June, 17 2009, 01:24pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jeff Miller, Center for Biological Diversity, (510) 499-9185
Christopher Jones, (936) 615-3740
Tennessee Slow, Florida Out Front in Protecting Freshwater Turtles
Other Southern and Midwestern States Refuse to End Unsustainable Commercial Harvest of Wild Turtles
NASHVILLE, Tenn.
Today the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Commission is considering an emergency rulemaking petition
submitted by health and conservation groups to ban commercial harvest of wild
freshwater turtles from public and private waters throughout the state. The
Commission received the petition in March from the Center for Biological
Diversity, Center for North American
Herpetology, Center for Reptile and Amphibian Conservation and Management,
Center for Food Safety, Tennessee Chapter of the Sierra Club, Tennessee
Herpetological Society, Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association, and Save the
Cumberland. Tennessee is not expected to change harvest regulations, but
Florida's wildlife agency will vote today on finalizing a proposal banning most
commercial turtle harvest in private and public waters in
Florida.
Over two dozen conservation and
public-health groups petitioned Tennessee and 11 other southern and midwestern
states in 2008 and 2009 to prohibit commercial turtle harvest - both to protect
dwindling populations of freshwater turtles and to protect human health. Turtles
sold domestically as food or exported to international food markets are often
contaminated with mercury, PCBs, and pesticides.
"The Asian turtle crisis has hit
Tennessee and
other states that have weak harvest regulations, and our native turtles are in
jeopardy," said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate with the Center for
Biological Diversity. "To supply overseas demand for turtle meat and parts,
commercial harvesters are strip-mining streams of their turtles for the export
trade. This food trade is completely unregulated, and the potential health
implications due to turtles contaminated with carcinogenic toxins are
staggering."
"For more than a decade Tennessee
has known of published contaminant studies from the Tennessee River showing
snapping turtles are contaminated with toxins and dangerous to eat," said Chris Jones, a conservation
attorney representing the petitioning groups. "We believe harvest numbers are
much greater than reported since the state does not monitor how many turtles are
harvested commercially. The demand for turtles in Asia is driving massive
exploitation of wild turtles, on a scale comparable to the buffalo slaughters of the
1800s."
Florida is set to ban commercial turtle
harvest in public and private waters. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission in 2008 imposed a temporary, 20-turtle-a-day limit for commercial
fishermen while it reviewed harvest regulations. The Commission will vote today
on its proposed ban (which would allow licensed turtle farmers to continue to
take an unlimited quantity of broodstock turtles).
More than 25,000 turtles have been
collected from the wild in Tennessee in the past two years, and the state
recently permitted more commercial trapping of snapping turtles on private
ponds. A report published for the Commission in 2008 evaluated the status of
turtles in Reelfoot Lake, the only
body of water in Tennessee where all freshwater turtle species may be
harvested by legal methods. The reportrecommended considering eliminating turtle
harvest at the lake. The Commission continues to contemplate whether to
continue to allow unlimited harvest of eight native turtle species from this
lake and snapping turtles statewide. Tennessee is one of the only states that
has conducted bioaccumulation analyses of toxins in freshwater turtles, with
disturbing results.
In response to the petition,
Oklahoma in
2008 enacted a three-year moratorium on commercial harvest of turtles from
public waters while studying the status of its wild turtle populations, the
effects of commercial harvest, and the potential contamination of turtles sold
as food. In 2007, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department prohibited commercial
harvest of turtles from public waters in Texas. But it allowed continued
unlimited harvest of three native turtle species from the state's private
waters. Most of the state wildlife and health agencies petitioned for emergency
rulemaking to protect wild turtles and public health have refused to act.
Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, and South Carolina
have all denied the petition.
The South Carolina legislature passed a turtle
harvest bill in April 2009, the South Carolina Turtle Export Bill, which was
signed by the governor and is now law. The bill makes it unlawful to remove more
than 10 turtles from the wild in South
Carolina at one time and more than 20 turtles in one
year, for nine native species. This is an improvement, but because commercial
harvest is still allowed and will likely not be well monitored, it creates an
avenue for illegal export of turtles from the state. The
Georgia legislature introduced a bill
this year that would have eliminated harvest from public waters and allowed a
commercial harvest of 10 turtles per day from private waters. This bill did not
survive a house vote and will not be reviewed again until 2010. A bill that
would prohibit the sale, barter, or trade of turtles was being considered by a
subcommittee in the Iowa legislature but did not pass. Kentucky's wildlife
agency stated it will monitor commercial harvest of three turtle species and
review existing harvest restrictions to determine if they provide adequate
protection, and the state health department has agreed to test turtles sold as
food for contaminants.
