the middle of August. A few hawksbills, mostly juveniles, are also found around the islands. Loggerheads are captured incidentally by longline fishing vessels; they are rarely encountered around the islands. Leatherbacks seldom or never appear in the waters adjacent to the Ogasawara Islands.

Around the year 1880, about 1,500 adult green turtles were caught by islanders annually. Since the 1920s, the Ogasawara population of green turtles has been much smaller. Nowadays, we can find at most only about 200 annual migrants.

The experimental hatchery program was previously conducted by the Ogasawara Fisheries Center, Tokyo Metropolitan Government (1975-1981: 61,528 hatchlings released). In April, 1982, the Ogasawara Marine Center, Marine Environmental Association of Tokyo, was founded as a museum with the special objective of studying and conserving marine turtles. Therefore, the hatchery program was transferred to us. We have released 36,601 hatchlings over the past three years (Table 1).

Table 1: Hatchery Statistics for 1982-1984, Ogasawara Marine Center.

Year 1982 1983 1984

Number of Eggs Buried 13,265 13,953 27,878 Number of Hatchlings 7,247 11,596 21,594 Hatching Rate (54.6%) (83.1%) (77.5%)

Number of Hatchlings Released 5,852 10,299 20,450

Eggs for the hatchery are collected from turtles that are held captive temporarily. These turtles are caught by fishermen during mating season (March-May), bought by the Ogasawara Public Office and kept in a pond with a fence enclosing an artificial nesting beach. After nesting, they are tagged with plastic tags and released.

HIROYUKI SUGANUMA, Research Staff, Ogasawara Marine Center, Marine Environ- mental Association of Tokyo, P.O. Box 404, Chichi-jima, Ogasawara-mura, Tokyo 100-21, Japan

OLIVE RIDLEYS OF HONDURAS

The Gulf of Fonseca on the Pacific side of Honduras is shared with E1 Salvador and Nicaragua. Initial observations of the olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Honduras were made by Archie Carr in 1947 and by Peter Pritchard in 1967. Until 1975, with the start of the first beach hatchery project, no other work had been done.

In 1959 the Honduran Fish Law was established. It is the first and only

- 3 -

law to protect sea turtles and their eggs from commercial use in Honduras, although a stricter law is now before the Congress. The Fish Law was not put into practice until 1975 when the first off-season for egg collecting was established on the "south" coast.

Sea turtles are not sought after on the "south" coast of Honduras. The custom of eating turtle meat or using other turtle products from live turtles has not been established in that area. Turtles are occasionally caught in seine nets and released. Although the animals are not hunted, the eggs are highly prized. The report by Pritchard (1969) that "every night there were far more egg collectors than turtles on the beach" still holds true today. Nearly 100% of the nests are collected by local residents.

Turtle eggs are considered an aphrodisiac throughout Honduras. They are customarily served as hors d’oeuvres with alcoholic drinks in bars and restaurants. Commonly, a raw egg is placed in a glass with a touch of lemon, salt, hot sauce and Worcestershire sauce.

The laying season runs from July through December, although beach residents report that turtles lay throughout the rest of the year in sparse numbers. Each year except one since 1975, a two to three week off-season for egg collecting has been established by the Honduran Government Department of Renewable Natural Resources. During this off-season project workers patrol approximately 25km of beach. The workers are government employees, University students, Boy Scouts, Peace Corps Volunteers and other interested individuals. The patrolled area is broken up by numerous estuaries and coverage is not 100%. Nests are collected at night and a boat is used to transport them to the hatchery corral at dawn. Hatchery success has been variable. The first year a hatch rate of 72.7% was reported (Burgos & Pérez: 1975), but subsequent years have been much lower; one year the hatchery was completely destroyed by a storm. Not until 1981 did the hatch rate improve to 55% (Donovan & Minarik 1981), with reported rates of 40% in 1982 (DIGERENARE 1982), 45.8% in 1983 (Minarik 1984) and 78.2% in 1984.

I gave reports on the life cycle of the marine turtle and its status in the area studied to elementary and secondary school classes, to biology students at the National Autonomous University of Honduras and to employees of the American Embassy. Presentations have covered all age, economic and education levels.

Burgos E. and D. E. Pérez. 1975. Algunas Observaciones Sobre la Tortuga Marina Lepidochelys olivacea en la Costa Pacífica de Honduras. DIGERENARE. Tegucigalpa, D.C. Honduras. 26pp. DIGERENARE. 1982. Anidamiento Semi-artificial de la Tortuga Marina Lepidochelys olivacea en el Golfo de Fonseca, durante 1982. Tegucigalpa, D.C. Honduras. Donovan, M. A. and C. Minarik. 1981. E1 Proyecto para la Proteccíon de la Tortuga Golfina (Lepidochelys olivacea) en la Costa Sur de Honduras. DIGERENARE, Tegucigalpa, D.C. Honduras. 13pp. Minarik, C. 1984. Proyecto Para la Proteccion de la Tortuga Marina Golfina Lepidochelys olivacea en la Costa Sur de Honduras 1983. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969. The survival status of ridley sea turtles in American waters. Biological Conservation 2(l):3-17. ~

CYNTHIA MINARIK, 2631 Ulysses St. NE, Minneapolis, MN 55418 USA.

- 4 -

UPDATE ON OSTIONAL

Readers of the MTN are aware of the need for a resolution to the situation at Playa Ostional, Costa Rica, site of olive ridley arribadas and heavy egg exploitation. Previous laws prohibited the commercialization of turtle eggs in Costa Rica, but the arribada phenomenon resulted in uncontrolled poaching by the residents of Ostional and surrounding communities, given the severe poverty of the region and the inadequacy of law enforcement. The few attempts to halt egg exploitation during the past 15 years failed to have any long-term positive effect.

Several events occurred during 1984 that should result in a workable management plan for Ostional. The new Wildlife Conservation Law (No. 6919) declared a zone 200 m inland from the high tide line, from the mouth of the Rio Nosara to Punta India, as the Ostional National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers approximately 160 hectares and includes the main nesting beach, 6 km of adjoining beach and most of the town of Ostional. The law also identifies the Wildlife Department (DVS) as the sole authority legally responsible for the area.

In July 1984 an administrator and a guard took up residence in the town. Their role the first year was to establish a governmental presence at the refuge. They initiated programs to reduce the number of feral dogs in the area, to control access of domestic pigs to the beach, and to provide the community with an understanding of the purpose of the refuge and their relationship to it. No effort was made to halt or control egg harvest in 1984.

Several articles of the new law pertain directly to future management options at Ostional. Marketing illegal wildlife products may result in closure and loss of license for the offending establishment, a significant change from the previous law that provided only a relatively small fine. Although commercialization of wildlife and wildlife products is generally prohibited, exceptions are possible, as outlined in an important bylaw. This bylaw permits the sale of animal products from within the refuge under two conditions. Such use must be "justified by scientific study" and the people of Ostional must form a legal community development association before the DVS would authorize a controlled egg harvest.

At least one of these conditions has been met to the satisfaction of the DVS. On 21 January 1985, the Asociacion Desarrollo Especifico Pro-explotacion Racional y Cientifica del Huevo de Tortuga de Ostional de Cuajiniquil de Santa Cruz, Guanacaste (the Asociacion Desarrollo Comunal de Ostional or ADCO) was formed under the guidelines of the government agency in charge of local economic associations. An organization has thus been legally licensed for the specific purpose of commercially harvesting olive ridley eggs at Ostional.

The "scientific justification" for the harvest is less clear. From August to October 1984, Mario Alvarado and I conducted a study of natural nest success at Ostional using the marked nest methodology previously employed at Nancite (Cornelius & Robinson 1982). A preliminary study of the fates of 159 nests revealed 6.9% destroyed by turtles in the August arribada; 12.6% destroyed by turtles in the September arribada; 1.9% destroyed by beach erosion; 0.6% destroyed by feral dogs; 6.9% destroyed by human egg collectors; 39.6% survived to term but did not hatch successfully; 32.7% successfully produced some neonate turtles. Percent hatch of successful nests was

- 5 -

approximately 32%. Further details are given in Cornelius & Robinson (1985).

This suggests that a greater percentage of nests survive to term than on the totally protected beach at Nancite, that a greater percentage are at least partially successful and that the average hatching rate of successful nests is higher. It is tempting to attribute this to the removal of eggs, which thus reduces the density-dependent factors that likely play a large part in the destruction of nests on arribada beaches. This may be true, but there are other possibly more important factors (e.g., variations in available nesting space; possible differences in ages of the arribada phenomenon) that may have contributed to the better hatch rate at Ostional (Cornelius & Robinson 1985). Obviously, our preliminary study is not a definitive statement. The work needs to be duplicated during other times of the year to provide a clear picture of the temporal pattern of hatchling production. At present, however, it appears that DVS will interpret these preliminary results as justification for a controlled egg harvest in 1985.

