Joe,



Thanks for responding and sticking to the points. I have read many of the box turtle papers as well. I have had long conversations with my buddy, Eric, on these box turtle papers. We have gone over and identified many leaps of reality by the academics writing these papers. Eric is working on producing a document which outlines these leaps. I have some additional questions for you.



What areas are box turtles gone from? Please explain your survey methods? Were any papers produced from your studies? What were the direct causes of decline in your studies? Were only box turtles affected? Do you agree with my general theory of divide and conquer? If not, why?



As for this statement, "So what you're saying here is that who cares that Box Turtles are in trouble by Fire Ants, pesticides, habitat destruction, you want to be able to keep right on collecting and selling them 8 at a time from the last remaining stronghold in Texas?"



No, not at all. This is what we need to focus on, the big impacts. I believe that if box turtles are in that bad a shape then they should be listed as Endangered or Threatened. In order to do this evidence will have to be given that qualifies this species for that designation in Texas. It appears that there is not enough evidence to support this designation. Collection preserves gene pools in captivity. While I can agree with you that over-harvest should be avoided this can be accomplished with bag limits, not the banning of sales. Further, captive propagation should not be limited in any way and it currently is.



What does protecting box turtles mean? Protecting them from collection? Sale? The bulldozers of development? Roads? I feel that as long as development is allowed and roads do not have exclusion devices installed on them that box turtle harvest should be allowed. This position works for any of the major threats. In captivity the gene pools persist, you can't argue with that. Many box turtles that are harvested are probably displaced animals. I don't have any evidence to prove that, however. Here is another example of why "protection" can lead to extinction.



There was a population of box turtles which occurred on a peninsula in coastal Louisiana. Development had been advancing on their habitat. Several years ago the collection of box turtles was made illegal in Louisiana and these gene pools were not represented in captivity. So was the primary threat of development stopped? No. Were hobbyists allowed to collect this population and preserve these gene pools in captivity? No. When hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast these turtles were wiped away forever. They are now gone because collection was not allowed. So again, I ask, box turtles need to be protected from what? Protected into extinction?



I feel that any herp that is not listed as Endangered or Threatened should have a harvest at some level if not for the hobbyists need then to preserve gene pools in captivity. I think we can all agree that over-harvest is bad but as long as we harvest in the acceptable range we are only benefiting the species.



Mike Welker

El Paso, TX

[ Show Entire Thread ]