Rare sea turtles beached in the Netherlands


This video is about loggerhead turtles in Australia.

Two rare sea turtles recently beached in the Netherlands.

They are young loggerhead sea turtles. In de past two centuries, only five loggerhead sea turtles have beached alive in the Netherlands.

The turtles were ill when they beached. In Dutch zoos, their health has improved by now.

Turtles in the Netherlands: here.

Mediterranean loggerhead turtles – 2 distinct populations: here.

A recovered loggerhead sea turtle named after President Barack Obama was released in the Atlantic Ocean off Key West Saturday: here.

Turtle Egg-Laying Season Thrown Off by Warming: here.

4 thoughts on “Rare sea turtles beached in the Netherlands

  1. Dec 13, 7:18 PM EST

    Nearly frozen sea turtle heading to rehab

    BOSTON (AP) — His name is Herb, and he was very, very cold when he was found on a Cape Cod beach.

    The 75-pound loggerhead sea turtle was discovered by volunteers from the Massachusetts Audubon Sanctuary at Wellfleet Bay and was taken to the New England Aquarium in Boston for a slow but steady warmup.

    The aquarium said Herb’s body temperature was in the 40s when he was found on the beach in Truro on Dec. 3. Veterinarians and rescue biologists slowly warmed him about five degrees each day, and his body temperature is now in the low 70’s.

    Now Herb is ready to be moved to the Riverhead Foundation on New York’s Long Island, which rehabilitates and releases seals, whales, dolphins, and sea turtles.

    Herb, who was also suffering from an eye infection, is not the only sea turtle rescued from Cape Cod in a state of hypothermia this season, but the loggerhead turtle does have one distinction.

    “This particularly guy, Herb, is the biggest of the season,” said Tony LaCasse, a spokesman for the New England Aquarium.

    He said the aquarium staff hopes Herb will be well enough to be released back into the sea in late spring or summer. He said up to 90 percent of the stranded turtles taken to the aquarium survive, and up to 98 percent of those are eventually released.

    LaCasse said Herb’s plight wasn’t unusual. About 10 to 20 percent of the sea turtles washed ashore on Cape Cod beaches in the fall die because of the cold. But partly because of an early cold snap in November, for about a weeklong period the mortality rate was 60 percent, LaCasse said.

    So far this year, a total of 62 stranded sea turtles have been taken to the aquarium.

    Herb is likely between 4 and 7 years old. As an adult, he will weigh 200 to 250 pounds.

    © 2008 The Associated Press.

  2. January, 2009 in Environment

    Fury over Conservationists Taking Fees from Developers

    A proposed megaport and a sea turtle nesting beach collide within the group that maintains the endangered species list

    By Wendee Holtcamp

    Every winter and spring, tens of thousands of endangered olive ridley sea turtles clamber onto the shores of Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary, along India’s northeastern coast, to lay eggs in one of the world’s most spectacular phenomena—the arribada, or mass nesting, which occurs only in India, Costa Rica and Mexico. This past season, however, the arribada did not happen at Gahirmatha.

    Although turtles have occasionally failed to mass-nest in previous years, conservationists fear this time the cause is dredging for a new seaport. Indian scientists and conservation groups place some blame on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), among the world’s most respected conservation organizations. The union has taken corporate money to consult on the port, effectively giving it a green stamp of approval even though it may spell the end for this nesting site.

    Formed in 1948 under the aegis of the United Nations, the IUCN consists of 1,100 member nonprofits and governments plus nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists around the globe. Headquartered near Geneva, the union pushes for sustainable development and conservation solutions, especially in developing nations. Most famously, it manages the Red List of Threatened Species, which keeps track of the plant and animal species left on the planet. In 2004 the IUCN passed two resolutions to engage more closely with the private sector, which ultimately led to the controversy surrounding India’s sea turtles and the IUCN’s involvement with the port.