Our study was not designed to measure the harvest rate. The local people were requested not to disturb marked nests, and they responded with unexpected cooperation. The 9 nests they took were probably dug up unintentionally, since only we knew the exact location of the nests relative to their markers. It might be argued that such losses were representative of the percentage of nests poached during an arribada. However, this fails to consider eggs taken while turtles nested, and is thus an underestimate. On the other hand, the conception that previous uncontrolled exploitation of large arribadas has resulted in nearly complete removal of all nests is without factual basis. I suspect that the average harvest rate for peak arribadas probably varies only from 10-30%.

The percentage of nests used is inversely proportional to the size of the arribada. Most egg collecting during major arribadas occurs during the first and final nights when there are normally no more than 500-800 turtles on the beach at a time. During the peak sessions (2nd or 3rd nights) the number of egg collectors declines markedly because it is uncomfortable and unnecessary to work when the beach is crowded with up to 10,000 turtles. The temporal pattern of egg collecting may not hold for all peak season arribadas, especially when access to a beach is good and egg demand is high. It almost certainly is not representative during the smaller (ca. 5,000) dry season arribadas. Nearly all nests from some of these mass nestings probably are collected. It is a widely held belief among residents that few (if any) nests hatch between January and May; if so, the high harvest rate may not be that detrimental. Obviously, these observations need verification.

The new law stipulates that revenues from the sale of refuge products be divided between ADCO (60%) and the DVS (40%), with government revenues deposited in a special account that may be used only for DVS programs. The funds are expected to provide for constructing research facilities at Ostional, hiring biologists and guards, and implementing reasonable conservation programs aimed at maintaining the natural recruitment rate. The ADC0 revenues must be deposited in a DINODECA-approved account, but their expenditure is apparently up to ADCO. It will likely pay individual egg collectors a set price for eggs, with remaining funds allocated for standard community development projects (e.g., public buildings, roads, communications). At the proposed new wholesale price of $0.50 per dozen, the economic status of Ostional will improve tremendously (hueveros currently

- 6 - receive only $0.06 to $0.10 per dozen from middlemen, who in turn sell the eggs for about the same price being sought by ADCO). The egg harvest currently generates an estimated 30-50% of the community's monthly income. The present plan should increase the relative importance of the egg harvest to the local economy. Heads of households who customarily earn only a little over $2.00 a day as temporary laborers might easily earn several hundred dollars during a single arribada. Such sudden increases in wealth will certainly cause immense changes in the social structure of the community. Some thought is being given to modifying the impact by compensating egg collectors with food, clothing, or building materials instead of entirely in cash.

Other aspects of the plan call for eggs to leave Ostional in sealed bags destined for the 20-25 bars and restaurants in the San Jose metropolitan area which have been approved by the DVS and have contractual agreements with ADCO. Only these outlets could legally market turtle eggs - and only those obtained from ADCO. Subsistence and commercial exploitation of all other turtle eggs would remain illegal.

Only members of ADCO will be permitted to harvest turtle eggs and all eggs must be harvested under the auspices of ADCO. Only residents of Ostional may join ADCO, although residency does automatically entitle one to membership. This will certainly cause discord among residents of small surrounding communities who have traditionally harvested eggs during arribadas. Success of the program might result in a mass immigration of people to Ostional seeking to share in the largesse. This would have a detrimental impact on the refuge and on the stability of ADCO.

In November 1984, Dr. D. C. Robinson and I met with the head of the DVS and presented the following set of refuge policy recommendations for 1985: 1. The commercial exploitation of eggs by members of ADCO shall be authorized during the first 24 hr after an arribada ( > 200 turtles) commences. Vehicles and horses shall be permitted on the beach only during daylight hours of the arribada. 2. Exploitation of eggs of all species of sea turtles within the refuge but outside the main nesting beach (800 m between Ostional estuary and a rocky outcrop called Las Cocineras). Vehicles and horses shall be permitted on the beach only during daylight hours. 3. Eggs may be harvested for personal consumption by the people of Ostional only on the main nesting beach.

This policy is preliminary and subject to regular reevaluation by the refuge administration and their scientific advisors. At this stage, it had to be designed around the enforcement capabilities of the DVS in order to be successful. A policy that designated specific areas of the beach for egg digging would require a more detailed knowledge of the spatial characteristics of hatching success than is now available, and would also demand a much greater vigilance effort. Given the present level of personnel commitment by the DVS, any attempt to control the harvest spatially would probably be unsuccessful. Limiting the harvest temporally is feasible and likely would be more acceptable to the residents since it is comparable to their traditional work schedule. A management policy that includes prearranged and adjustable egg harvest quotas is certainly possible and perhaps desirable with expanded financial and personnel resources at DVS, additional biological research on the spatial and temporal aspects of mass nesting productivity and

- 7 -

establishment of a consistent methodology to monitor the status of the adult female population. At present, however, an admittedly flawed but at least simple and workable plan must prevail.