Most wild turtles harvested in the
United States are exported to
supply food markets in Asia, primarily China, where turtle consumption rates
have soared and as a result, most native freshwater turtles have been driven to
extinction in the wild. Importers are now turning to the United States to
meet demand for turtle meat and parts, sold as an expensive delicacy and a
traditional Chinese medicine. Turtles are sold to Asian seafood markets in the
United
States as well. Many of these turtles are
harvested from streams under state and federal fish advisories and bans that
caution against and prohibit human consumption, due to aquatic contaminants that
are carcinogenic or harmful to humans such as DDT, PCBs, pesticides, mercury,
and other heavy metals. Turtles live longer and bioaccumulate considerably
greater amounts of aquatic contaminants than fish, particularly snapping and
softshell turtles that burrow in contaminated sediments.
Because freshwater turtles are long
lived (some may reach 150 years of age), breed late in life, and have low
reproductive and survival rates, they are highly vulnerable to overharvest.
Removing even a few adults from a stream can have a population effect lasting
for decades, since each adult turtle removed eliminates the reproductive
potential over a breeding life that may exceed 50 years. Stable turtle
populations are dependent on sufficient long-lived breeding adults to offset
natural mortality and human impacts. Commercial collecting of wild turtles
intensifies the effects of water pollution, road mortality, incidental take from
fishery devices, and habitat loss, which are already contributing to turtle
declines. Scientists warn that freshwater turtles can not sustain any
significant level of harvest from the wild without leading to population
crashes.
State wildlife
agencies in Mississippi, North Carolina, and Alabama have prohibited commercial take of
wild freshwater turtles. Wildlife biologists from states with bans have advised
neighboring states to ban harvest also, since wildlife traffickers illegally
collect turtles in states where they are protected and claim they were collected
in states where harvest is still legal. Most states do not survey to determine densities of turtle
populations or require commercial collectors to report the quantity and species
of turtles harvested from the wild.
The petitions and background
information on the commercial harvest of freshwater turtles can be found on the
Center for Biological Diversity's Web site at: www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/southern_and_midwestern_freshwater_turtles/index.html.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Tech Billionaires Get in Line to Support Trump Inauguration Fund
"President Trump will lead our country into the age of AI, and I am eager to support his efforts to ensure America stays ahead," said OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
Dec 13, 2024
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman became the latest tech titan to make an explicit overture to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump when he confirmed Friday that he intends to make a $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund.
The news comes after Meta confirmed Wednesday that it has donated $1 million to the fund, and it was reported Thursday that Amazon intends to make a $1 million donation. The Washington Postcharacterized Altman's move as "the latest attempt to gain favor from a leading technology executive in an industry that has long been a target of Trump's vitriol."
Altman said in a statement that was sent to multiple outlets that "President Trump will lead our country into the age of AI, and I am eager to support his efforts to ensure America stays ahead."
The donation from Meta follows a trip by Meta CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg down to Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club to meet with the president-elect last month. Jeff Bezos, Amazon's executive chairman, is slated to head to Florida to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago next week, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zuckerberg and Trump have not always been on the best of terms—Meta temporarily booted Trump from Instagram and Facebook following his comments regarding the January 6 insurrection, and Trump threatened Zuckerberg with lifetime incarceration if Trump perceived that Zuckerberg was interfering in the 2024 election—but Zuckerberg made entreaties to the then-candidate this past summer when he described Trump's response to his assassination attempt as "badass."
Zuckerberg and Meta refrained from donating to Trump's inauguration fund in 2017, and to President Joe Biden's inauguration fund in 2021, according to The Wall Street Journal.
