In the video above, Glenn Beck goes crazy over sea turtle and sea otter conservation. Most certainly, Glenn Beck channels Republican contempt for conservation, environmentalism, environmental regulations, and science. However, there is a great utility in preserving nature and natural landscapes. We all benefit from clean air and water in addition to the preservation of biodiversity—even Glenn Beck.
Furthermore, international sea turtle conservation work in countries such as Mexico is important, because sea turtles do not follow political boundaries. As a result, conservation efforts and gains in the United States are threatened by the lack of environmental regulation, protections, and conservation efforts in other countries.
The Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) is a critically endangered species, and “the recent nesting increase can be attributed to full protection of nesting females and their nests in Mexico, and the requirement to use turtle excluder devices in shrimp trawls both in the United States and Mexico.” More from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
In 1966, conservation efforts for the Kemp’s ridley were initiated on the beach near Rancho Nuevo in Tamaulipas, Mexico. This locale is the only place in the world where large nesting aggregations of this sea turtle were and are known to occur. From 1966 to 1987, conservation efforts focused on the area of Rancho Nuevo with one turtle protection camp. In 1978, the U.S. joined with Mexico at Rancho Nuevo in a bi-national effort to prevent the extinction of the Kemp’s ridley. In 1988, this bi-national program expanded to the south and another camp was added. In 1989, a third camp was established when the program was expanded to the north of Rancho Nuevo. By 1997, a total of seven camps had been established along the Tamaulipas and Veracruz coasts to allow for increased nest protection efforts.
The Mexico government also prohibits harvesting and is working to increase the population through more intensive law enforcement, by fencing nest areas to diminish natural predation, and by relocating all nests into corrals to prevent poaching and predation. While relocation of nests into corrals is currently a necessary management measure, this relocation and concentration of eggs into a “safe” area is of concern since it makes the eggs more susceptible to reduced viability due to movement-induced mortality, disease vectors, catastrophic events like hurricanes, and marine predators once the predators learn where to concentrate their efforts.
—
Photo source for attribution here, here, and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Unfortunately, this sort of “outrage” sells well with Beck’s audience.
Pingback: 31 July 09 (am) « blueollie
I agree with Beck.
Unfortunately, although saving endangered animals is a noble cause, it is very tempting and easy to jump onto a popular bandwagon without knowing where the bandwagon is going. In the case of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, many people have supported the program blindly because it sounds like a noble cause. In reality, prior to the establishment of the sea turtle program on Padre Island, there were never more than five Kemp’s ridleys documented as nesting there in a single season. Almost 200 nested there in 2009. According to the Padre Island National Seashore website, the number of Kemp’s ridley nests may be expected to double every 1-3 years. Considering that each Kemp’s ridley nest contains about 100 eggs, within 10-20 years Kemp’s ridleys will overwhelm the Padre Island beaches during nesting season and a lot of the remaining Texas coast as well. This has the potential to become an environmental catastrophe. But because it is a noble cause on the surface and because no one takes the time to research the Kemp’s ridley’s historical presence in Texas or to question whether the program should exist, the numbers of Kemp’s ridleys on the Texas coast continue to snowball with not only unforeseen environmental consequences, but also with unforeseen consequences to the Texas seafood industry, particularly to the blue crab industry, which is the Kemp’s primary diet, and to the shrimping industry, the shrimping industry, and who knows what other human industries and activities will be impacted in the future. Bandwagons can run out of control.
As a conservative, I resent you stereotyping conservatives or republicans as anti-conservation. For many republicans this is simply not true. Truthfully, my conservative friends are much more eco-friendly than my liberal friends when it comes to actually deeds – adopting turtle nests, giving to Sierra Club or the humane society, etc…
I disagree. However, I do agree that Conservatives, Republicans, or others that believe in similar political ideologies can be conservationists or even identify as an environmentalist. However, the conservative movement and its associated Republican Party as a whole receives poor marks when it comes to environmental issues and conservation. Climate change is an excellent example. The majority of the Republican Party has failed to do anything about climate change and are currently stalling efforts by lying—as they do with all issues President Obama tries to tackle (this is fodder the anti-Obama base, who wish to see the President’s policies fail, therefore our union fail). Cap-and-trade is even a market-based regulatory tool! Are your conservative friends supporting climate change legislation or any efforts to remedy climate change? Do they even believe in climate change? Ocean acidification is associated with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide via anthropogenic activities. Consequently, those sea turtles might be impacted. Do they believe in the Endangered Species Act? Furthermore, Republican leaders, as illustrated by the Bush II Administration, are pro-industry, and they failed to recognize that our economy, goods, and services are depended on a healthy environment. Instead, they put pro-industry folks in charge of Departments that are responsible for managing our natural resources and our environments. The Republicans and/or Conservatives I know champion deregulation, the so-called free markets (the market is too slow to solve environmental problems), private property rights (so they believe that property owners, developers, homeowners, etc., should do whatever they want with their property at the detriment of endangered species and the public interest at large), and small government in addition to low taxes or efforts to force the existence of a small federal government (a strong federal government, promoting uniform policies, is a must to protect the union and its resources, since states can’t do everything alone—the Articles of Confederation was a failure because of this). This philosophy or theory of governing is too narrow and outdated. Although, I believe in some Conservative ideas (e.g., conserving), but it seems the conservative movement and its associated Republican Party as a whole fail to practice their namesake. Personally, I know liberals who are better at conserving energy, the environment, and money or have more money in the bank than Republicans who enjoy big houses, big SUVs, and too much credit. In my opinion, the conservative movement will never survive, because it just can’t solve (or it’s leaders and members can’t solve) some of our most pressing problems—from social issues like immigration, gay marriage, and unemployment to climate change or implementing a clean and sustainable domestic energy policy. It’s just distasteful to a society that naturally progresses even though the Conservative/Republican/Tea Party movement are anti-progressive. Furthermore, this philosophy is bad for the environment and conservation—point blank. So your friends in my opinion are better off voting Democrat, or if they feel Democrats come up short, they should start their own green party and put their narrow-minded Republican ideas aside.