Cornelius, S. E. and D. C. Robinson. 1982. Abundance, distribution and movements of olive ridley sea turtles in Costa Rica II. Rept. USFWS, Albuquerque, NM. Cornelius. S. E. and D. C. Robinson. 1985. Abundance, distribution and movements of olive ridley sea turtles in Costa Rica V. Rept. USFWS, Albuquerque, NM.

STEVE CORNELIUS, RR 3, Box 216, Mountain View, MO 65548 USA.

LOGGERHEAD CONSEWATION ON FLORIDA'S WEST COAST

A nesting beach survey has been conducted since 1982 on the barrier islands of Sarasota County, Florida. Some 40.9 km of Longboat, Siesta, Casey and Manasota Keys are patrolled regularly by volunteers; Lido Key and the Venice area beaches are spot-checked for nesting activity. Volunteers are trained to note all false crawls daily and to relocate endangered nests. Mote Marine Laboratory (MML) is responsible for compiling survey data (Table 1) and managing Longboat, Lido and Siesta Keys. The MML also reports all strandings to the NMFS network and disseminates information about loggerheads to the public through newspaper articles, telephone calls and lectures. When additional funds were available, research included a tagging project, a headstart program for greens and loggerheads, a necropsy program for determining ingestion of artificial seaweed (used to stabilize beaches), and a study of carapace epibionts. Casey Key, the Venice beaches and Manasota Key are managed in cooperation with the Sarasota County Natural Resources Department and volunteer residents. The tagging patrol on Casey Key is a joint effort, when possible.

Table 1: Loggerhead nesting activity in Sarasota County, FL.

Emergences Nests Hatchlings* Key 1982 1983 1984 1982 1983 1984 1982 1983 1984 Longboat 44 25 18 8 14 12 434 1,217 939 Lido 5 2 3 0 2 2 0 70 72 Siesta 28 51 66 6 25 30 451 1,802 2,550 Cagey 174 215 166 57 120 98 5,131 10,758 7,971 Venice 26 13 14 7 7 9 494 675 580 Manasota ? 215 209 ? 126 114 ? 3,308 6,273

TOTAL 277 521 476 78 294 266 6,510 17,830 18,385 *The recorded numbers of hatchlings are underestimates, due to the impossibility of following all nests to term.

The following findings also may be of interest: 1. Of 11 females tagged on Casey Key in 1983, 3 were seen again, with a mean internesting interval of 12 days (range 11-12 days). One female returned four times during the season. 2. Casey and Manasota Keys are residential in nature and have larger numbers of nesting females. Longboat, Lido and Siesta Keys and the Venice

- 8 -

Beach area are dominated by condominiums and have fewer nesting turtles. 3. Strandings have increased each year (5 in 1982; 20 in 1983; 36 in 1984). All stranded turtles were loggerheads except for one Kemp's ridley (carapace length 64.0 cm) in 1984. Carapaces are measured over-the-curve; the majority of the loggerheads have been classified as adults because they are over 80 cm long (L. Ogren, pers. comm.). 4. Nesting females measured in 1983: N = 11; x = 100.6 cm; s = 3.9. 5. Egg predators include armadillos, raccoons, fire ants and ghost crabs. Humans vandalize some nests by removing stakes, thus preventing volunteers from being able to find nest sites again. There is also a problem with tractors cleaning beaches on Longboat and Siesta Keys. 6. Nests have been relocated if they were in danger of inundation or in areas of high public use. In the future, we will also move nests out of areas of high raccoon predation.

Mote Marine Laboratory has visiting investigator facilities for those interested in research with turtles or other subjects. For further information on Sarasota County loggerheads or the MML, please phone (813) 338- 4441, or write to me at the address below.

JENNY MAPES, Sea Turtle Conservation Program, Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 City Island Park, Sarasota, FL 33577 USA.

SKELETOCHRONOLOGICAL AGE ESTIMATES FOR HAWAIIAN GREEN TURTLES

Age estimates of Hawaiian Chelonia mydas indicate that turtles resident to different foraging pastures may reach adult size at significantly different ages (Balazs 1980). These age estimates were derived entirely from growth rates of wild animals recaptured one or more times. An independent method of age estimation seemed desirable to test the estimates derived from growth data. The tentative success of the skeletochronological technique (Zug et al. 1983, in press) offered such an opportunity.

Humeri were available from 10 Hawaiian Chelonia that died from various causes over the past 9 years, and a single green turtle from Canton Island (lat. 2º50’S long. 171º 43'W) in the Phoenix Group. More humeri are currently being obtained for additional analysis. The bones were prepared and examined as outlined in Zug et al. (1983). The skeletochronological age estimates were made without knowledge of age or specific provenance of the specimens.