In response to the news that Meta donated to Trump's inauguration fund this time, the watchdog group Public Citizen wrote: "Shocker! Another tech bro billionaire trying to buy his way into Trump's good graces. Zuckerberg donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund. $1 million to the man who threatened Zuckerberg with life in prison. Grow a spine."
Journalists Mehdi Hasan described the move as "bending both knees to Trump."
Bezos also chafed against Trump during his first presidency. Trump has repeatedly criticized The Washington Post, which is owned by Bezos, for its coverage of him. In legal proceedings, Amazon also accused Trump of swaying the bidding process when the Pentagon chose Microsoft over Amazon for a lucrative contract because of Trump's disdain for Bezos. However, in a move that was viewed as a signal to Trump, Bezos blocked the Post from endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris just before last month's election.
Margaret O'Mara, a history professor at the University of Washington who focuses on the high-tech economy, said during an interview with NPR the fact that support for Trump isn't happening quietly "is something new."
"It's just a recognition that there's not much to be gained in outspoken opposition, but perhaps there is something to be gained by being very clear about your support and hope that Trump does well," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Texas Lawsuit Against New York Doctor Tests Abortion Provider Shield Laws
"It is important to remember that Dr. Carpenter did nothing wrong," said one legal expert. "Texas is trying to apply its laws extraterritorially."
Dec 13, 2024
"Time for shield laws to hold strong," said one reproductive rights expert on Friday as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against an abortion provider in New York.
Paxton is suing Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT), for providing mifepristone and misoprostol to a 20-year-old resident of Collin County, Texas earlier this year.
ACT was established after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, with the intent of helping providers in "shielded states"—those with laws that provide legal protection to doctors who send abortion pills to patients in states that ban abortion, as Carpenter did.
New York passed a law in 2023 stipulating that state courts and officials will not cooperate if a state with an abortion ban like Texas' tries to prosecute a doctor who provides abortion care via telemedicine in that state, as long as the provider complies with New York law.
Legal experts have been divided over whether shield laws or state-level abortion bans should prevail in a case like the one filed by Paxton.
"What will it mean to say for the GOP to say abortion should be left to the states now?"
"It is important to remember that Dr. Carpenter did nothing wrong," said Greer Donley, a legal expert and University of Pittsburgh law professor who specializes in reproductive rights. "She followed her home state's laws."
The Food and Drug Administration also allows telehealth abortion care, "finding it safe and effective," Donley added. "Texas is trying to apply its laws extraterritorially."
In the Texas case, the patient was prescribed the pills at nine weeks pregnant. Mifepristone and misoprostol are approved for use through the 10th week of pregnancy and are more than 95% effective.
The patient experienced heavy bleeding after taking the pills and asked the man who had impregnated her to take her to the hospital. The lawsuit suggests that the man notified the authorities:
The biological father of the unborn child was told that the mother of the unborn child was experiencing a hemorrhage or severe bleeding as she "had been" nine weeks pregnant before losing the child. The biological father of the unborn child, upon learning this information, concluded that the biological mother of the unborn child had intentionally withheld information from him regarding her pregnancy, and he further suspected that the biological mother had in fact done something to contribute to the miscarriage or abortion of the unborn child. The biological father, upon returning to the residence in Collin County, discovered the two above-referenced medications from Carpenter.
In the lawsuit, Paxton is asking a Collin County court to block Carpenter from violating Texas law and order her to pay $100,000 for each violation of Texas' near-total abortion ban.
Carpenter and ACT did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the case.
Caroline Kitchener, who has covered abortion rights for The Washington Post, noted that lawsuits challenging abortion provider shield laws were "widely expected after the 2024 election."
President-elect Donald Trump has said abortion rights should be left up to the states, but advocates have warned that the Republican Party, with control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, is likely to push a national abortion ban.
"The truce over interstate abortion fights is over," said legal scholar Mary Ziegler, an expert on the history of abortion in the U.S. "Texas has sued a New York doctor for mailing pills into the state; New York has a shield law that allows physicians to sue anyone who sues them in this way. What will it mean for the GOP to say abortion should be left to the states now?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dr. Oz Had Up to Tens of Millions Invested in Companies Involved With CMS
"Seniors deserve a CMS leader who will protect and strengthen Medicare—not someone like Dr. Oz who wants to privatize this vital and hugely popular program for great personal gain," said the head of Accountable.US.
