News

Demand for Freshwater Turtles as Pets Fuels Mass Poaching

Poaching of turtles, driven by rising demand for pets in the United States, Asia, and Europe, according to wildlife trade experts, is contributing to a worldwide decline of rare freshwater turtles and tortoises.

According to one study, over half of the 360 surviving turtle and tortoise species face extinction.

Such concerns have prompted proposals to strengthen freshwater turtle protection at the International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora meeting in Panama.

Precise figures on the turtle trade, particularly illegal, can be difficult. Tara Easter, a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan who studies the trade, estimated the commercial export trade for mud turtles in the United States increased from 1,844 in 1999 to nearly 40,000 in 2017 and for musk turtles from 8,254 in 1999 to more than 281,000 in 2016.

The United States and several Latin American countries cited data from Mexico in their CITES proposal to ban or limit commercial trade in more than 20 mud turtle species, finding that nearly 20,000 were confiscated, mostly at the Mexico City airport, between 2010 and 2022.

Freshwater turtles are among the world’s most trafficked animals, targeted by criminal networks connecting with buyers on the internet before transporting them to black markets in Hong Kong and other Asian cities. They are then sold as pets, collectors, commercial breeding, food, and traditional medicine.

turtles

The Turtle Trade is poorly regulated.

The lucrative business — some turtle species prized for their colourful shells or unusual appearance can fetch thousands of dollars in Asia.

Poachers are especially dangerous, according to experts, because they target rare turtle species and adult breeding females.

Many turtle species, which can live for decades, do not reach reproductive maturity for at least a decade.

“The loss of large numbers of adults, particularly females, can send turtles into a spiralling decline from which they cannot recover,” said Dave Collins, Turtle Survival Alliance’s director of North American turtle conservation. “Turtles reproduce at an extremely low rate, producing only a few eggs per year.”

The United States Association of Reptile Keepers, which advocates for responsible private ownership and trade in reptiles and amphibians, stated that “limiting captive breeding and legal trade is counterproductive in addressing reductions in wild populations.”

“If there aren’t enough of a species on Earth,… the solution should be to create more of them,” Daniel Parker, the group’s Florida chapter’s director of media, said in a statement. “By cracking down on breeding and trade, authorities are missing out on potentially effective free market conservation solutions.”

Since 2018, the Collaborative to Combat the Illegal Trade in Turtles, a group of mostly state, federal, and tribal biologists dedicated to combating North American turtle poaching, has documented at least 30 major smuggling cases in 15 states. Some involved only a few dozen turtles, while others involved thousands.

turtles

Over the last 20 years, Easter at the University of Michigan has identified 59 cases involving approximately 30,000 illegally traded turtles in the United States.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in North Carolina sentenced a man to 18 months in prison and fined him $25,000 for violating the Lacey Act by trafficking turtles. The law prohibits the illegal taking, possessing, transporting, or selling of fish, wildlife, or plants.

Through a middleman, the man trafficked 722 eastern box turtles — North Carolina’s state reptile — as well as 122 spotted turtles and three wood turtles for markets in Asia. The turtles are worth $1.5 million in Asia, and the man received more than $120,000 for them.

After previously pleading guilty to financing a nationwide smuggling ring that sent 1,500 turtles worth more than $2.2 million from the United States to China, a Chinese national was sentenced to 38 months in prison and fined $10,000 for money laundering in 2021.

The man used PayPal to buy the turtles from American buyers, advertised them on social media and reptile websites, and sold them to reptile markets in Hong Kong.

A New Jersey man was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay $350,000 in restitution and fines in 2020 for transporting 1,000 three-toed and western box turtles from Oklahoma to New Jersey in candy wrappers and socks.

turtles

The illegal trade has prompted governments to propose listing 42 turtle species under CITES for the first time, including North American musk turtles.

Although some species, such as the eastern musk turtle, are common, a listing means that traders will need a permit to sell them internationally.

Commercial sales of other species, such as alligator snapping turtles, which can weigh up to 200 pounds and are found in the Gulf states of the United States, would be restricted.

Proposals would also tighten regulations on 13 others who are already protected.

“We think that’s important because of the trends that we’ve seen over the last couple of decades in international reptile and particularly turtle trade,” said Matthew Strickler of the U.S. Department of the Interior, who will lead the American delegation at CITES.

“There is significant demand from Southeast Asia for food and the pet trade, but there is also demand from Europe for pets,” he said. “We’ve seen a pattern of turtles being depleted in one location, followed by poachers, traffickers, and traders moving to another.” Southeast Asia had been depleted. They relocated to Africa. They are now relocating to the Americas.”

A Rhode Island Environmental Police intern discovered the tiny musk turtles for sale online. They only cost $20 each. The turtles are brown or black with a white or yellow line down the middle of their heads and can live for decades.

In September, police arrested the seller after arranging an undercover purchase at his home. The seller paid a $1,600 fine for illegally possessing a reptile. The turtles, now quarantined at the Providence Zoo, are expected to be healthy and disease-free when released back into the wild.

“When native species are removed even for pets, it has a significant impact,” said Harold Guise, an environmental police detective who handled the case. “Wildlife commercialization impacts wildlife that we can’t measure until it’s too late.” We must get ahead of these issues.”

It reminded Perrotti, the conservation director, that illegal trade, which was previously focused in Asia, is increasingly occurring in his backyard.

“I couldn’t believe there was a market for it and that someone was mass producing or mass collecting these to make a few dollars,” he said. “It’s a $20 turtle.” That is absurd… Wildlife is not a commodity that can be profited from.”

The Associated Press, VOR News

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP