Marine Turtle Newsletter

Number 58 July 1992 Editors: Editorial Board:

Karen L. Eckert & Scott A. Eckert Nat B. Frazer Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Nicholas Mrosovsky 1700 South Shores Road David W Owens San Diego, California Peter C H. Pritchard 92109 USA James I. Richardson

FIRST REPORT OF A LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE FROM ALASKA A juvenile female loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, was found dead at the water's edge in a deep inlet on the north end of Shuyak Island, Alaska (58o33.9'N, 152o32.2'W) on 31 December 1991. It was towed by canoe to a Shuyak island residence and later transported to Kodiak by plane, where it was deposited in the freezer of the Office of Enforcement, National Marine Fisheries Service, until turned over to Kodiak College for study in early February. Kodiak weather was at or below freezing for most of the time that the turtle was not in a freezer. Identification was based on five pair of lateral scutes (the anteriormost contacting the nuchal scute), three pair of enlarged inframarginal scutes, the reddish-brown carapace, and the yellowish plastron. Morphometrics (Table 1) were obtained after Pritchard et al. (1983). The turtle weighed 37.8 kg.

The turtle was examined in detail to search for answers regarding its appearance in Alaska and cause of death. Encrusting barnacles were not present on either the carapace or the plastron. The outer margin of the left post-central scute had been broken and partially regenerated. The head and neck were missing above the fifth cervical vertebra. The hyoid bone and cartilage were missing as were the anterior portions of the esophagus and trachea. The respiratory and digestive systems were intact. Stomach, intestines, liver and gall bladder were examined for parasites and other anomalies but none were noted. The six-meter long stomach and intestinal tract contained a thick, viscous fecal material which tested negative for oily hydrocarbons with a black light. Embedded in the dark mass were five pieces of firm material about 50 mm long and 10 mm in diameter resembling the stipe of Laminaria. There was also an irregularly shaped piece of hard plastic (2 mm thick), about 200 mm2 in area. Many small bird feathers (5-10 mm long) were collected from the gut.

There was much fatty tissue around the organs indicating that the animal was well nourished prior to its death. The fat was bright yellow and appeared fresh. The internal musculature was pink to red, appeared fresh and little disturbed except at the areas around the neck and rear leg. In general the flesh of the turtle appeared to be fit to eat, thus indicating that it had not been dead long or it had been frozen soon after death. The heart and pericardial chamber appeared intact. The female reproductive tract was small and the ovary was little developed. A large opening was present in the skin between the inguinal and anal scutes

______

Table 1. Straight-line measurements from a stranded loggerhead sea turtle (1) in Alaska. ------Description Length (mm) ------carapace: width 613 standard length 642 total [maximum] length 725 minimum length 587 posterior margin to tip of tail -5

plastron: intergular scute length 91 humeral scute length 80 axillary scute length 64 pectoral scute length 85 abdominal scute length 97 femoral scute length 65 anal scute length 83

miscellaneous: mid-vent to tip of tail 40 mid-vent to posterior margin of carapace 52.6 (1) photo-documentation was provided to the Editors, confirming species identification. ______exposing the femur; actual bone was seen where muscles were missing. It is hoped that an environmental laboratory can make an analysis of the gut contents to verify if the material is hydrocarbon contaminants or the natural fecal contents of the turtle.

Pritchard, P., P. Bacon, F. Berry, A. Carr, J. Fletemeyer, R. Gallagher, S. Hopkins, R. Lankford, R. MArquez M., L. Ogren, W. Pringle, Jr., H. Reichart, and R. Witham. 1983. Manual of Sea Turtle Research and Conservation Techniques, second edition (K. Bjorndal and G. Balazs, Editors). Ctr for Environmental Education, Washington D. C.

GIL BANE, Kodiak College, Kodiak, Alaska 99615 USA.

THE SUSTAINABLE SEA TURTLE

Sea turtles and the small-scale fishermen of the southern Thailand province of Trang are developing a new promisingly prosperous relationship based on a mutual need for protection of the coastal ecosystem for the majority's sustainable use. The fishermen along the 60 km. coast of Sikao and Kantang Districts, including 17 villages, have earnestly implemented the Natural Way Sea Turtle Conservation Pro ect with guidance and support from Wildlife Fund Thailand

2 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 and Yad Fon (Raindrop) Association, and the backing of the Provincial Office. Sea turtles inhabit the extensive seagrass beds and coral reefs, and the open sea, along the coast of Trang and lay their eggs on quiet beaches between November and January. At Paklad Beach at Ban Toongtong village, Sikao District, Mr. Meed Mahdting, fisherman and turtle conservationist, explains the current situation: "Ten years ago, maybe 6-7 sea turtles would nest here in one season, but that number has dropped much recently. Before I would collect and sell all the eggs I found, but last year we began conserving the eggs and [we] let 128 hatchlings go to the sea in order to let our children have the opportunity to see sea turtles in the future. "

The sea turtle's situation and the overall condition of the coastal marine resources seem to be undeniably correlated; both are drastically deteriorating due to illegal and destructive fishing techniques and selfish, short-term attitudes. Mr. Baonur Mahdting, village Headman of Ban Toongtong village, points out, "Not too many years ago we did not have to go far to find fish and crabs that we catch to make a living. There were also many sea turtles at that time. Mechanized push seines destroy the seagrass, cyanide and bombing destroy the coral and rocks, and the large trawler boats fishing too close to shore not only sweep away all the marine life of all sizes including sea turtles, but also take our fishing equipment like squid traps and crab seines. Today both sea turtles and fish, crabs, and shrimp are becoming scarcer and scarcer. "

The demise of sea turtles in Trang is attributed to: (1) collection of eggs to be sold and eaten, (2) destructive and illegal fishing methods on a small-scale level (mechanized push seines, cyanide, bombing), and (3) large-scale commercial fishing boats that fish too close to shore or use nets with very small mesh that indiscriminately clean out most everything in their path. Therefore, the role of the villagers in the conservation project includes three main actions: (1) walk beaches looking for nests to protect, watch over these nests until hatching, then allow the hatchlings to go to the sea immediately as Nature intended, (2) release sea turtles immediately that are entangled in fishing gear, and (3) work together within the village and network with other villages to stop destructive and illegal fishing methods, such as bombing and cyanide, locally. Eventually, pressure should be put on the authorities to more strictly manage and restrict the large trawling boats also.

If successful in the three actions described above, the villagers believe that not only will sea turtles have a better chance, but so will the small-scale fishermen as a result of a rehabilitated and fertile coastal ecosystem. Raising the hatchlings has not become an issue because raising sea turtles has yet to be proven beneficial to sea turtle or human populations or to the overall coastal resource condition. Sea turtles have been raised and released for many years, yet populations continue to decline in the wild. The problem does not lie with the actual size of the sea turtle; our experience has shown us that trawling seines kill small and large turtles alike.

Between 23 November 1991 and 2 January 1992, four olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nests were discovered by Mr. Meed Mahkting and Mr. Tapa Nuansri near Ban Toongtong and Laemmakahm villages, Sikao District, and the "hatching vigil" began. On 23 January, 61 days after laying, the first nest at Paklad Beach produced 78 healthy and vigorous hatchlings which were released together by the Vice-Governor of Trang, the Provincial Fisheries Officer, and more than 100 villagers from many villages who had gathered that day for a seminar on sea turtle conservation. On 2 and 4 February, 93 and 99 hatchlings from the second and third nests, respectively, appeared to the world for the first time to the delight of the many villagers that came to watch them enter the sea. The fourth nest hatched after 53 days of incubation, producing an estimated 92 hatchlings. Coupled with this exemplary sacrifice and effort in saving > 300 hatchlings, fishermen in Ban Pramuang and Ban Jaomai villages, Kantang District, have released three adult sea turtles that were accidentally caught in nets this season.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 3 The villages of Sikao District have been steadily working towards eliminating illegal and destructive fishing methods in their area for many years with commendable success befitting both sea turtles and the majority of fishermen. The main problem remaining is that of the large trawling boats seining within 3 km of shore. Following the example of Sikao District, the villages of Kantang District have recently begun a campaign to control and eventually stop the illegal fishing in their areas also. On 5 January 1992, at Ban Batuputae on Libong Island, the villagers held a long meeting and concluded that there will be no more illegal fishing done by people from the three villages on the island. They also are coordinating with other villages for help to prevent outsiders from coming and wasting their local marine resources. Within two weeks after they stopped the mechanized push seines and the fish bombing, they reported that fish and crabs, as well as the number of sightings of dugongs, had noticeably increased.

If there were no people, could sea turtles survive? This is hardly reality, and therefore not the question. However, if turtles became extinct could the small-scale fishing villages survive? The startling truth is, most likely not -- or with great difficulty, for the factors causing sea turtles to decrease are the same as those causing fish, shrimp, shellfish, and crabs to also diminish. Collecting sea turtle eggs so that there are no hatchlings is comparable to using small mesh nets collecting fish before they reach reproductive size. Letting hatchlings go to the sea is similar to using large mesh nets. If destructive fishing methods (cyanide, bombing, mechanized push seines, kilometer-long pull seines) continue to destroy seagrass beds, coral reefs, and other habitats for marine life, sea turtles and fish, shrimp, shellfish, and crabs will not survive in the long-term. If large commercial trawlers and purse-seine boats are allowed to continue their assault of the coastal marine resources, not much at all will survive.

Mr. Bao Wangbarisut, a fisherman with more than 50 years of experience from Ban Langkao on Libong Island explains simply, "I know every reef or rock formation on the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand because I have worked large boats and I fish. When I see a sea turtle surface, I know that there must be a reef or rock formation in good condition at that point and, therefore, fish also. That is where I will fish. " Similarly, an elderly fisherman from Ban Laemsai village once said, "My son, let Grandfather say this, if the sea has sea turtles then it has fish; if the sea has no sea turtles, then it has no fish." Sustainable fishing methods, those that do not catch juvenile marine life or squander the marine resource in one short-sighted swipe and do not destroy the ocean bottom, are allowing the small-scale fishermen and the sea turtle to sustain and improve their quality of life. The sea turtle itself is promoting sustainable fishing methods while being used as a reference to prevent unsustainable methods. Yet while the villagers have started a strong movement to improve the health of the sea and their fishing grounds through short-term sacrifices, the large commercial fishing boats continue unabated.

On the night of 2 February 1992, while 93 sea turtle hatchlings were crawling out of their nest and down to the sea to the cheers and encouragement of the villagers and friends, two medium-sized trawling boats were trawling together in the darkness only 2 km offshore. That night they swept away some of the villager's squid traps and crab nets, but it is impossible to tell how many hatchlings lived through their first night. If it had been 60 night ago, the mother turtle may not have made it to the beach to lay her eggs in the first place. The village organizations in Sikao District have proposed prohibiting all trawling boat activities in the area during the "sea turtle season" (October-March), a proposal truly worth considering. Everyone actively involved in the Natural Way Sea Turtle Conservation Project whole-heartedly hopes and desires that sea turtles and the coastal fishing communities will lead a long, fruitful life by helping each other and by all fishermen using sustainable fishing methods to harvest the marine resources upon which both they and the turtles depend.

4 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

GLEN HILL, Coastal Wetlands Conservation, Wildlife Fund Thailand, 251/88-90 Phaholyothin Road, Bahgkhen, Bangkok 10220 THAILAND.