Dec 13, 2024
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the "former daytime television fixture" who U.S. President-elect Donald Trump picked to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, reported "up to $56 million in investments in three companies" with direct CMS interests, the watchdog Accountable.US highlighted Friday.
The celebrity heart surgeon is already under fire for his record of peddling "baseless or wrong" health advice and pushing Medicare Advantage (MA)—an alternative to the government-run program administered by private health insurance companies—on The Dr. Oz Show, as well as his stake in UnitedHealth and CVS Health.
The new Accountable.US report—based on disclosures from Oz's unsuccessful 2022 run against U.S. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)—adds to conflict of interest concerns and fears that Oz may thwart the Biden administration's new rule intended to rein in privatized Medicare Advantage plans.
"Dr. Oz's conflicts of interest pose a serious threat to seniors' health security."
"In 2022, Oz's 'single biggest healthcare holding' was up to $26 million in Sharecare, a digital health company Oz co-founded that became the 'exclusive in-home care supplemental benefit program' for 1.5 million MA enrollees across 400 MA plans through its CareLinx service in 2022," the watchdog detailed. "By 2023, CareLinx was available to over 2 million MA enrollees. Sharecare was taken private in a $518 million private equity deal in 2024, and it is unknown if Oz still holds a stake."
Nick Clemens, Oz's spokesperson on the Trump transition team, told USA TODAY—which first reported on the Accountable.US findings—that Oz sold his stake in Sharecare but did not address further questions.
The group noted that "in 2022, Oz disclosed holding up to $25 million in Amazon and up to $5 million in Microsoft, which CMS called its 'two primary cloud service providers' in its FY 2025 budget document, which requested over $3.3 billion in information technology funding for the year. Notably, Amazon Web Services hosted 74 million Medicaid records as early as 2017 and the company has been contracted to streamline Healthcare.gov, the federal health insurance portal run by CMS."
Accountable.US "reviewed filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and was unable to find evidence that Oz sold stocks in Amazon or Microsoft since the 2022 filing," according to USA Today—which found that Oz's stakes could be as high as $26.7 million for Amazon and $6.3 million for Microsoft.
When asked if Oz still owned the stocks in the two tech giants, Trump transition spokesperson Brian Hughes only said that "all nominees and appointees will comply with the ethical obligations of their respective agencies."
Given the nominee's TV and investment history, Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk declared Friday that "seniors deserve a CMS leader who will protect and strengthen Medicare—not someone like Dr. Oz who wants to privatize this vital and hugely popular program for great personal gain."
"If Dr. Oz and Project 2025 had their way, Medicare as we know it would end, replaced with private insurance plans that cost taxpayers more and leave patients vulnerable to denials of care and higher premiums," Carrk continued, citing the Heritage Foundation-led playbook for the incoming Republican president.
"Dr. Oz's conflicts of interest pose a serious threat to seniors' health security," he added, "but as long as big insurance industry megadonors are happy, President-elect Trump doesn't seem to mind."
While Trump has the power to pick the next CMS administrator, the selection requires Senate confirmation—unless the president-elect works around it to install his most controversial nominees.
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and six colleagues wrote to Oz to express their concerns about his qualifications, "advocacy for the elimination of traditional Medicare," and "deep financial ties to private health insurers."
"As CMS administrator, you would be tasked with overseeing Medicare and ensuring that the tens of millions of seniors that rely on the program receive the care they deserve, including cracking down on abuses by private insurers in Medicare Advantage," they pointed out. "The consequences of failure on your part would be grave. Billions of federal healthcare dollars—and millions of lives—are at stake."
The lawmakers sent Oz a list of questions, requesting responses by December 23. They inquired about his views on traditional Medicare and revelations that "private companies overcharge taxpayers and unlawfully deny care." They also asked whether, as administrator, he would commit to "fully divesting of any and all financial holdings related to the insurance industry" and "recusing from any decisions that may impact insurers" in which he has a stake.
Sharing the letter on social media Wednesday, Accountable.US said that Warren "is right: this glaring conflict of interest endangers seniors and puts billions in corporate pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular