If it Looks Like a Loggerhead...

As many of us know, loggerhead turtles called 'northern subpopulation' genotypes and 'panhandle subpopulation' genotypes in the Western North Atlantic Ocean, particularly the US, are candidates for 'uplisting'. That is, these 'distinct' genetic stocks should be considered endangered under the US Endangered Species Act rather than their current status as threatened, another category offering animals protection under the ESA.

According to the proponents of uplisting these genetic stocks, an endangered classification will make it easier to implement the temporary closure of fisheries that affect these two subpopulations. However, the petition presented to the federal government suggesting the uplisting is vague. For example, what are the proponents asking for? If we are to believe that the proponents are asking that all turtles derived from rookery beaches where northern and panhandle subpopulations nest and hatch then there is an implementation problem that should be apparent to anyone truly interested in conserving sea turtles.

What problem is that? Well, both northern and panhandle loggerhead turtles have wide distributions in the US: the US coastline abutting the Western North Atlantic Ocean. There is no geographic structuring of these subpopulations outside of the nesting females and I'm not so sure that the 'subpopulations' of nesting turtles are as rigidly structured as the journal articles make them out to be anyways (i.e. mitochondrial DNA only tells half of the story, what about the paternal characteristics of DNA with respect to structuring?).

Moreover, several studies, also using mtDNA, have shown that northern subpopulation turtles and panhandle turtles are sympatric with loggerheads from south florida (southern subpopulation) and Mexican Caribbean loggerheads (Yucatan subpop.). So, if these two subpopulations are listed as endangered, then how do we enforce their new status when a dredge or a trawler kills a loggerhead turtle that could be from south Florida, Gulf Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mexico or maybe even from the Mediterranean (yes Med turtles occasionally seek holiday in US waters). Easy, a lab runs an assay on the dead specimen to determine if the vessel killed a threatened or an endangered loggerhead. However, this may take some time as I've worked with geneticists before and their analyses are either lengthy or they get paid by the hour. But, what if we are talking about a dredge that kills a loggerhead? The dredge will have to suspend operations until the origin of the killed loggerhead is determined, remember this can't be done by geographic locality. While the dredge is on the hook the taxpayers lose thousands if not millions of dollars waiting to see the fate of the dredging operation. Also, in the past, which for now is also the present, loggerheads are considered a dime-a-dozen by many feds. Hence, dredges are allowed to take or kill many loggerheads when compared to the number of ridleys they are alotted each fiscal year (October to October). If some loggerheads are listed as endangered than this will undoubtedly cause many dredging jobs (beach nourishment and channel deepening) to be prematurely stopped or outright canceled. This is where the water begins to get muddy.

Big business (capitalism) depends upon overseas exports and imports and many Americans depend upon dredging to protect their coastal residences, many of whom are politicians or rich folks that fund political endeavors. This puts the loggerheads, not just the endangered ones, in a precarious position. If the loggerheads were to become an impediment to vital operations such as dredging, then those who have supported the uplisting have set the loggerheads up to become an enemy of progress, like the spotted owls. People who usually paid not mind to loggerheads or those who thought they were neat animals could ultimately change their minds about the conservation of these animals if their business, livlihood or property was in jeaopardy because the turtles were now considered 'endangered'. We saw the same with shrimpers regarding TEDS in the late 80's. Remember, to most people a loggerhead is a loggerhead and no matter how much you point at one from Florida and say it is different than the ones from Georgia, they aren't going to believe you. They all look like loggerheads! Thus, should we really be using genetic subpopulation data to tailor the ESA?

I say no. The above is just one example. Any human activity that directly impacts loggerhead populations will be affected somehow if some subpopulations are listed as endangered. Pick an operation and image how it will be affected and how a person's opinion of loggerheads could quickly change.

Another point of many on this topic is data. There are data which show a precipitous decline in northern subopulation nesting. However, other data sets report the contrary. The latter data sets were not used in the uplisting petition.

Also, where is the data which irrefutably documents the decline of these loggerhead subpopulations by comparing contemporary data sets to base-line data, and I'm not talking of nesting data. I want data from true turtlers, those who work in the water capturing various loggerhead lifestages. To my knowledge, this data is being collected only now.

I think as turtle conservations we need to heed the warning of Nicholas Mrosovsky. He offers that as sound biologists we should not participate in 'Hype' to usher in the conservation of sea turtles. That is don't make the picture look worse than it really is unless all signs point to such. New data may ultimately document the true status of loggerhead subpopulations, which is why such studies should be encouraged.