Of the 11 specimens, minimum age could be estimated for 9 (Table 1). The bone sections from the remaining two were homogenous in appearance and had no evidence of periosteal laminae (cyclic marks of skeletal growth, MSG's). We can offer no satisfactory explanation for the absence of MSG’s, but their absence is observed in other reptiles (Caretta, Iguana) (Zug, unpubl. obs.). The number of MSG's visible in bone sections of the other Chelonia ranges from 1 to 16 (median 3; mean 4.6).

Age estimates from sections with few MSG's would seem less reliable than estimates from sections with numerous MSG’s. In general, the extreme -- low and high -- estimates are associated with few MSG's per section. The linear regression for the entire Hawaiian sample is Y = 52.03 + 0.329X (r = 0.66) and for this sample without the centenarian Y = 40.69 + 0.746X (r = 0.92), where Y is carapace length in centimeters and X is age in years. Thus, only the

- 9 -

135-yr estimate deviates strongly from the other estimates.

Table 1. Body dimensions and age estimates of Chelonia mydas. Abbreviations: CL, carapace length, straight line; HL, maximum length of humerus; M & F, male and female; Sk and K, age estimates from skeletochronology and known age, respectively.

Age Estimate CL HL Sex Sk K Provenance

Oahu Island 33.6 6.3 ? ? 2 Lanikai 45.1 8.7 ? (4) Reef Runway 54.0 11.4 ? 18 Bellows 74.8 15.6 M (135) Barbers Point 88.8 i9.4 F 43 Kaneohe Bay 92.7* 19.3 M 81 Bellows 93.0 19.2 F (66) Waikiki Hawaii Island 39.4 8.0 ? (17) Kau District 52.4 11.1 ? 13 Kau District

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 41.0 7.6 ? ? French Frigate Shoals

Phoenix Group 90.0 20.2 F is Canton Island

*The only over-the-curve carapace length measurement. () Age estimated from one or two MSG's

Although these age estimates are most tentative, they suggest several general observations. Mark and recapture growth data indicate that the Kau turtles grow considerably faster than the Oahu turtles (Balazs 1982); the skeletochronological estimates suggest slow growth and late maturity for turtles at both locations. If sexual maturity occurs at carapace length greater than 81 cm, Hawaiian turtles may require 40-50 yr to reach that size. The Canton Island turtle derives from considerably warmer waters and its estimated age indicates much faster growth and earlier maturity.

Balazs, G. H. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle in the Hawaiian Islands. US Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, N0AA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-7, 141p. Balazs, G. H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago. pp. 117-126 In K. A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Zug, G. R., A. Wynn and C. Ruckdeschel. 1983. Age estimates of Cumberland Island loggerhead sea turtles. MTN 25:9-11. Zug, G. R., A. Wynn and C. Ruckdeschel. In press. Age determination of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, by incremental growth marks in the skeleton. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool.

GEORGE R. ZUG, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560 USA GEORGE H. BALAZS, Southwest Fisheries Center Honolulu Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, PO Box 3830, Honolulu, HI 96812 USA.

- 10 -

MACROCHELID MITES IN ASSOCIATION WITH KEMP'S RIDELY HATCHLINGS

During the 1981 nesting season of Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempi, at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, we collected a series of mites from the dorsal neck region of a hatchling from a relocated nest. Similar mites were seen on 2 or 3 other turtles from relocated nests.

The mites have been identified as an undescribed species of the genus Macrocheles (Acari: Gamasida: Macrochelidae), apparently the same species as was found once a few years ago on a loggerhead (Caretta caretta) hatchling from the Georgia coast, USA (G. W. Krantz, pers. comm.). Macrochelid mites are often found in phoretic association with dung or carrion-eating beetles or flies, in which case they may prey on the insect's eggs or larvae; some may be facultatively necrophagous as well (Krantz 1978). In this instance, it has been suggested that the mites are in phoretic association with blow or flesh flies, which are attracted by dead turtle embryos (G. W. Krantz, pers. comm.; N. Wilson, pers. comm.). This would imply that the mites we found were on the hatchlings incidental to their association with the fly larvae, possibly feeding on scraps of flesh or membrane adhering to the hatchlings. Mites of the family Macrochelidae are not known to parasitize vertebrates and would therefore not likely represent a threat to hatchlings.

The significance of this observation lies in the possibility of a relationship between turtle nests and sarcophagid or calliphorid flies. We observed fly maggots feeding on dead embryos and there were both dead embryos and full-term turtles present among the clutches in which mites were discovered on hatchlings. We did not collect any adult flies or larvae, however.

Vogt (1981) has demonstrated that a sarcophagid fly's larvae can infest and kill live emydid turtle hatchlings once the egg has been pipped. He also explains how the larvae can gain access to the nest through the overlying sand. Several North American genera of non-marine turtles are known to be parasitized by flesh flies. In some cases, infestations are known to result in mortality of adult turtles (Ernst & Barbour 1972; Murphy & Collins 1983). The recent review of sea turtle egg and hatchling predators (Stancyk 1982) considered fly larvae to be secondary predators unable to gain access to nests without some prior disturbance and thus a minor source of mortality. We suggest that such a view may be too conservative and we encourage other turtle researchers to be alert to further evidence of the turtle-fly-mite interaction, so that the extent and nature of the association can be better understood.

We are grateful for the opportunity to have worked at Rancho Nuevo with the joint conservation effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Pesca. We also thank G. W. Krantz (Oregon State University) and N. Wilson (University of Northern Iowa) for indentifying mites and speculating on their life history.

Ernst, C. H. and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Krantz, G. W. 1978. A Manual of Acarology, 2nd ed. Oregon State University Bookstores, Inc., Corvallis. Murphy, J. B. and J. T. Collins. 1983. A Review of the Diseases of Captive Turtles. AMS Publishing, Lawrence, Kansas.

- 11 -

Stancyk, S. E. 1982. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. pp. 139-152 K. A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Vogt, R. C. 1981. Turtle egg (Graptemys: Emydidae) infestation by fly larvae. Copeia 1981:457-459.

RODERIC B. MAST, RARE Inc., 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA JOHN L. CARR, Dept. Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 USA.

RECENT PAPERS

ARGANO, R. and F. BALDARI. 1983. Status of western Mediterranean sea turtles. Rapp. Cam. int. Mer Médit. 28(5):233-235. R. Argano, Inst. Zool., Univ. Rome, 00100 Roma, ITALY. *BONNET, B. 1984. La situation des populations de tortues marines dans les Iles de Sud-ouest de 1'ocean Indies: exploitation traditionnelle, protection, ranching ou farming. International Conference on Indian Ocean Studies, ICIOS II, Perth, W.A., 5-12 Dec. 1984. Vol. A, Resources, Environment and Economic Development. 19pp. (*address below) *BONNET, B., J. Y. LE GALL and G. LEBRUN. 1985. Tortues marines de la Réunion et des Iles Eparses/Marine turtles of la Reunion and the Iles Eparses. Ed. Université de la Réunion/Institut Français de Recherches pour l’Exploitation de la Mer/Association pour le Développement de 1’Aquaculture. 26pp., 14.8 x 21.0 cm, 32 color plates. (*address below) BRONGERSMA, L. D. and A. F. CARR. 1983. Lepidochelys kempi (Garman) from Malta Proc. Koninklifte Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen C 86(4):445-454. A. Carr. Dept. Zoology, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. CARR, A. 1984/85. Secrets of the sea turtles. Animal Kingdom, December 1984/ January 1985. A. Carr, address above. *CHALLIOL, J. J., P. BOURRINET, M. HAMON and B. BONNET. 1983. Etude bromatolo- gique de la viande de tortue marine d’élvage. Bull. Acad. Vét. de France 56:201-215. (*address below) *CHALLIOL, J. J., M. GUERERE, B. BONNET and A. PAJANIAYE. 1983. Les lipides de la tortue verte Chelonia mydas L.: comparison entre animaux sauvages et animaux d'élevage. Ann. Fals. Ex. Chim. 76(818):237-244. (*address below) CLARK, D. R. and A. J. KRYNITSKY. 1985. DDE residues and artificial incubation of loggerhead sea turtle eggs. Bull. Env. Contam. & Toxicol. 34:121-125. D. Clark, US FWS, Patuxent Wildlife Resources Ctr., Laurel, MD 20708 USA. DALRYMPLE, G. H., J. C. HAMPP and D. J. WELLINS. 1985. Male-biased sex ratio in a cold nest of a hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). J. Herpetology 19(l): 158-159. G. Dalrymple, Dept. Biolog. Sci., Florida International Univ., Miami, FL 33199 USA. DUTTON, P. H., C. P. WHITMORE and N. MROSOVSKY. 1985. Masculinisation of leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea hatchlings from eggs incubated in styrofoam boxes. Biol. Cons. 31(3):249-264. P. Dutton, Dept. Zool., Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Al, CANADA. FONTAINE, C. T. and C. W. CAILLOUET, JR. 1985. The Kemp's ridley sea turtle head start project: an annual report for fiscal year 1984. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-152, ii + 13 p. and 3 Tables. National Technical Information Service, 5258 Point Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 USA. FRAZER, N. B. 1985. WIDECAST: Help for Caribbean Sea Turtles. Oceanus 28(l): 100-102. N. Frazer, WHOI-MPOM, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA. FRAZIER, J. 1985. Misidentifications of sea turtles in the eastern Pacific: Caretta caretta and Lepidochelys olivacea. J. Herpetology 19(l):1-11. J. Frazier, Dept. Zoolog. Res., Nat’l. Zoological Park, Smithsonian Inst., Washington, DC 20008 USA. FRAZIER, J., M. D. MENEGHEL and F. ACHAVAL. 1985. A clarification on the feeding habits of Dermochelys coriacea. J. Herpetology 19(l):159-160. J.

- 13 -

Frazier, address above. GARNETT, S. T.31 G. M. CROWLEY and N. GOUDBERG. 1985. Observations of non- nesting emergence by green turtles in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Copeia 1985(l):262-264. S. Garnett. Graduate School of Tropical Veterinary Science, James Cook University, Queensland 4811. AUSTRALIA. GARNETT, S. T., I. R. PRICE and F. J. SCOTT. 1985. The diet of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (L.), in Torres Strait. Australian Wildlife Res. 12(l):103-112. S. Garnett, address above. HOPKINS-MURPHY, S. and T. M. MURPHY. 1983. Distribution of loggerhead turtle nesting activity in South Carolina by aerial beach survey. Study Completion Report Oct. 1, 1979 through Sept. 30, 1982. E-1, Study No. VI- A-2. 60pp. S. Hopkins, S.C. Wildlife & Marine Resources Dept., PO Box 12559. Charleston. SC 29412 USA. JOSEPH, J. D., R. G. ACKMAN and G. T. SEABORN. 1985. Effect of diet on depot fatty acid composition in the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Comp. Biochea. Physiol. 80B(l):15-22. J. Joseph, Charleston Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, Charleston, SC 29412 USA. LICHT, P., J. F. WOOD and F. E. WOOD. 1985. Annual and diurnal cycles in plasma testosterone and thyroxine in the male green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Gen. & Comp. Endochrinol. 57(3):335-344. P. Licht, Dept. Zool., Univ. California, Berkeley CA 94720 USA. LUND, P. F. 1985. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting on the east coast of Florida. J. Herpetology 19(l):164-166. P. Lund, Sch. of Forest Res. & Conserv., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. LUTCAVAGE, M. and J. A. MUSICK. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia 1985(2):449-456. M. Lutcavage, Dept. Biology & Living Resources, Rosenstiel School of Atmospheric and Marine Science, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149 USA. McMURTRAY, J. D. and J. I. RICHARDSON. 1985. A northern nesting record for the hawksbill turtle. Herp. Review 16(l):16-17. J. McMurtray, Sch. of Forest Resources, Univ. Georgia, Athens. GA 30602 USA. MROSOVSKY, N. and S. F. KINGSMILL. 1985. How turtles find the sea. Zeitschrift für Tierphychol. (J. Comp. Ethol.) 67:237-256. N. Mrosovsky, Dept. Zool., U. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, CANADA. WITZELL, W. N. 1984. The incidental capture of sea turtles in the Atlantic U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone by the Japanese tuna longline fleet, 1978- 1981. Marine Fisheries Review 46(3):56-58. W. Witzell, NMFS SEFC, 75 Virginia Beach Dr., Miami. FL 33149 USA.

*Available from Université de la Réunion, Faculté des Sciences, Laboratoire d'Ecophysiologie, BP 5, 97490 Sainte Clotilde, La Réunion, FRANCE -- US $5 or Fr. 50, check made payable to Agent Comptable de 1’Université de la Réunion.

PROCEEDINGS: SYMPOSIUM ON ENDANGERED MARINE ANIMALS AND MARINE PARKS

The Symposium took place in Cochin, India, 12-16 January 1985. Proceedings may be ordered from the Marine Biological Association of India, Post Box No. 1023, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 011, INDIA. Among the papers delivered were the following (included in Volume 2 "Estuarine and Marine Reptiles"):

E. 0. MOLL. Estuarine turtles of tropical Asia: Status and management. F. J. SCHWARTZ. Sea turtles as possible dispersal agents for fish otoliths. ROSS WITHAM. Managing Florida (USA) sea turtle populations.