Epilogue: On 7 May, three months after the above article was submitted to the Marine Turtle Newsletter, Glen wrote: "All is not well. At Libong Island "outsiders" are now coming in with cyanide, bombs, trawlers, push seines . . . and with force and guns. We can't keep them out and the Government agencies are ignoring our pleas. Same as in Sikao District -- trawlers still coming very close to shore. In one area squid fishermen and trawlers exchanged gunfire, leaving one man dead and another injured. Now the villagers at Libong feel they are conserving the sea so others can come in and squander the resources. They are talking about going back to their old ways. Nonetheless, the value of the grassroots effort here has not been lost and we dare hope there is still some chance for a sustainable future." -- Editors

GUEST EDITORIAL: CITES AND SCIENTISTS -- CONSERVATION IN CONFLICT

At the 1992 CITES Meeting in Kyoto, Japan, Denmark introduced a resolution to exempt DNA and small volumes of blood (< 2 ml) from CITES regulations. The rationale behind this petition was that DNA and small blood aliquots have no commercial value but considerable scientific worth. The proposal was opposed by the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and New Zealand. This petition (and its subsequent defeat) opens several issues which merit deliberation by the conservation community. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was formulated to eliminate international commerce in endangered species and related products. Toward this end, the Convention has been an unprecedented success. International trade restrictions largely eliminate the profit incentive for exploitation. However, international transport of endangered species or their parts is still necessary for conservation-oriented research. Convention authors were aware of this and provided routes of access for legitimate scientific investigation. For the past six years I have been involved in a population genetic survey of marine turtles. During this time our team has worked with scientific permit offices in some 20 nations. Responses to our permit applications have ranged from routine processing to complete silence. With this background, I would like to explore the pros and cons of regulating international traffic in DNA and blood samples.

Jurisdiction: The strongest argument for regulating DNA and blood samples is to protect endangered taxa from injurious sampling. While there is no commercial incentive for removing blood and DNA samples, this activity is not exempt from conservation concerns. In some cases, removing blood or tissue samples could traumatize or even kill the organism. Therefore, it seems prudent that this activity be regulated. Happily, virtually every nation has regulations controlling scientific access to species classified as endangered. In other words, management authorities decide whether scientific collections are justified long before those specimens enter the international arena. Thus, the potentially injurious aspect of this activity (i.e., the collection of blood or tissue) is not conducted under CITES international jurisdiction. CITES regulations are not intended to dictate scientific permit policies within member nations.

Enforcement: Without identification procedures, restrictions on DNA and blood samples are difficult to enforce. Would wildlife inspectors be expected to sequence DNA or proteins to identify endangered species material ? In the specific case of DNA samples, even more complex problems exist. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) methodology allows one to make millions of copies of a desired DNA sequence with minimal lab facilities, and it is impossible to distinguish

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 5 between the "real" DNA and the derived "imitation". The only possible enforcement strategy would be to regulate all international transport of DNA as "look-alike" products. This would be an unwieldy approach but, even if enforcement were possible, the real question is -- to what end? The only group prosecuted for this type of "smuggling" would be biologists working on endangered species. An adversarial approach to endangered species research could hardly be called a victory for conservation.

Scientific value: The current methodology allows many aspects of life history to be inferred from small tissue samples. With a few grams of blood or other tissue one can define population structure, reconstruct migratory patterns, document mating behavior, and resolve subtle aspects of social structure. The conservation value of such life history information is beyond price, while the commercial value of the "biological microfilm" is negligible. To restrict movement of DNA and blood samples serves only to reduce the flow of scientific information.

Reasonable access: If CITES permits were readily available to scientists, exemptions for DNA and small volumes of blood would not be necessary. In the current environment, however, exemptions are necessary. While many nations encourage conservation-oriented research, it is widely acknowledged that some permit offices are not receptive to scientific applications. Since smugglers do not apply for permits, denying permits to scientists is the most obvious way to demonstrate an active permit program. By routinely delaying or rejecting permit applications from biologists, these offices are ultimately damaging the conservation goals there were created to serve.

With these issues in mind, I urge the representatives of member nations to exempt DNA and small blood samples from CITES regulations. More importantly, CITES signatory nations need to recognize their obligation to provide reasonable access for biological research. CITES was never intended to obstruct conservation biology.

BRIAN BOWEN, Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA.

THE TED EXPERIENCE: CLAIMS AND REALITY For several years, the controversy surrounding the required use of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) by shrimp fishermen operating off the southeastern United States coast has generated much heat, but little light. Shrimpers and their supporters in Congress claimed that mandatory TED requirements would spell doom for the shrimping industry. Relying on those predictions, TED opponents repeatedly delayed implementation of the TED requirements, long past the time when it was generally recognized that such measures were essential to the continued survival of threatened and endangered sea turtles. Since TED requirements were implemented in September 1989, however, little has been heard about what has actually happened as a result of the requirements.

Opponents [of the TED requirements] fought their adoption with dire predictions of catastrophe. TED opponents claimed that requiring TEDs: (1) would result in excessive losses of shrimp from nets, (2) would result in significant increases in gear loss or damage due to entanglement in shallow, debris-strewn waters of the Gulf of Mexico, (3) would result in increased injuries to shrimpers, and (4) would provide little benefit to turtles because shrimpers rarely catch sea turtles. After two full seasons of required TED use in offshore waters, it is clear that none of [these] predictions was accurate.

6 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

A review of the actual experience with TEDs reveals: (1) in 1990 and 1991, shrimp catch in the Gulf of Mexico, measured in terms of pounds caught per days fished, was higher than in the previous three years when TEDs were not required. Similarly, in the Atlantic Ocean off the South Carolina coast, total shrimp catch in 1991, when federal TED requirements were in effect, was the highest in six years; (2) claims for gear loss and damage have declined in number since the advent of TED requirements; (3) in the two years that TEDs have been required, there have been no reported injuries associated with TEDs; (4) strandings of drowned threatened and endangered sea turtles in areas of historically high strandings were dramatically lower during periods in which TEDs were required, and sea turtle nesting activity on two key beaches increased considerably during the two years in which TEDs have been required.

In sum, it is clear that, contrary to TED opponent's dire predictions, the adoption of TED requirements has not resulted in the demise of the American shrimp industry. Further- more, TED requirements have resulted in significant conservation benefits for threatened and endangered sea turtles. In light of this record, there is simply no rational justification for the Bush Administration's continued delay in extending TED requirements to all waters, from North Carolina to Texas, at all times of the year. In addition, at a time when the Endangered Species Act, under which the TED requirements were adopted, is often criticized for failing to balance the conservation needs of endangered species with the socio-economic demands of the Nation, the TED requirements provide a dramatic example of the Act's remarkable ability to achieve precisely that balance. Source: excerpted from Crouse, D. T., M. Donnelly, M. J. Bean, A. Clark, W. R. Irvin, and C. E. Williams. 1992. The TED Experience: Claims and Reality. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington D. C.

NMFS PROPOSES NEW SEA TURTLE PROTECTION MEASURES Following a thorough review of all applicable environmental and administrative laws, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed new regulations regarding the use of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) by the U. S. shrimping industry in the Gulf of Mexico and [the U. S.] Atlantic. These new regulations will expand, extend and modify the existing TED requirements to accommodate the concerns of industry, provide increased protection for sea turtles, and enhance compliance efforts. NMFS has proposed these regulations primarily in response to the findings of the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report entitled, "Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention", published in 1990. The NAS report concluded that the greatest source of human-associated sea turtle mortality was incidental capture and drowning in shrimp trawling operations. The report endorsed the use of TEDs to reduce this mortality and recommended that the existing TED requirements be expanded to geographical areas currently not covered and extended to most times of the year. Specifically, the new regulations will do the following:

- - Exempt certain classes of beam trawls (those with grates over the mouth), skimmer trawls, and wing nets from TED requirements. At this time, NMFS has no evidence that [these nets] capture sea turtles. - - Permit relaxation of TED requirements when conditions do not allow effective use of TEDs. Under certain conditions (i.e., large amounts of seaweed), NMFS will be able to suspend the TED requirements provided that the vessel owners pay for observers to monitor sea turtle mortality and determine whether the adverse conditions still apply.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 7 - Recommend shrimp retention studies for new TEDs. To ensure that TEDs tested for turtle exclusion do not have unacceptably high shrimp losses, NMFS will recommend testing for shrimp retention prior to turtle certification testing.

- Increase flexibility for TED designs by specifying standards for "hard" TEDs. This provision eliminates confusion among fishermen, Coast Guard and State enforcement agents about the legality of TED modifications and provides flexibility in the type fishermen use.

- Promote TED innovations by industry by clarifying allowable TED modifications. This provision will prohibit modification to TEDs to hinder turtle escape and will clarify allowable TED modifications to make TEDs more efficient at retaining shrimp (floats, funnels, installation of flaps, etc.).

- Reduce interference with fishing by requiring an approved TED be installed in each trawl rigged for fishing when TEDs are required. Violations of the TED regulations are currently documented when vessels are engaged in trawling without a TED installed. Vessels on the water without TEDs but not trawling are currently not cited. This change will eliminate potential circumvention of TED requirements.

- Protect fishermen from fraud by prohibiting the sale of TEDs which do not comply with regulations. This provision will make it illegal for TED manufacturers to represent that a TED meets Federal specifications when it does not do so.

- Exempt hand trawlers from TED requirements and order the use of TEDs by trawlers that use power or mechanically assisted trawl retrieval systems. On many small vessels, trawls are much smaller and are deployed and retrieved by hand. Hand retrieval necessitates short tow times because of the weight of the catch and does not pose a threat to turtles. Larger shrimp vessels generally use power winches to deploy and retrieve trawls. This allows the use of large nets and multiple nets that can be towed for many hours, endangering sea turtles.

- Notify fishermen that it is illegal to possess shrimp taken in violation of the regulations. This provision will clarify NMFS' existing authority to seize catch taken in violation of the regulations [and] will be used sparingly as a deterrent to such violations.

- Require the use of TEDs in all areas year-round (inshore and offshore). With the advent of "soft TEDs", concerns regarding the costs and effectiveness of TEDs in small nets inshore have been alleviated since these TEDs are inexpensive and will operate in trawls of all sizes.

- Require trawlers fishing for rock shrimp to use TEDs. NMFS has received reports that turtles are commonly taken during rock shrimp fishing and that tow times may be quite long, endangering sea turtles.

- Permit seasonal area closures to fishing to protect turtles. NMFS proposes the immediate closure of areas to fishing if large numbers of dead turtles wash up on beaches because of fishing.

These regulations will be open to public comment for an extended 90-day period ending 26 July 1992. This extended comment period has been authorized in order to ensure that shrimp fishermen who have already begun fishing this season will have enough time to submit comments. Source: U. S. Department of Commerce Press Release, 27 April 1992.

8 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 HATCHING SUCCESS OF WAVE-TOSSED LOGGERHEAD TURTLE EGGS

Sea turtle eggs are sensitive to turning shortly after laying. For this reason, nests that must be relocated should be moved within 12 hours of laying or after two weeks of incubation time has elapsed (Limpus et al., 1979). During early development reptile embryos become attached to the inner surface of the egg shell. During relocation, great care must be exercised to minimize turning of the eggs or the tiny embryo will be dislodged. High mortality in relocated eggs is thought to be caused by rotation (e.g., Bustard, 1972). We report here the hatching success of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) eggs unearthed by heavy surf after an estimated four weeks of incubation.

At about 1500 hr on 2 September 1991, Russell Proctum and his daughter watched as a retreating wave exposed nearly 100 loggerhead turtle eggs from a nest at North Topsail Beach, Onslow County, North Carolina. Eggs that were rolling in the surf were hastily picked up and transferred to higher ground. Proctum estimated 10-15 eggs were lost with the outflowing wave. A total of 75 eggs were retrieved and buried on higher ground. At about 1730 hr, Grant arrived at the beach and relocated the eggs a second time to a more stable part of the beach (the temporary burial site chosen by the Proctums was in a low lying over-wash area subject to heavy human traffic). The new nest cavity was excavated to the dimensions of a natural nest and all 75 eggs were placed in it within 30 minutes. The date the eggs were originally laid is not precisely known. One egg reburied on 2 September was yellowish in color which suggested it was infertile or the embryo had died at an early age.

The relocated nest site was visually checked daily by Green. On 19 October 1991, two hatchlings emerged; on 21 October, a third hatchling emerged and made its way to the ocean. On 30 October we exhumed the nest to examine its contents. Two live hatchlings were encountered in the nest and were released after dark. Three eggs had no discernible embryo, 61 had dead embryos < 3 cm in length, five had dead embryos > 3 cm in length, and one egg held a dead pipped turtle (total = 75 eggs). All unhatched eggs appeared more desiccated (wrinkled and dented) than usual. Ocean salt adhering to the shells may have osmotically pulled water out of the eggs. Low nest humidity will also desiccate eggs (McGehee, 1990), but eggs in nests nearby in sand of similar moisture content did not appear to be desiccated.

Assuming (1) an incubation period of about 70-80 days for eggs laid this late in the season, and (2) that the pulse of mortality was directly related to disturbance caused by wave action on 2 September, then the eggs were probably laid during early August and the 61 dead embryos < 3 cm in length were approximately 20-30 days old. Another late-season clutch laid on 13 August 1991 required 76 days for incubation (Jean Beasley, pers. comm.). The rolling in the surf, salt exposure, and subsequent handling most likely contributed to the high mortality. Despite the observed low hatch rate, 6.6% (5/75) of the eggs resulted in hatchlings that successfully entered the sea. This study points out the value of salvaging turtle eggs found recently exposed to the elements.

Acknowledgments: I thank Russell Proctum for his role in this study and Jean Beasley for reviewing the manuscript.

Bustard, R. 1972. Sea Turtles: Natural History and Conservation. Taplinger Publ. Co., New York. 222 p.

Limpus, C. J., V. Baker, and J. D. Miller. 1979. Movement-induced mortality of loggerhead eggs. Herpetologica 35(4):335-338.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 9 McGehee, M. A. 1990. Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 46(3):251-258.

GILBERT S. GRANT and BEVERLY B. GREEN, Topsail Turtle Project, Post Office Box 2663, Surf City, North Carolina 28445 USA.

LOGGERHEAD DIES AFTER INGESTING MARINE DEBRIS

On 20 April 1992, a loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) washed ashore on Huntington City Beach, California (33°40'N, 118°0'W). The animal weighed approximately 85 pounds [39 kg] and measured 59.3 cm curved carapace length. We were called by a lifeguard who knew of our interest in all things related to turtles and tortoises and we, in turn, notified the Southwest Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS/SWR). A post- mortem examination was performed at Casa de Tortuga by Dr. Kechen Chang (D.V.M., Ph.D., M.S.) and Antonio Paiz of the Casa de Tortuga staff. The cause of death, in the opinion of Dr. Chang and Mr. Paiz, was the ingestion of several plastic and wood pieces which were recovered from the animal's intestines and which may have resulted in fecal impaction. Casa de Tortuga has received authorization from NMFS/SWR to display the shell and skeleton at their facility for public education. The ingested debris is on display at the NMFS/SWR office and is also being used by NMFS personnel for public education.

WALTER ALLEN, Casa de Tortuga, 10455 Circulo de Zapata, Fountain Valley, California 92708 USA.

THE ETYMOLOGICAL RIDDLE OF THE RIDDLY SEA TURTLE

Ridley is a strange name for a turtle; it evokes query as to its etymology, and, as I shall show, it is an enigma, yea, a riddle! Carr (1942) admitted that the term "bastard turtle", used by Lacepède (1788), was venerable and that Kemp used that term when he passed his discovery of the turtle on to Garman. Carr proposed that the vernacular name be "relegated to synonymy" and that in this case "priority should bow to prevalence, that a common name which is not common is a mockery and henceforth I shall use ridley". Carr (1942) further indicated that the local name for the turtle on Lower Matecumbe Key, Florida was "ridley", attributing that name to a friend, Stewart Springer (deceased 1991), who ran a shark fishery, and said that Springer had told him of it some time ago. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary lists 1942 as the origin of the name, apparently crediting Carr. The Oxford English Dictionary cites Carr as the source of the name, but says etymology unknown. Moseley (1926), speaking of the Bahamas Islands, mentioned the "ridley or bastard" turtle. The Florida Keys are (or were) home to a number of fishermen from the Bahamas; whether they or the native Floridians first used the name "ridley" is not certain.

The etymology of "ridley" once seemed to have been solved by Gotch (1986), who said it had been named after H. N. Ridley FRS, but Gotch gave no primary source of information. I queried Stuart Booth (consultant editor of the Blandford Press, publisher's of Gotch's book) and E. N. Arnold (British Museum of Natural History, one of Gotch's advisers) to see if they knew of Gotch's source. I found that Gotch's book had been published posthumously and that Gotch was quite elderly and largely bedridden when he wrote it. He lived in a rural area, was a long

10 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 way from primary sources, and tended to rely on the help of others (one of his advisors was the late Angus Bellairs, an active herpetologist). Arnold said that he had checked many Greek derivations for Gotch, but was never asked about the derivation of ridley.

Henry Nicholas Ridley (1855-1956) was a botanist who worked primarily in southeastern Asia. His earliest paper in 1879 dealt with copepods. He also published several short titles on Asian herpetofauna, the first being on Malaysian reptiles (Ridley, 1899). Gotch said that H. N. Ridley had been in Brazil and also on the island of Fernando de Noronha off the northern coast of Brazil in 1887. He authored a single paper on the botany of Fernando de Noronha (Ridley, 1890a), as well as a paper (Ridley, 1888) and a book (Ridley, 1890b) on the natural history of this island. Scarcely any mention is made of turtles, and no mention of Ridley's name being used for them. Branner (1888) visited Fernando de Noronha in 1886 but reported no sea turtles. Pritchard and Trebbau (1984) indicate no records of Lepidochelys (which would be L. olivacea) for Fernando de Noronha, but the species does nest in at least two places farther south in Brazil, as well as from the Guianas westward (Pritchard and Trebbau, 1984).

In his book about the Caribbean, Carr (1955) told of a ridley being caught 18 years earlier when he was out with Jonah Thompson in the Florida Keys. Thus, if we assume that Carr's book was being written in perhaps 1953, did he mean 1935? In any case he was saying 1937 or earlier. Thompson's age was 65 and he said he'd started early. This suggests that the term ridley antedates perhaps 1900, and that gets close to Ridley's 1888-90 writings. Carr (1955) also indicated that an "old pod" at St. Lucie Inlet (peninsular Florida) said, "This yer ridley don't raise. He's a bastard, a crossbreed you get when a loggerhead mounts a green... " An old fisherman would not likely change his vernacular usage. Considering that both herpetologists and turtle fishermen were so puzzled by the identity of Lepidochelys kempii, I made a fanciful guess that the fishermen considered the identity to be a riddle, which was corrupted to ridley! Note that someone not familiar with pronunciation of a written word could have interpreted riddle as "ridd le".

Carr stated that he had visited all around the Caribbean and found no sign of ridleys or anyone who knew them. Thus the name ridley appears to be of limited geographic use. But in my conversations with Marjorie Carr, Archie Carr's widow, came a revelation. She could not remember the exact source, but she said that "ridley" came from "riddle", which was transmogrified in the Florida Keys to "ridder" and finally "ridley". The riddle being, she said, "Who were its parents?" No one knew from whence the "bastard turtle", as local turtlers sometimes called it, came or where it bred. Mrs. Carr said that many of the variant names were long in use in the Keys. We could guess, then, that the name could well go back into the early 19th century, perhaps even earlier. If the name was to honor H. N. Ridley, we must wonder how it ever got to be seemingly only a Florida-Bahamas vernacular.

At the University of Florida's P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History, I perused a number of books dealing with Florida and the Florida Keys and I read old Key West newspapers dating from 1831 onward into the early 1900's. Nowhere did I find the name "ridley", but the other sea turtles -- green, hawksbill, loggerhead, and trunk (=leatherback) -- were mentioned on occasion. Likewise, a search of literature on the Bahamas Islands turned up nothing. The most complete early listing on Florida sea turtles appeared in excerpts from John J. Audubon's early writings in 1831-32 (Herrick, 1926), in which he said of the sea turtles that four kinds occurred in the Florida Keys -- the green, loggerhead, hawksbill, and trunk.

I have queried several herpetologists who work with turtles and especially sea turtles. None has any idea of the etymology of "ridley". The evidence is strong that "ridley" is a vernacular of local usage in Florida. Dr. Peter Pritchard (pers. comm.) says that he has never

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 11 encountered the name "olive ridley" or "Pacific ridley" among native peoples in the range of Lepidochelys olivacea, but that local herpetologists may use it. Likewise Dr. Jack Frazier (pers. comm.) has not encountered the name ridley as a vernacular in the Pacific Ocean where virtually all literature used olive loggerhead for L. olivacea as opposed to red-brown loggerhead applied to Caretta caretta. Perhaps one day the name "ridley" will surface in some obscure writing such as a whaling account or other early publication and provide a chronological clue to this mystery.

Branner, J. C. 1888. Notes on the fauna of the islands of Fernando de Noronha. Amer. Nat. 22:861-871

Carr, A. F., Jr. 1942. Notes on sea turtles. Proc. New England Zo61. Club 21:1-16.

Carr, A. F., Jr. 1955(1956). The Windward Road. Alfred Knopf, New York.

Gotch, A. F. 1986. Reptiles. Their Latin Names Explained. Blandford Press, Ltd. London.

Grant, C. 1940. The herpetology of the Cayman Islands, with an appendix on the Cayman Islands and marine turtle. Bull. Inst. Jamaica Sci. Ser. 2: 1-65 + illust.

Herrick, F. H. 1926. Delineations of American Scenery and Character by John Audubon. G. A. Baker and Co., New York.

Lacepède, B. G. E. L., comte de. 1788. Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupèdes Ovipare et des Serpens. Tome Premier. Hotel de Thou, Paris.

Moseley, M. 1926. The Bahamas Handbook. Nassau Guardian, Nassau.

Pritchard, P. C. H. and P. Trebbau. 1984. The Turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Ridley, H. N. 1888. Visit to Fernando de Noronha. Zoologist 12:41-49.

Ridley, H. N. 1890a. Notes on the botany of Fernando de Noronha. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. London 27(181):1-195.

Ridley, H. N. 1890b. The Natural History of the Island of Fernando de Noronha Based on the Collections Made by the British Museum Expedition in 1887. J. Linn. Soc. London.

Ridley, H. N. 1899. The habits of Malay reptiles. Royal Asiatic Soc. J. 32:185-210.

HAROLD A. DUNDEE, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 USA.

CAYMAN TURTLE FARM CITED FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE INFRACTIONS

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in endangered species of animals and plants included in the treaty's Appendices. Species included on Appendix I (including all species of sea turtle) are

12 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 prohibited from commercial trade, while species on Appendix II can be traded under a permit system. At the Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in March 1992, the official Infractions Report cited the Cayman Turtle Farm (CTF) in the Cayman Islands, British West Indies, for violations of CITES' ban on international sea turtle trade. The infractions included CTF exports of green sea turtle soup and oil to CITES nations in Europe and Asia. The export of sea turtle products from the CTF is a serious problem that needs to be properly addressed by the Government of the United Kingdom (UK) in whose jurisdiction the Farm operates.

The ban on trade in Appendix I species includes products from farms and ranches [N.B. under CITES, "farms" are closed-cycle systems while "ranches" utilize stock from the wild]. In the last decade, however, the Parties have adopted specific resolutions to allow trade from these facilities. In 1985, at the Fifth Conference of the Parties to CITES, the UK proposed that the CTF be officially approved as a sea turtle farm. Convinced that this proposal failed to meet specific CITES criteria, including product marking and conservation benefits, the Center for Marine Conservation led a successful campaign to thwart this effort. The proposal's subsequent defeat sent a clear message -- CTF products were not to enter the international marketplace. Shortly afterwards, CTF significantly reduced its stock, but continued to provide turtle meat for local consumption in the Cayman Islands and indicated that it would focus its efforts on research. Unfortunately, CTF products continue to be marketed internationally in clear violation of CITES' provisions.

The 1992 CITES Infractions Report includes exports and re-exports of Cayman Island green turtle soup to Australia, Japan, and France in recent years, and green turtle oil to Italy. Tracing the routing of these products is often problematic. Exactly how the turtle soup arrived in France, for instance, remains unclear; it may have been imported directly from the CTF or re- exported from the UK. In the case of Japan, Japanese Customs officials confiscated several shipments of green turtle soup in August 1990. In October 1990, TRAFFIC(Italy) informed the CITES Secretariat that Italy had allowed the import of "many tons of sea turtle oil from the Cayman Islands" in recent years. The Secretariat has verified that this trade included 1080 kg in each of the years 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1989.

At the heart of the issue is the relationship of the Cayman Islands to the UK and the position of the latter within the European Economic Community (EEC). As a dependent territory, Cayman Island exports (including CTF products) both to the UK and to other British territories (e.g., the British Virgin Islands) are considered domestic trade. CITES does not regulate the domestic utilization of listed species within its member countries; thus this internal trade is entirely legal. However, there is growing evidence that CTF exports do not always remain "domestic", such as when they are re-exported to CITES countries such as Italy or France. In this way, it is clear that the availability of CTF products is fueling an illegal international market for sea turtle products ... and the situation may only become worse when borders between EEC countries are effectively removed in 1993, allowing unrestricted commerce. This point is clearly made in the Infractions Report, "In accordance with Article XIV.3 of the Convention, CITES provisions need not be implemented with respect to trade between Member States of the EEC, sea turtle products imported into Italy from the Cayman Islands may circulate within the EEC without any re-export certificate."

CTF promoters claim the Farm benefits sea turtle conservation by (1) providing products from captive-reared turtles and thus relieving pressure on wild populations, and (2) enhancing wild populations by releasing young captive-reared turtles. Some conservationists counter that CTF operations simply promote a taste for endangered species and their products, both domestically and, it seems, internationally through a black market. As to the second point, it is

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 13 well known that there are many young turtles in Cayman waters, and presumably this is at least in part a result of Farm releases over the years ... but there is also concern about potential adverse consequences to the Caribbean gene pool arising from the introduction of CTF-reared turtles. While it will be many years before we know if head-started CTF turtles will successfully reproduce in the wild, the mixed lineages of the CTF original stock (which was obtained from sites throughout the Caribbean Sea) could create a genetic disaster.

With new evidence that CTF products are entering international markets and the dissolution of borders between European states threatening to exacerbate this problem in the near future, we firmly believe that the United Kingdom should require all CTF products to remain in the Cayman Islands. Marine Turtle Newsletter readers are asked to support this recommendation by writing the United Kingdom CITES Management Authority, Department of the Environment, Endangered Species Branch, Tollgate House, Houlston Street, Bristol BS2 9DJ, England.

MARYDELE DONNELLY, Sea Turtle Conservation Program, Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales Street N.W., Washington D. C. 20036 USA.

PROTECTION FOR HAWKSBILL AND GREEN SEA TURTLES IN RIO LARGARTOS, YUCATAN, MEXICO IN 1990

Hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) were the most abundant nesting turtle in the Mexican state of Yucatan in 1990, followed by the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). The nesting season began in April and ended in September. Hawksbills dominated until the first week of July and green turtles dominated thereafter; only one loggerhead nest was reported. Nesting occurred on 20 km of beach between Las Coloradas and El Cuyo. Hawksbill nesting was diffuse throughout, whereas green turtle nesting was concentrated on the eastern end of the beach.

Eighty-two female hawksbills were tagged, measured and weighed on the nesting beach; and 74 juvenile hawksbills were captured in the feeding ground, tagged, and released. In addition, 193 nests were transplanted for conservation purposes, 83 nests were left on the beach, and 13 nests were guarded in situ during the incubation period. The transplanted nests included 29,627 eggs; 18,291 hatchlings were released. The beach nests included 14,700 eggs; nearly 9,100 hatchlings were released. One hundred twenty-two female green turtles were tagged and measured on the nesting beach and 181 nests were transplanted (22,858 eggs produced 14,192 hatchlings). Eight nests could not be located and 75 additional nests were left to incubate in situ. These 83 nests included 10,480 eggs that produced an estimated 6,500 hatchlings. Four juvenile greens and two loggerheads were tagged and measured in the feeding ground.

Acknowledgements: The support of CONACyT (Proyecto P22000OR892427) is gratefully acknowledged. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded P. Castañeda's activities.

RENE MARQUEZ M., SEPESCA-INP/CRIP, A.P. 591, Manzanillo, Colima 28200 MEXICO; MAURICIO GARDUNO, SEPESCA-INP/CRIP, A.P. 73, Yucalpetén, Yucatán 97200 MEXICO; PATRICIA CASTANEDA, 1070 17th Avenue N., St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 USA; MIGUEL A. CARRASCO [same as Márquez]; RAUL LOPE-M. [same as Garduño]; and ARISTOTELES VILLANUEVA [same as Márquez].

14 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

RESEARCH AT RANCHO NUEVO, TAMAULIPAS, MEXICO IN 1990

In order of abundance, the sea turtles arriving to nest at Rancho Nuevo in Tamaulipas, Mexico, in 1990 were the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the loggerhead (Caretta caretta). Nesting began in April and ended in August, with Kemp's ridleys nesting mainly between April and July and green turtles mainly between June and August. The seasonality was clearly out of phase for both species. Most nesting took place along 75.8 km from La Barrita to the mouth of the Rio Soto Lamarina. Ridley nests were concentrated between La Coma and San Vincente. Since 1989 -- and again this year -- significant numbers of nests have been observed north of San Vincente. This is interesting behavior, since aerial surveys conducted in previous years did not detect high numbers of nests in this area. It is possible that recent hurricanes have somehow altered the nesting beaches. Perhaps the profile has changed, or sand grain characteristics are no longer suitable for nesting due to the large accumulation of coral rock between La Coma and Calabazas, historically the most important nesting area.

In 1990 there were two arribadas with more than 150 nests each. The first occurred on 28-29 April with 170 nests collected and the second on 24-26 May with 216 arriving turtles. Two hundred ninety-seven Kemp's ridley females were tagged with monel tags, 229 with PIT tags, and six with radio satellite transmitters. In total, 1,067 nests were protected; 106,991 eggs produced 78,412 hatchlings. For more than two decades the presence of 1-3 green turtles has been observed on these beaches. About five years ago, the numbers began to increase to 5-7 nestings. During 1988, there were 12 observations and seven nests collected; during 1989, the number of observations was 56. In 1990, 122 arrivals were registered and 82 nests were collected; 10,933 eggs produced 1,654 hatchlings (15.1 % hatch success). Clearly the hatch success for the green turtles is quite low when compared to the 70% minimum success obtained for the Kemp's ridley. This may be because egg collection takes place the day after nesting, more than six hours after the eggs are laid.

Acknowledgements: As in past years, we have received support from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Government of the State of Tamaulipas, Centro de Estudios Tecnologicos del Mar, and the Boy Scouts of Ciudad Madero. SEDUE commissioned a wildlife inspector to be present during nearly the entire season. Special thanks go to Jack Woody and Richard Byles (FWS) and to Patrick Burchfield of the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas. As always, we also had excellent support from Ernesto Corripio C. (Director of Pesca) and Javier Llerena H. (Federal Pesca delegate in Tamaulipas). A special thanks to the community of Rancho Nuevo, particularly Antonio Gonzalez for his unselfish support and friendship, and to the personnel of GRIP of Tamaulipas for their collaboration.

RENE MARQUEZ M., SEPESCA-INP/CRIP, A.P. 591, Manzanillo, Colima 28200 MEXICO; MANUEL SANCHEZ P.; JUAN DIAZ F.; JAVIER VASCONCELOS; IGNACIO FLORES, D. G. PESCA-Tamaulipas, Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas MEXICO; ISRAEL ARGUELLO; MIGUEL A. CARRASCO; and ARISTOTELES VILLANUEVA [same as Márquez].

RECENT PAPERS

BJORNDAL, K. A. and A. B. BOLTEN. 1992. Spatial distribution of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nests at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Copeia 1992(1):45-53. K. Bjorndal, ACCSTR, c/o Univ. Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 15 BURKE, V. J. and E. A. F. STANDORA. 1991. Factors affecting strandings of cold-stunned juvenile Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles in Long Island, New York. Copeia 1991(4):1136-1138. V. Burke, Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation, Hampton Bays, New York 11946 USA.

CHAN, E. H. 1991. Sea Turtles, p.120-134. In: The State of Nature Conservation in Malaysia (R. Kiew, Editor). Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. 238 p. E. H. Chan, Univ. Pertanian Malaysia, Mangabang Telipot, 21030 Kuala Terengganu, MALAYSIA. [N.B. The book is available for purchase from the Malaysian Nature Society, P. O. Box 10750, 50724 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.]

CORNELIUS, S. E., M. A. ULLOA, J. C. CASTRO, M. M. DEL VALLE, and D. C. ROBINSON. 1991. Management of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting at Playas Nancite and Ostional, Costa Rica, p.111- 135. In: Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation (J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, Editors). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. S. Cornelius, WWF-US, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington D.C. 20037 USA.

DAILEY, M. D., M. L. FAST, and G. H. BALAZS. 1991. Carettacola.hawaiiensis n. sp. (Trematoda: Spirorchidae) from the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Hawaii. J. Parasitol. 77(6):906-909. M. Dailey, Ocean Studies Inst., Dept. Biology, California State Univ., Long Beach, California 90840-3702 USA.

DAVENPORT, J. and G. H. BALAZS. 1991. 'Fiery bodies' -- are pyrosomas an important component of the diet of leatherback turtles? Brit. Herpetol. Soc. Bull. 31:33-38. J. Davenport, Univ. Mar. Biol. Station, Millport, Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland, KA28 OEG U. K.

DAVIS, B. J. 1991. Developmental changes in the blood oxygen transport system of Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempi. Can. J. Zool. 69:2660-2666. B. Davis, Dept. Zool. and Physiol., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 USA.

DODD, C. K., Jr. and G. S. MORGAN. 1992. Fossil sea turtles from the Early Pliocene Bone Valley Formation, Central Florida. J. Herpetol. 26(1):1-8. K. Dodd, Natl. Ecology Research Ctr, USFWS, 412 NE 16th Ave., Room 250, Gainesville, Florida 32601 USA.

ECKERT. K. L. 1991. Leatherback sea turtles: a declining species in the global commons, p.73-90. In: Ocean Yearbook 9 (E. M. Borgese, N. Ginsburg and J. R. Morgan, Editors). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. K. Eckert, WIDECAST, 17218 Libertad Drive, San Diego, California 92127 USA.

HEWAVISENTHI, S. and S. W. KOTAGAMA. 1991. The embryo mortality of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in relation to handling of eggs, p.89. In: Proc. Sri Lanka Assoc. for the Advancement of Science, 47th Session. (Abstract only). S. Hewavisenthi, Dept. Zoology, The Open University, Nawala, Nugegoda, SRI LANKA.

HIRTH, H. F. and D. L. H. ROHOVIT. 1992. Marketing patterns of green and hawksbill turtles in Port Moresby, Papau New Guinea. Oryx 26(1):39-42. H. Hirth, Dept. of Biology, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 USA.

HONMA, Y. 1990. Revised records of large marine animals stranded on the Niigata and Sado Island in the Sea of Japan. Sado Marine Biological Station (Niigata University) Special

16 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

Publ. 5:1-40. Y. Honma, Sado Mar. Biol. Sta., Fac. Sci., Niigata Univ., Niigata, 952- 21 JAPAN. (in Japanese)

HUNT, T. L. and S. P. GILCHRIST. 1991. Preliminary survey of commensals associated with Caretta caretta. Amer. Zool. 31(5):124 (Abstract). T. Hunt, New College, Sarasota, Florida 33578 USA.

HUTCHINSON, J. and M. SIMMONDS. 1992. Escalation of threats to marine turtles. Oryx 26(2):95-102. J. Hutchinson, School Eviron. Sci., Thames Polytechnic, Rachel McMillan Bldg., Creek Road, Deptford, London SE8 3BU, U.K.

LAGUEUX, C. J. 1991. Economic analysis of sea turtle eggs in a coastal community on the Pacific coast of Honduras, p.136-144. In: Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation (J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, Editors). Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago. C. Lagueux, Department of Zoology, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA.

LICHT, P., R. J. DENVER, S. PAVGI, and B. HERRERA. 1991. Seasonality in plasma thyroxine binding in turtles. J. Experimental Zool. 260(1):59-65. P. Licht, Dept. Integrative Biol., Univ. Calif., Berkeley, California 94720 USA.

MEYLAN, A. 1990. Nutritional characteristics of sponges in the diet of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelvs imbricata, p.472-477. In: New Perspectives in Sponge Biology (K. Ruetzler, ed.). Third Intl. Conf. on the Biology of Sponges, Woods Hole, 17-23 November 1985. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington D. C. A. Meylan, Florida Dept. Nat. Res., 100 Eighth Ave. SE, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 USA.

NASCIMENTO, F. P., T. C. S. D. A. PIRES, I. N. F. F. D. SANTOS, A.C.M. LIMA 1991. Reptiles of Marajo Mexicana Islands para Brazil I. Bibliographic review and new records. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi Serie Zoologia 7(1):25-42. F. Nascimento, CNPQ/MUSEU Paraense Emilio Goeldi - Depto. Zool., BRAZIL.

NORTHMORE, D. P. M. and A. M. GRANDA. 1991. Ocular dimensions and schematic eyes of fresh water and sea turtles. Visual Neuroscience 7(6):627-635. D. Northmore, Univ. Delaware, Dept. Psychol., Newark, Delaware 19716 USA.

ROSTAL, D. C., J. A. WILLIAMS, and P. J. WELDON. 1991. Rathkes gland secretion by loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) sea turtles. Copeia 1991(4):1129-1132. D. Rostal, Texas A&M Univ., Dept. Biology, College Station, Texas 77843 USA.

ROTHSCHILD, B. M. 1991. Stratophenetic analysis of avascular necrosis in turtles – affirmation of the decompression syndrome hypothesis. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Comp. Physiol. 100(3):529-535. B. Rothschild, Carnegie Museum Natural History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 USA.

SHOOP, C. R. and M. SCHWARTZ. 1992. Sea turtles and anoxia. Maritimes 36(1):3-5. C. R. Shoop, Dept. Zoology, Univ. Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881-0816 USA.

STABENAU, E. K, C. G. VANOYE, and T. A. HEMING. 1991. Characteristics of the anion transport system in sea turtle erythrocytes. Amer. J. Physiol. 261(5):R1218-R1225. E. Stabenau, Univ. Texas Medical Branch, Dept. Internal Med., Div. Pulm., Rout H76, Galveston, Texas 77550 USA.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 17 SWINNEY, G. N. and G. M. YOXON. 1991. A juvenile loggerhead turtle from Canna. Glasg. Nat. 22(part 1):82. G. Swinney, Royal Mus. Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, SCOTLAND.

TAUBES, G. 1992. A dubious battle to save the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Science 256:614-616. [no address given].

UMEZU, T., M. MURAI, M. MIKI, and Y. KURATA. 1991. Long-term marking of green turtles with Ir. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 57(6):1115-1120. T. Umezu, National Research Institute of Fisheries Science, Yokosuka Station, Yokosuka 238-03 JAPAN.

WEEMS, R. E. 1988. Paleocene turtles from the Aquia and Brightseat formations, with a discussion of their bearing on sea turtle evolution and phylogeny. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 101(1):109-145. R. Weems, Mail Stop 928, U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 22092 USA.

WIBBELS, T., R. E. MARTIN, D. W. OWENS, and M. S. AMOSS, Jr. 1991. Female-biased sex ratio of immature loggerhead sea turtles inhabiting the Atlantic coastal waters of Florida. Can. J. Zool. 69:2973-2977. T. Wibbels, Inst. Reproductive Biology, Dept. Zoology, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 USA.

YANO, K. and S. TANAKA. 1991. Diurnal swimming patterns of loggerhead turtles during their breeding period as observed by ultrasonic telemetry. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi (Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish.) 57(9):1669-1678. K. Yano, Japan Marine Fishery Resources Research Center, Tokyo 102, JAPAN.

TECHNICAL REPORTS

CROUSE, D. T., M. DONNELLY, M. J. BEAN, A. CLARK, W. R. IRVIN, and C.E. WILLIAMS. 1992 TED Experience: Claims and Reality. Center for Marine Conservation, Washington D. C. 17 p. Available from: Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales Street NW, Washington D. C. 20036 USA.

GASKI, A. L. and D. G. NICHOLS (Editors). 1991. Wildlife Trade Laws of Asia and Oceania. TRAFFIC(USA)/World Wildlife Fund, Washington D. C. Available for a price of US$ 50.00 from: WWF Publications, P. O. Box 4866, Hampden Post Office, Baltimore, Maryland 21211 USA.

HENWOOD, T., W. STUNTZ, and N. THOMPSON. 1992. Evaluation of U. S. Turtle Protective Measures under Existing TED Regulations, Including Estimates of Shrimp Trawler Related Turtle Mortality in the Wider Caribbean. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- SEFSC-303. 15 p. Available from: NMFS Southeast Region Office, 9450 Koger Blvd., St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 USA.

KASPAREK, M. 1991. Marine Turtles in Greece: Results of a Survey of Potential Nesting Beaches in the Northern Aegean Sea. Prepared for MEDASSET. Available from: MEDASSET, c/o Daphne Corp., 24 Park Towers, 2 Brick Street, London WlY 7DF U. K.

18 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

KASPAREK, M. and W. BAUMGART. 1991. Sea Turtles in Syria: Results of a Coastal Survey 1991. Preliminary Report to MEDASSET. Available from: MEDASSET (as above).

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE. 1992. Interim Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Sea Turtles. NOAA/NMFS/SWFSC Honolulu Lab. Admin. Report H-92-O1. 76 p. Available from: NMFS Honolulu Lab, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA.

PANOU, A., S. MOSCHONAS, L. TSELENTIS, and N. VOUTSINAS. 1991. Incidental Catches of Loggerhead Turtles, Caretta caretta, in Swordfish Long Lines in the Ionian Sea, Greece. Institute of Zoology, University of Munich, FRG. Report to the Greek Animal Welfare Fund and MEDASSET. Available from A. Panou, Inst. Zoology, Univ. Munich, Seidlstr. 25, 8000 Munich 2, GERMANY; or, MEDASSET (as above).

ROSE, D. A. 1991. A North American Free Trade Agreement: The Impacts on Wildlife Trade. TRAFFIC(USA)/World Wildlife Fund, Washington D. C. Two-volume report available for a price of US$ 12.50 from: WWF Publications, P. O. Box 4866, Hampden Post Office, Baltimore, Maryland 21211 USA.

SALMON, M. and J. WYNEKEN (Compilers). 1991. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, 26 February - 2 March 1991, Jekyll Island, Georgia USA. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-302. 195 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, SEFSC Miami Laboratory, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149 USA.

TEAS, W. G. and A. MARTINEZ. 1992. 1989 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States, January-December 1989. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC Miami Lab. Contrib. No. MIA-91/92-39. 50 p. Available from: NMFS/SEFSC Miami Laboratory (as above).

WHITMORE, C. and N. YAZGAN. 1992. Mediterranean Marine Turtles. WWF Project 3852. 13 p. Available from: DHKD, Coastal Management Section, PK 18, 80810, Bebek, Istanbul TURKEY.

WHITMORE, C., R. JESU, and P. REYNOLDS. 1991. Sardinia: An Assessment of Beaches for Loggerhead Turtle Nesting. Prepared for MEDASSET. Available from: MEDASSET (as above).

TECHNICAL REPORTS: CORRECTIONS

In the January 1992 issue of the Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN No. 56), we stated that the Technical Reports below were available from R. Márquez, Instituto Nacional de la Pesca:

SECRETARIA DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA. 1991. Manual de técnicas de manejo y conservación para la operación de campamentos tortugueros. Inst. Nacional de la Pesca, México. 103 p.

SECRETARIA DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA. 1991. Programa Nacional de Protección y Conservación de Tortugas Marinas (Propuesta). Inst. Nacional de la Pesca, México. 116 p.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 19 These reports are not available from R. Mdrquez, but can be obtained by writing: Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia (SEDUE), Dir. de Area de Flora y Fauna Silvestre, Rio Elba No. 20, 8° piso, Col. Cuauhtemoc, 06500, Mexico D.F.

* * *

Also in the January 1992 issue, we cited the Renaud et al. report (below) as NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-228. The correct reference is NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC 288. The Editors sincerely regret these errors.

RENAUD, M., G. GITSCHLAG, E. KLIMA, A. SHAH, D. KOI, and J. NANCE. 1991. Evaluation of the Impacts of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on Shrimp Catch Rates in Coastal Waters of the United States Along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, September 1989 through August 1990. 80 p. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-288. Available from: NOAA/NMFS Galveston Lab, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston, Texas 77551 USA.

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS

BROADWELL, ANN L. 1991. Effects of Beach Renourishment on the Survival of Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Master of Science thesis, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida USA. [UMI, 300 N Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106; order no. GAX13-45202]

BOWEN, BRIAN W. 1992. Evolutionary Genetics and Natural History of Marine Turtles. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, USA.

SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARINE DEBRIS

The Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris contain several papers on sea turtles. These, with the Proceedings citation, are listed below:

SHOMURA, R. S. and M. L. GODFREY (Editors). 1990. Proceedings of the Second Inter- national Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-154 (2 volumes). U. S. Dept. Commerce. Available from: Natl. Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springfield, Virginia 22167 USA.

RYAN, P. G. 1990. The marine plastic debris problem off southern Africa: types of debris, their environmental effects, and control measures, p.85-102.

SADOVE, S. S. and S. J. MORREALE. 1990. Marine mammal and sea turtle encounters with marine debris in the New York Bight and the northeast Atlantic, p.562-570.

BALAZS, G. H. and B. K. CHOY. 1990. Ecological aspects of marine turtles impacted by ocean debris: 1989 perspective, p.718 [Abstract].

LUTZ, P. L. 1990. Studies on the ingestion of plastic and latex by sea turtles, p.719-735.

PLOTKIN, P. and A. F. AMOS. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic debris on sea turtles in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, p.736-743.

20 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

UCHIDA, I. 1990. On the synthetic materials found in the digestive systems of, and discharged by, sea turtles collected in waters adjacent to Japan, p.744 [Abstract].