    The idea of the seaport began in the 1990s, when the Indian state of Orissa began discussing its construction at the mouth of the Dhamra River, part of a broader desire to increase coastal development. But scientists and conservation groups have consistently opposed it, arguing that even at 15 kilometers from Gahirmatha, one of the world’s largest rookeries for olive ridleys, the port and its traffic might prove disastrous. In 2004 a committee on the Indian supreme court concluded that the proposed port site “will seriously impact Gahirmatha’s nesting turtles and could lead to the beach being abandoned by the marine creatures. It is therefore necessary that an alternative site is located for this port.” Renowned Indian scientist and IUCN member B. C. Choudhury, who started radio-telemetry studies on the turtles, says that the Gahirmatha nesting beaches “are eroding at a much faster rate than before and will probably be not even fit for turtles to nest in the future.”

    Despite the threat, the port project gained momentum in 2006, when the Indian conglomerate Tata helped to create the Dhamra Port Company Limited. The firm hired Nicholas Pilcher, a co-chair of the IUCN’s marine turtle specialist group who is based in Malaysia, as a consultant. After a visit to the site, Pilcher wrote to the IUCN presiding species survival commission chair, Holly Dublin, that “this port WILL impact marine turtles, of that there can be no doubt.” But by helping the company develop the best environmental management plan possible, he believed the IUCN could mitigate any effects.

    Today he is of a different mind-set. “Realistically, the impacts on turtles will be so minimal as to not be noticed,” he says. “I just can’t see the hoo-ha people are making over this, particularly as there is not one single scientific piece of literature that suggests the port will be a catastrophe.” Such data could emerge from a new comprehensive environmental impact study, but Tata has steadfastly refused to update its 10-year-old analysis, which critics consider woefully inadequate. (The company said it would relocate the port if it affected the turtles, according to Pilcher’s letter to Dublin.) Tata did agree to turtle-safe dredging techniques and a lighting plan that would avoid serious disturbance of nighttime nesting.

    Pilcher claims all opposition has “come out of ignorance and being misled by Greenpeace and others rather than being against the IUCN’s involvement.” But Indian scientists and conservationists remain united in opposition both to the port and to the IUCN’s role. In 2008 several of Pilcher’s India-based colleagues and other IUCN member groups wrote to IUCN director general Julia Marton-Lefèvre, arguing that the union’s involvement casts “aspersions on the credibility and neutrality” of the IUCN. The letter stated that the port company “is using this purported support of the IUCN to claim that environmental impacts have been adequately addressed and mitigated.” The regional chair of the marine turtle specialty group, Kartik Shanker, has resigned over the situation. “Almost unanimously,” he says, all the specialty group members in India “have opposed the involvement of the IUCN in this project.”

    The Dhamra port is just one of the IUCN’s corporate controversies. Another arose in 2007, when Marton-Lefèvre signed a partnership agreement with Royal Dutch Shell “to enhance the biodiversity conservation performance by Shell” and “to strengthen IUCN’s capacity for leadership in business and biodiversity,” as the agreement puts it. That deal has led to internal dissension, with one of the IUCN’s commission chairs, M. Taghi Farvar, insisting that it should not partner with industries causing wide-scale environmental damage, particularly in light of the IUCN’s mandate for reversing global warming. The controversy led to a motion at the World Conservation Congress last October to cancel the contract. That motion narrowly failed, after Marton-Lefèvre argued that legal action by Shell was possible.

    The IUCN’s dealings with the business world is not likely to slow down, but if the union wants to soothe internal strife, conflicts of interest must be eliminated, and transparency is key, Farvar insists. Tata and Shell can exert undue pressure on the IUCN, because what are financial peanuts to megacorporations are substantial funds to nonprofits. Other groups have managed the balancing act to some degree, such as scientists conducting clinical trials on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. While members continue to debate how the IUCN should navigate these rocky waters, all hope that endangered species and biodiversity will not pay the price.

    Note: This article was originally posted with the title, “Environmental Payoff”.

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
    Wendee Holtcamp, based near Houston, Tex., writes frequently about wildlife and conservation issues.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fury-over-conservationists&page=2

  3. Pingback: Loggerhead turtle nest webcam | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Loggerhead turtle washed up in Cornwall | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s