- 14 -

ROMULUS WALKER. Rational use of estuarine and marine reptiles. P. MOHANTY-HEJMADI, M. BEHRA and MARIE T. DIAMOND. Temperature dependent sex differentiation in the olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea and its implications for conservation. RATHIN BANERJEE. The marine turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Eschscholtz, its occurrence and captive rearing in Sunderbans. E.G. SILAS, M. RAJAGOPALAN, S. S. DAN and A. BASTIAN FERNANDO. On the continued exploitation of olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea and its second mass nesting at Gahirmatha. Orissa during 1984. F. J. SCHWARTZ. Sea turtle body-organ weights: their relationships during growth and responses to the environment. P.K. PONNUSWAMY and ABDUL A. RAHAMAN. Captive rearing of hatchlings of olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea at Point Calimere, Tamil Nadu. ABDUL A. RAHAMAN, P.K. PONNUSWAMY and K. RAJENDRAN. Recovery plan for olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea at Point Calimere, Tamil Nadu. BRIAN GOOMBRIDGE. India's sea turtles in world perspective. S. K. RAUT and N. C. NANDI. Present state of marine turtle conservation and management in West Bengal. PON. SIRAINEETAN. Observations on the green turtle Chelonia mydas along the Gujarat coast.

THE COST OF SOLUTIONS: WHO PAYS?

"It is only when we demand a solution with no costs that there are no solutions." (Thurow, 1980).

Few would doubt economist Thurow's assertion that solutions are achieved only at some cost. In sea turtle conservation, costs include monetary expenses as well as socio-cultural effects on local human populations that use turtles as a resource. The axiom that "fisheries management plans manage fishermen rather than fish" is apparent in the Ostional management plan -- it is the "hueveros" rather than the "huevos" that will be managed there (see pages, 5-8). Unlike some plans, the Ostional plan wisely addresses both monetary and social issues, in addition to turtles. There is no guarantee that the plan will succeed simply because it considers all of these aspects; however, any plan that ignores them is doomed to fail.

Those of us who live in the USA may fall into the trap of believing that problems in other countries are solved once they have been addressed to our satisfaction. In my travels around the Caribbean and Central America, I find that I also occasionally fall into this trap -- even though I am aware of both direct and indirect results of that type of thinking (Barry et al., 1983, 1984). In sea turtle conservation, it is easy for outsiders to recommend idealized "hands-off" programs without giving much thought to how such approaches will be financed, enforced or justified to local citizens. It is virtually impossible to design proposals that will have known, definite and positive effects on sea turtles. It is even more difficult to produce plans that include some realistic means of raising revenue for management, while also addressing local socio-cultural and political issues.

Some readers will consider the recent defeat of various ranching or farming proposals (see pages 1-2) as victories for sea turtle conservation. However, the defeat of a proposal is not a victory unless that proposal is replaced with another that is more likely to have a positive impact. Surely

- 15 -

no one could be so naive as to claim that the mere absence of ranching and farming proposals constitutes a meaningful conservation strategy.

I do not wish to debate the merits or demerits of ranching or farming. I am sure that I have nothing new to add to that debate. However, ranching and farming proposals are usually the results of attempts to address economic, social and cultural issues, as well as the biological aspects of the turtles. Whether we agree or disagree with ranching or farming, we must understand that the defeat of these proposals is no victory unless they are replaced by other programs with equal or better provisions for: (a) raising revenue to support the program, (b) assessing and ameliorating its socio- cultural effects on local human populations, and (c) ensuring that the intended program does, in fact, have a positive impact on sea turtles.

Many people in Suriname, Réunion and the Cayman Islands worked long and hard to develop their proposals for ranching and farming; many others worked long and hard to develop quite different proposals for Indonesia and the Seychelles. Others worked just as hard to defeat these proposals at the CITES meeting. Thus far, the costs have been great, but solutions are not yet at hand.

Barry, T., B. Wood and D. Preusch. 1983. Dollars and Dictators: A Guide to Central America. Grove Press, Inc. New York. Barry, T., B. Wood and D. Preusch. 1984. The Other Side of Paradise: Foreign Controll in the Caribbean. Grove Press, Inc. New York. Thurow, L. C. 1980. The Zero-sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities for Economic Change. Basic Books; Inc. New York.

NBF

SPANISH EDITION FOR MTN?

Once again, we are assessing the possibility of producing an edition of the MTN in Spanish, possibly beginning as early as issue No. 35 or 36. The first step is to determine the present demand. Readers who would prefer to receive this Newsletter in Spanish are requested to write to the Editor.

Partial funding for MTN 33 was provided by the Cayman Turtle Farm (1983) Ltd. and the National Aquarium in Baltimore. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editorial Board, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution or other individuals or organizations providing financial support.

- 16 -