LEGAL BRIEFS

DRIFTNET BAN IS A VICTORY -- Last November conservationists realized the dream of a decade when the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Japan would stop high-seas driftnet fishing by 31 December 1992 [see MTN 57:23]. Japan is the largest user of driftnets in the Pacific, and has opposed international efforts to restrict their use. Driftnets are responsible for the deaths of thousands of marine animals and sea birds every year. Earlier in November, the Center for Marine Conservation brought noted conservation biologist and research Dr. Enrique Crespo to a press conference at the United Nations, where [he] elaborated on the devastating effects driftnetting has caused to marine ecosystems in Argentina. . . The international Coalition to End Global Large-Scale Pelagic Driftnet Fishing (CEGFish) . . . [also] presented facts about large-scale pelagic driftnetting to many delegates at the UN. Subsequently, the UN Second Committee adopted a resolution requiring all nations conducting pelagic (open ocean) high-seas driftnet fishing to reduce their fishing effort by 50% by 30 June 1992 and cease all driftnetting by 31 December. The UN General Assembly then adopted the resolution, closing the door to driftnetting by South Korea and Japan. Taiwan, although not a member of the UN, has promised the U. S. Government that they, too, would stop driftnet fishing by 30 June [1992]. Meanwhile, the European Community has adopted a resolution that bans driftnets over 2.5 km in length effective 30 June 1992. (However, the 40-vessel French fleet is allowed to continue using their 5 km nets until 31 December 1993). Source: excerpted from Center for Marine Conservation Marine Conservation News, 1992, 4(1):1.

* * *

CORAL REEFS ENDANGERED BY AQUARIUM TRADE -- Coral reefs are among the most productive of ecosystems and have a diversity of life forms rivalled only by tropical rain forests. These complex but fragile ecosystems are deteriorating because of pollution, siltation, harmful fishing techniques, human activities responsible for environmental disturbances and, more recently, the exploitation of coral reefs for the aquarium trade, which has increased considerably during the last seven years. From 1984 to October 1988, 117,612 pieces of live coral were imported to the USA for the aquarium trade. Organizations around the world are working together to eliminate all forms of coral reef over-exploitation. Unfortunately, the demand for living corals in the aquarium trade is there and is growing. The contribution that the aquarium hobbyist as nature lover must make as a minimum to preserve this fragile ecosystem from destruction is to abstain from buying stony corals from the order Scleractinia. Source: excerpted from Ocean Voice International Sea Wind, 1991, 5(3):8-11.

* * *

TURKEY'S TURTLES THREATENED -- Development for tourism is once again threatening loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta nesting beaches in Turkey. The beaches were protected in 1988 by the Turkish Authority for Protection of Special Areas, which has now changed its mind. The beaches at Dalyan, where 200-300 turtles nest, are causing most concern among conservationists because they are considered vital for the survival of loggerheads in the Mediterranean. Source: Marine Pollution Bulletin, October 1991:484 [as reported in Oryx, January 1992:9-10].

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 21 * * *

SEAGRASS DECLINE IN MEDITERRANEAN -- Beds of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica are declining in the Mediterranean, especially in tourist areas where plankton growth, enhanced by raw sewage, prevents light reaching the plants on the sea-bed. The seagrass beds provide food and shelter for several thousand species of fish and invertebrates as well as being important oxygenators. France was first to raise the alarm about the shrinking beds and now has laws to protect them; Spain is thinking of following suit. Source: New Scientist, 5 October 1991:11 [as reported in Oryx, January 1992:10].

* * *

USA BANS DRIFTNET-CAUGHT FISH -- The U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has issued regulations banning the use of drift-nets in the South Pacific in 1991, and elsewhere by 1 July 1992. The regulations ban the sale in the U. S. of any fish caught in drift-nets, which are used primarily by Japan, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea and France. The U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service reported in 1990 that just 10% of Japan's drift-net fleet killed 1,758 whales and dolphins, 253,288 tuna, 81,956 Blue sharks, 30,464 seabirds and more than 3 million non-target fish [N.B. sea turtles are also caught and killed; see MTN 54:26]. Source: Outdoor News Bulletin, 20 September 1991:2 [as reported in Oryx, January 1992:14-15].

* * *

BALI SEA TURTLES -- Although the consumption of [sea] turtle meat is already banned in Bali, it is widely available in hotels and restaurants on the island. In response to criticism for allowing such trade, the Governor of Bali has stated that he will stop the sale of the meat for consumption; however, he will not ban turtle catching for religious or traditional rites for the predominantly Hindu population. Source: Reuters News Agency, 26 July 1991 [as reported in TRAFFIC Bulletin, 1991, 12(3):36].

* * *

ILLEGAL CORAL SHIPMENT SEIZED -- Over 17 tonnes of dead coral were seized at Tilbery docks, London, in July 1991, the largest seizure of coral in the U.K. to date. Customs officers discovered two tonnes after a random search of a Soviet freighter which had arrived from the Philippines. The consignment had been labelled "driftwood, cuttlefish and rocks". Another 15 tonnes were seized at premises in Boston, Lincholnshire. A man was interviewed and released, pending further investigations. All hard corals, or reef-building corals, are listed in CITES Appendix II. Since 1977, the collection and export of coral from the Philippines has been banned, except during a period of seven months in 1986 to "clear stocks". Unscrupulous dealers are evading regulations, either with false documentation, or no documents at all. Reefs in the Philippines have been particularly badly damaged as a result of siltation, pollution, over-fishing and dynamite fishing; coral collection is an added problem. Source: TRAFFIC Bulletin, 1991, 12(3):72.

* * *

THAILAND WILDLIFE TRADE BANNED -- In an effort to pressure Thailand into implementing and enforcing CITES, the Standing Committee of CITES recommended in April 1991 that member states of the Convention prohibit all trade with Thailand in CITES-listed fauna and flora. According to the Standing Committee, Thailand has, for a number of years,

22 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 been an important focus of illegal trade in animals and plants, principally primate, carnivores, live birds, reptile skins, and orchids. Thailand still has not passed national legislation enabling it to implement the Convention, it regularly ignores the Secretariat's requests for information, and it does not submit an annual report on the quantity of imports, exports, and reexports of CITES specimens. The Secretariat has documented over 100 infractions of the Convention by Thailand since 1988 alone. Source: TRAFFIC(USA), 1992, 11(2):6.

* * *

KEMP'S RIDLEYS TRACKED BY SATELLITE -- An adult female Kemp's ridley, outfitted with a satellite transmitter, was released by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in St. Mary's Channel (at the Georgia/Florida border) on 13 October 1991 and was tracked for six months. By 14 November, the turtle had moved south and was approximately 18 km offshore of Cape Canaveral. The turtle spent four months 18-92 km south of the Cape, 20- 70 km from shore. Between 18 March and 20 April 1992, the turtle moved north approximately 380 km and is presently off Jacksonville, Florida. NMFS released a subadult Kemp's ridley off Port Isabel, Texas, on 30 March 1991. By 30 April the turtle moved approximately 296 km up the Texas coastline and was offshore of the Matagorda Peninsula. By mid-June the turtle was just west of the Mississippi Delta. It took approximatly 3 weeks to work its way around the Delta. The turtle reached St. Joseph's Bay, Florida, on 31 July 1991. It remained there for 2 weeks before continuing down the Florida coast to 25°N, 81.6°W. This is approximately 56 km NNE of Key West, Florida. From here, the turtle could easily enter the Atlantic Ocean, and it may have already done so. The turtle traveled 2600 km along the Gulf Coast within the 33 m depth contour during the entire 8.5 month tracking period. Source: NMFS Southeast Region Newsbreaker, 27 April 1992, No. 92-02.

* * *

KEMP'S RIDLEYS RELEASED -- 1,942 10-month old Kemp's ridley sea turtles from the 1991 year class 'head-started' at the Galveston Laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries (NMFS) Service were released on 19 May 1992 about 25 nm south of Galveston, Texas, in the Gulf of Mexico. This event marks the fourteenth year of the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Head- Start Experiment program that collects the endangered species' hatchlings and rears the turtles in captivity for about 10 months before releasing them into the wild. The Head-Start work is performed in cooperation with Mexico's Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Since the Head-Start program began in 1978, almost 18,000 sea turtles have been released through this NMFS Galveston Laboratory program. Source: adapted from U. S. Department of Commerce News Release, May 1992.

* * *

MAN DIES AFTER CHASING TURTLE -- Earlier in the year a [skin-diving] fisherman from Abaiang [Kiribati, Central Pacific] died when he tried to go after a turtle. When he dived after the turtle, he failed to surface, and his friends had to hook him out from the deep water. Last week, a seventeen-year old skin diver from Arorea island at the southern tip of the Kiribati Group was caught in the same trap. Reports from the island said Kaoiaki Tautua and his friends were heading back ashore after spear-fishing when he spotted a turtle that he went after. The underwater chasing ended up in a tragedy when young Koaiaki had his shirt caught in the rocks. His friends waited for him for two hours, and when he never turned up, they went back to the sea and searched for him. They finally found him and had to cut his shirt and shorts to release him. They dashed him to the island clinic and the nurse on the island said he had drowned. Source: The Marshall Islands Journal, 13 March 1992, 23(11):6.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 23 A FOLKLORE OF TURTLE CALLING IN FIJI

In response to our request for intriguing "sea turtle mythology or folklore" [MTN 56:30] to share with Newsletter readers, Michael L. Guinea (Australia) submitted the following text. He wrote, "The custom of turtle calling at the village of Namuana on Kadavu is based on an ancient legend which is still passed on from father to son among the Fijian people of Kadavu." The story was told in the Fiji Times, "Turtles surface to the call", on 12 November 1971:

Many, many years ago in the beautiful village of Namuana, there lived a very lovely princess called Tinaicaboga who was the wife of the chief of Namuana village. Tinaicaboga had a charming daughter called Raudalice and the two women often went fishing on the reefs around their home. On one particular occasion, Tinaicaboga and Raudalice went further afield than usual and waded out on the submerged reefs which jut out from the rocky headland to the east of the bay. They became so engrossed with their fishing that they did not notice the stealthy approach of a great war-canoe filled with fishermen from the nearby village of Nabukelevu. This village is situated in the shadow of Mount Washington, the highest mountain on Kadavu Island. Suddenly the fishermen leapt from their canoe and seized the two women, bound their hands and feet with vines, tossed them into the bottom of the canoe, and set off in great haste for home. The cruel warriors from Nabukelevu were deaf to the pleadings and would not listen to the entreaties of the women.

The gods of the sea, however, were kind and soon a great storm arose and the canoe was tossed about by the huge waves which almost swamped it. As the canoe was foundering in the sea, the fishermen were astounded to notice that the two women lying in the water in the hold of the canoe had suddenly changed into turtles and to save their own lives, the men seized them and threw them into the sea. As they slipped over the side of the canoe the weather changed and there were no more waves. The Nabukelevu fishermen continued their journey back to their home village and the two women from Namuana who had been changed to turtles lived on in the waters of the bay. It is their descendants today who rise when the maidens of their own village sing songs to them from the cliffs. The translation of the strange song which is chanted on such occasions is as follows:

"The women of Namuana are all dressed in mourning Each carries a sacred club, each is tattooed in a strange pattern Do rise to the surface Raudalice so that we may look at you Do rise to the surface Tinaicaboga so we may also look at you."

The women of Namuana village still preserve the strange ritual of calling turtles from the sea. All the maidens of the village assemble on the rocks above the water and begin to sing a melodious chant. Slowly, one by one, giant turtles rise to lie on the surface in order to listen to the strange chanting.

NEW LIGHTS MAY PREVENT SEA TURTLE HATCHLING DEATHS

The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) and Florida Power Corporation (FPC) are working together to make beaches on Florida's west coast safer for sea turtle hatchlings. Artificial lights near the beach, including street lights, can confuse sea turtle hatchlings, luring them away from the ocean and even onto roadways. FPC is testing the effectiveness of a new street light, known as a "cut-off luminaire". This new, high-pressure sodium light is placed lower on the light pole and has an inverted bulb. This design produces light that is directed

24 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 mostly downward and over a much smaller area than conventional street lights. FPC conducted a pilot project in the St. Petersburg area, replacing conventional street lights with cut-off luminaires. A survey conducted by CMC's Florida office and FPC indicates that while the new lights are much less visible on the beach than conventional lights, the streets are still well lighted. It is hoped that the new lights will make the beaches safer for turtles as well. CMC, FPC, and local community representatives will conduct more surveys over the summer. If the new lights are effective, FPC will replace the lights in communities that request them, at no cost to the community. Private land owners may also request free lights. Source: Center for Marine Conservation Marine Conservation News, 1992, 4(1):21.

ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE U. S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Most observers expect that the next congressional reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act will be a donnybrook. The reauthorization process will likely get underway with congressional hearings early in 1992, but when it will end is far less clear. Although the Act's current authorization expires September 30, 1992, Congress may prefer not to have to deal with this issue in an election year and simply defer it to the following year. That has happened before. Whatever the timing, however, the reauthorization battle is likely to be a highly contentious and difficult struggle between those who want to maintain and strengthen the Act and those who think the Act has wrongly reordered priorities to the detriment of the nation and its citizens. Perhaps the most basic theme that the Act's critics will sound is that the Endangered Species Act has subordinated human interests to the interests of other species.

The challenge for supporters of the Act will be to demonstrate that the real choice is not between people and pupfish but between long-term human welfare and more immediate perceptions of human need. Considered in isolation, the loss of a species of no known value is likely to seem a small price to pay in return for some immediate economic benefit. But viewing the problem in that manner is akin to deciding whether to quit smoking one cigarette at a time. One more cigarette, by itself, is unlikely to jeopardize our future health, just as the loss of one more species, by itself, is unlikely to imperil our future well-being. At the same time, however, we know that it is the cumulative consequence of a lifetime of decisions to smoke just one more cigarette that threatens our health. In a similar manner, we need to understand that it is the cumulative consequence of a pattern of decisions to sacrifice just one more species that threatens our future well-being. The choice, therefore, is not between humans and other living things; rather, it is a choice between immediate gratification and long-term human welfare. Source: excerpted from Bean, M. J. 1991. Issues and Controversies in the Forthcoming Reauthorization Battle. Endangered Species Update 9(1/2):1-4. U. S. Department of Interior.

U. S. ADMINISTRATION ACCUSED OF "CREATING" CRISIS

In a new report, "The TED Experience: Claims and Reality", researchers from three of the nation's leading conservation groups, the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), extensively reviewed government and state records on shrimp catches, crew injuries, and gear losses in 1990 and 1991 and found that the industry's claims on the effect of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) have not been borne out. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration appears to be creating an endangered species crisis by delaying the expansion of the TED regulations to all southeastern waters at all times of the year. Experts at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 25 drafted the new regulations eight months ago based on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, sea turtle biologists within NMFS, and the experience of law enforcement officials. Although there is substantial need for expanding the regulations, the Administration has catered to a few Gulf Congressmen and needlessly delayed the regulations.

"The facts speak for themselves and prove the industry wrong," stated Dr. Deborah Crouse, Director of the Species Recovery Program at CMC. "We have reviewed more than 9000 injury reports for 1990 and 1991, and there were no reports of TED-related crew injuries; we reviewed hundreds of gear damage reports for 1990 and 1991 and there were fewer reports of shrimp gear losses than in previous years. Furthermore, shrimp landings have been very good, and current TED regulations have benefited sea turtle conservation." The use of TEDs to prevent the drowning of tens of thousands of threatened and endangered sea turtles in U. S. waters has been one of the most controversial natural resource issues of recent decades, with the shrimp industry predicting economic ruin as a result of mandatory seasonal TED use. Notes Michael Bean, Chairman of the Wildlife Program at EDF, "the TED controversy is an excellent example of an industry's claims of expected economic disaster which have been shown to have no foundation. It is a good reason to be skeptical of other [industry-led] Endangered Species Act claims."

Continued Crouse, "the TED regulations have been successful in saving sea turtles during the times when they are in effect. But the gains we make in sea turtle conservation during the summer are lost if the turtles saved are drowned in the fall. Moreover, we now have evidence of the need to use TEDs in inshore areas: these waters are important developmental habitat for smaller turtles. Inshore shrimpers are not using TEDs ... or abiding by tow time restrictions to save these juvenile turtles. We need the new TED regulations, and we need them now." Source: Center for Marine Conservation Press Release, 21 April 1992.

STUDY CONCLUDES TEDs NEEDED IN ALL AREAS AT ALL TIMES, CARIBBEAN NATIONS SHOULD ALSO COMPLY

While [our conservative estimate of 4,360 shrimp trawler related sea turtle mortalities annually under current TED regulations] remains unacceptably high in term of ensuring recovery of the species, the current TED regulations have resulted in a 67% reduction in annual turtle mortalities. This is a significant improvement over past conditions and should be viewed positively in terms of overall U. S. sea turtle conservation efforts. Compliance rates with TED regulations appear to be high, and annual shrimp landings have not changed despite alleged high shrimp loss rates associated with TED utilization.

On the basis of our analyses, we conclude that expansion of TED requirements to all areas at all times of the year would result in a total reduction in shrimp trawler related sea turtle mortalities of 97%. Given the fact that most mortality is preventable if TEDs are used and are functioning properly, there would appear to be no valid reason for not expanding TED requirements. Allegations of high shrimp loss rates and associated economic hardships have not been support by landings statistics or studies of shrimp loss rates with TEDs (Renaud et al. 1990, 1991).

Our analysis of foreign sea turtle capture and mortality by shrimp trawlers is admittedly crude. However, our purpose in providing these estimates was to illustrate the point that U. S. protective measures may not, in themselves, be sufficient to recover species of concern. If we assume that turtles protected in U. S. waters are ultimately impacted by shrimp trawlers in

26 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 foreign waters, saving turtles in U. S. waters may simply result in higher sea turtle catch and mortality rates in foreign waters and do little to improve survival of the species. Using our gross estimates of sea turtle catch and mortality for the Wider Caribbean countries addressed in our analysis, we estimate 25,280 captures and 7,858 mortalities annually. These estimates are approximately double those in U. S. waters prior to implementation of TED regulations.

Given the extensive use of otter trawls in U. S. and foreign waters throughout the Wider Caribbean and given the known adverse effects of trawling gear on sea turtle populations, significant improvements in survival of turtles could be achieved by mandatory use of TEDs in all U. S. and foreign waters. However, without foreign cooperation in efforts to conserve sea turtles, U. S. efforts may not be sufficient to achieve recovery of these species. Therefore, based on our analyses, we recommend that U. S. TED regulations be expanded to require TEDs in all areas at all times, and that foreign nations.within the Wider Caribbean be urged to adopt similar turtle conservation regulations.

Renaud, M., G. Gitschlag, E. Klima, A. Shah, D. Koi, and J. Nance. 1990. Evaluation of the Impacts of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on Shrimp Catch Rates in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, March 1988 through July 1989. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-254. U. S. Dept. Commerce.

Renaud, M., G. Gitschlag, E. Klima, A. Shah, D. Koi, and J. Nance. 1991. Evaluation of the Impacts of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on Shrimp Catch Rates in Coastal Waters of the United States Along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, September 1989 through August 1990. NOAH Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-288. U. S. Dept. Commerce.

Source: excerpted from Henwood, T., W. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluation of U. S. Turtle Protective Measures under Existing TED Regulations, Including Estimates of Shrimp Trawler Related Turtle Mortality in the Wider Caribbean. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC- 303. U. S. Department of Commerce.

SOUTH PACIFIC DRIFTNET BAN IN FORCE

The Wellington Convention banning driftnet fishing in the South Pacific came into force on 17 May 1991 with the ratifications by New Zealand and Tokelau, giving the pact the needed official confirmation of approval by four States. The Cook Islands had ratified the pact on 24 January 1990 and the Federated States of Micronesia [on] 20 December 1990. "The South Pacific region was the first to respond to the significant problems in marine resources management brought on by rapid developments in fishing technology," said Arthur Dahl, Deputy Director of OCA/PAC [UNEP Oceans and Coastal Areas Programme Activity Centre] and Nairobi contact person for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). "UNEP helped to support the small island States through the South Pacific Forum Secretariat to take this decisive action for sustainable use of high seas fisheries resources in the region."

Representatives of 21 South Pacific States and territories met in Wellington, New Zealand, on 21-24 November 1989 to adopt the Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific (now known as the Wellington Convention). New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer noted in his opening address that driftnet fleets remained steady at 9-10 vessels in the South Pacific for some years. But in 1988-89, the South Pacific albacore tuna driftnetters expanded to between 120 and 190 vessels, taking as estimated 25-49,000 tonnes of albacore. "What we are concerned about is the threat caused by large-scale pelagic drift-

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 27 netting -- use of nets that may be 50 km long, set in lines across the ocean each night, catching almost all living creatures in their path," Mr. Palmer said. "Its indiscriminate nature means fish stocks, marine mammals and sea birds are all at risk. We believe driftnetting is an ecologically irresponsible activity, unacceptable wherever it may be practised and contrary to the law of the sea." Source: excerpted from UNEP OCA/PAC The Siren, 1991, 43:8.

LEATHERBACK TURTLE RESCUED IN NEVIS

Recent events in Nevis (Eastern Caribbean) reflect a growing sensitivity on the part of the public to the plight of endangered sea turtles. As reported in The Democrat (25 April 1992), a local newspaper, "A group of Nevis fishermen accidentally landed a huge leatherback turtle [at Oualie Beach], which had become entangled in their nets. As the leatherback is not considered good eating meat, it had no apparent commercial value to the fishermen, who left the turtle on its back on the beach whilst they went to sell their catch of fish, no doubt intending to return when they had more time to disentangle it from their valuable nets. The giant leatherback turtle, which is a heavily protected "endangered species" in almost every country of the world -- with the unfortunate exception of St. Kitts and Nevis -- was over six feet long...

"A small crowd of tourists and locals became alarmed at the turtle's distress and called the Fisheries Department and John Yearwood, President of the St. Kitts and Nevis Hotel Association, who acted immediately by offering to reimburse the Nevisian fishermen for any damage done to their nets in cutting the turtle free. Ably assisted by Juksey Gonsaley of Fountain Village, John and Juksey carefully removed the netting trapping the massive leatherback. After the net was fully cleared from its body without damage, the turtle swiftly set off for the water's edge and launched itself back into the sea to the admiring cheers of the crowd of well-wishers.

"Speaking of the incident later, John Yearwood said, 'Many visitors are attracted to our shores, in the knowledge that they have a good chance of seeing leatherbacks and other rare sea turtle species whilst snorkeling or SCUBA-diving in our crystal clear waters. A leatherback turtle of this great size and age is potentially exceptionally more valuable to our tourism industry, alive and free rather than dying painfully on a beach, totally out of its natural element. Our Government should give serious and urgent consideration to reviewing existing legislation to protect all endangered species in our Federation -- and to working with local fishermen and SCUBA-diving operators to identify coral reefs to be set aside as Protected Marine Parks, without endangering the livelihood of our hard-working local fishermen. "'

JOAN ROBINSON, Nevis Historical and Conservation Society, Alexander Hamilton House Museum, Charlestown, Nevis, ST. KITTS AND NEVIS.

!! SUPPORT THE ARCHIE CARR SEA TURTLE REFUGE !!

The last two years have seen good nesting by sea turtles at the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and around Florida. In 1991, 13,192 loggerhead nests were made in the area of the sea turtle refuge. In 1990, 14,328 nests were made in the same area. In the past, there have been an average of about 12,000 nests each year in the area. The Carr Refuge beach is the most important loggerhead nesting site in the Western Hemisphere. The refuge is also important for green sea turtle nesting, supporting nearly 40% of the U. S. population of the

28 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 endangered marine reptile. In 1991, 161 green turtles nested on the refuge beaches, while 1990 saw 477 green turtle nests made. These numbers reflect the natural variability in nesting.

Carr Refuge has received federal appropriations during two tight budget years because of strong, nationwide public support for the first sea turtle refuge in the continental U. S. Because of the extraordinary public support, the refuge will be about one-third complete by late 1992. However, continued support is crucial to the completion of the Carr Refuge. The remaining lands for the refuge must be acquired soon, before development eats the last pristine sections of Florida coast. This is your opportunity to help save the sea turtle by writing a letter or making a phone call to help preserve [this] habitat. Remember that (1) Carr Refuge beaches are the most important nesting site for loggerhead sea turtles in the Western Hemisphere, (2) Florida cannot save this globally significant refuge without federal help, (3) if we delay, we may never have another chance to save these environmentally sensitive beaches, which are threatened by development, and (4) Carr Refuge has strong local, regional and national citizen support.

Encourage a federal appropriation of $15 million for 1993 Carr Refuge land acquisition by contacting your U. S. Senator and Representative, and Senator Robert Byrd (WV) and Rep. Sydney Yates (IL), who chair the federal appropriations committees. Thank you for your support. Source: excerpted from Caribbean Conservation Corporation Turtle Log, Winter 1992.

SEA TURTLE RESTORATION PROJECT 1992 VOLUNTEER EXPEDITIONS

The Sea Turtle Restoration Project is sponsoring trips to three olive ridley nesting beaches in 1992: Nancite and Ostional in Costa Rica and Playa La Flor in Nicaragua. As a volunteer on one of these trips, you may witness an arribada, the mass nesting strategy of the olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). During an arribada, thousands and thousands of turtles nest in a few days -- on a peak day, some 20,000 may arrive. In any event, chances are excellent that you will get to see some of these endangered turtles. In addition, leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), the largest of all sea turtles, are seen occasionally on these beaches, as are Pacific green turtles (Chelonia m. agasssizii) and hawksbills (Eretmochelvs imbricata). At Playa Nancite, volunteers will be assisting Costa Rican and North American scientists with their work; at Ostional and Playa La Flor, volunteers will help with studies of the sea turtles and with the model sustainable egg harvesting programs that occur at these beaches. The money raised from the trips allows the Sea Turtle Restoration Project to help support these international sea turtle conservation programs. The cost of each trip includes lodging, transportation, and food within the designated country. It does not include airfare.

Playa Nancite, Costa Rica: A remote beach in Santa Rosa National Park, Playa Nancite is accessible only by foot or boat. The dry tropical forest of Santa Rosa National Park supports an incredible array of wildlife, from howler monkeys and iguanas that visit the field station almost everyday to crocodiles and coatis that are seen less frequently. Volunteer responsibilities may include nightly beach patrolling to count and tag sea turtles, locating nesting females that have transmitters on them, taking radio transmitter readings, helping perform ultrasound tests on the turtles, and locating turtles from a boat. Staff and volunteers will share cooking responsibilities and will stay in the field station or in tents. Trip dates and costs are: 7/18-7/27 ($980), 7/29-8/7 ($980), 8/9-8/16 ($880), and 8/18-8/27 ($980).

Ostional, Costa Rica: A small community on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica that surrounds an olive ridley arribada beach, Ostional has implemented a sustainable egg harvesting program. The area is a national wildlife reserve, but it is threatened by encroaching

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 29 development. Spending many hours on the beach, teams will gather data on behavior, population, and biology of olive ridleys. In addition, time will be spent meeting with community members as a way to learn about and aid this model program. Volunteers will stay in the field station and will prepare meals together. Trip dates and costs are: 8/20-8/29 ($980), 8/31-9/6 ($800), 9/8-9/20 ($1250), 9/26-10/5 ($980), 10/7-10/16 ($980).

Playa La Flor, Nicaragua: Located on the Southern Pacific coast of Nicaragua near the Costa Rican border, this beautiful beach is partially bordered by a mangrove lagoon that is home to thousands of herons and egrets. In past years, Playa La Flor had a sustainable egg harvesting program. Unfortunately, our project last year found Playa La Flor filled with desperate people who were harvesting virtually all of the sea turtle eggs to meet their own survival needs. These trips will be exploratory in nature: working with the Nicaraguan government's natural resource agency and the University of Central America, volunteers may gather data on the olive ridley population of Playa La Flor, estimate sizes of arribadas, and meet with the community and others in order to help develop a management plan for this beach. Teams will cook together and stay in the field station or in tents. Dates and costs are: 9/23-10/2 ($670), 10/4-10/13 ($670), 10/15-10/24 ($670), and 10/26-11/1 ($500). Please call or write Earth Island's Sea Turtle Restoration Project for more information and applications.

KATHY NIELSEN, Earth Island Institute, 300 Broadway, Suite 28, San Francisco, California 94133 USA. Tel: (415) 788-3666, FAX: (415) 788-7324.

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE'S EDUCATION CAMPAIGN

The Sea Turtle Restoration Project (STRP) of Earth Island Institute, working with producer Steve Cowan of Swallowtail Productions, has recently completed a 20-minute, educational video entitled Ancient Sea Turtles: The Last Voyage? The video has been accepted for national distribution to schools, libraries, and individuals through The Video Project, a non- profit company that distributes award-winning films on the environment, peace, and sustainable development. The video is available through STRP for US$ 25.00 (address below). STRP is now working with Steve Cowan to produce a 60-minute version for broadcast on national television.

An integrated two-week curriculum for middle schools which focuses on sea turtles and their conservation is in the final stages of completion and will soon be ready for distribution. The multi-media program includes the above video, a slide show, poster, various reference materials, games and an action plan. The curriculum emphasizes the fascinating aspects of sea turtle natural history, and also comprises studies in science, math, social studies and critical reasoning skills.

STRP is also working on a tri-cultural book on sea turtles and their conservation with a number of world-renowned writers and artists, including Homero Aridjis (Mexican novelist and poet, and President of Grupo de los Cien), Jim Harrison (American novelist, screenwriter, and poet), and David Brower (founder of Friends of the Earth and the Earth Island Institute). We are presently seeking Japanese artists and writers to participate.

KATHY NIELSEN, Earth Island Institute, 300 Broadway, Suite 28, San Francisco, California 94133 USA.

300 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58

12th ANNUAL SEA TURTLE SYMPOSIUM A BIG SUCCESS

The 12th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation was held 25-29 February 1992 on Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. The Georgia Sea Turtle Cooperative (Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia) and the Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources co-hosted the Symposium which was attended by more than 500 persons, including representatives from 25 countries and territories! During three full days of technical sessions, approximately 80 papers were presented on the biology and management of sea turtles. These included papers on disease, beach studies, conservation and management, care of captive turtles, habitat ecology and stock assessment, telemetric tracking and migration, genetics, populations models, incidental capture and stranding, physiology, and integrated conservation initiatives. Another 50 research and management projects were presented in the poster session. Source: adapted from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council South Atlantic Update, April 1992.

13th ANNUAL SEA TURTLE SYMPOSIUM PLANNED

The 13th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation is scheduled for the last week in February 1993. The Symposium will be hosted by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resource Department (Nongame and Heritage Trust Section) and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Coastal Resources Division). Registration will begin on Tuesday evening, 23 February, and Symposium sessions will be scheduled on 24-26 February. Workshops and other informal activities will be planned for Saturday, 27 February. Accommodations will be available for groups to meet on 22-23 February, prior to the opening of the Symposium. The location will be Villas By The Sea, Jekyll Island, Georgia, the same as last year. You may make your reservations at any time by calling the Villas (in Georgia 1-800- 342-6872, elsewhere in USA 1-800-841-6262, outside USA 912-635-2521). We will meet airline travelers at Brunswick (Georgia) and Jacksonville (Florida). A mailing is being prepared which will be sent soon to all previously registered participants with further details. International participants are urged to begin travel plans early and to notify Dr. Jim Richardson (Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA; FAX: (404) 542- 6040) prior to 1 October if you are in need of financial assistance. See you all in February!

SALLY MURPHY, 1993 Sea Turtle Symposium Coordinator, SC Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, P. O. Box 12559, Charleston, South Carolina 29412 USA. Tel: (803) 795-6350; FAX: (803) 762-5007.

WHAT CAN YOU DO ?

If you spend a holiday in any country where sea turtle products are available or where sea turtles nest, please (1) do not eat turtle meat or soup, (2) do not buy any sea turtle product souvenirs, such as hawksbill shell (also known as tortoiseshell) jewelry, ornaments, or stuffed turtles, (3) take care not to disturb turtles or hatchlings and avoid using white light (e.g., car headlights or torches) which can frighten nesting females and attract hatchlings away from the safety of the sea, and (4) never throw plastic litter into the sea or coastal waterways because some turtles eat plastic bags (mistaking them for jellyfish) and suffer intestinal problems as a result. If you want to know more, contact Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN. Source: adapted from the British Chelonia Group's Newsletter, 1992, 86:11.

Marine Turtle Newsletter, No. 58 - 31 "DO NOT DISTURB OUR TURTLES"

The following public awareness announcement is sponsored and distributed by the Office of the Administrator, Ascension Island, South Atlantic. We thought it well worth sharing! -- Editors

For the benefit of visitors, newcomers to the Island, and those who may have missed earlier notices, the following is guidance on how we should observe and protect our Green Turtles:

First, a Plea

1. We on Ascension Island are privileged to host (and observe) green turtles nesting every year. The green turtle is an endangered species and we should do nothing to make its survival more problematical. It does us no harm and should be left in peace.

2. A Public Notice is issued every year to remind people of the legal prohibitions, but I would like to express them all in one general plea:

DO NOT DISTURB OUR GREEN TURTLES

3. That general prohibition includes digging for eggs, riding motor cycles over the sand, shining lights or any other thoughtless behaviour. A serious view is likely to be taken of any further (criminal) disregard for these creatures' welfare.

Some advice for beginners

4. Turtle-watching requires patience and a good moon. Try to approach them cautiously from the direction of the sea. When they come up, they first dig a hole for themselves and sand flies in all directions. Then, if they are happy with the condition of the sand they scrape out a "pot" with their rear flippers, throwing out a "handful" of sand from time to time; all this may take an hour or so. Then, when there are no signs of activity, you may approach the turtle from the rear and shine a shaded torch into the "pot" (not into her face!) to see if she is laying. If she is laying, you will see the white ping-pong ball size eggs; if there are no other turtles nearby (something of a rarity on Long Beach) flash cameras can be used without doing any harm. Flash cameras are also tolerated when the turtle is returning to the water (despite the risk that this will deter another turtle coming up), but please direct the flash seaward, not along the beach where other turtles might be at different stages of nesting. ------Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from Rodney Jackson (Anchorage, AK), Hedelvy Guada (Caracas, Venezuela), George Pisani (Lawrence, KS), Daryl McNeilly (Woodbridge, CA), John and Marguerite Church (McLean, VA), Ron Berger (Gresham, OR), Diana Gardener (Medford, OR), Melodylyn Ray (Bahamas), Pat McLaughlin (San Francisco, CA), Pieter Borkent (Amsterdam, Holland), Michael Salmon (Boynton Beach, FL), Cayman Turtle Farm Ltd., The Chelonia Institute, Greenpeace-USA, World Wildlife Fund-USA, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Spanish edition is supported by Confederacion Universitaria Centroamericana, World Wildlife Fund-USA, and USFWS, and is produced by Susana Salas, Coordinadora, Noticiero de Tortugas Marinas, CSUCA, Programa de Tortugas Marinas-UCR, Apdo. 271-2050, San Pedro, Costa Rica. 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, No. 58