12 



conduct further research to clarify the complex taxonomic 

 relationship and to estimate the total population of this 

 subspecies. The Illinois Mud Turtle is considerably more 

 abundant and widely distributed than previously thought. Local 

 and private efforts should be encouraged to promote its 

 conservation and to protect its habitat. The Panel favored 

 this strategy as the one most likely to succeed." 



Following this memorandum, the Director of the USFWS withdrew the 

 final rule which had been held up pending a decision. The notice 

 withdrawing the Illinois mud turtle from consideration as a candidate for 

 endangered status was published in August 1980, over the objection of OES. 



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 



Dodd (1982) suggested that Monsanto's opposition to the listing might 

 have been automatic stemming from a belief that environmental regulations 

 are a luxury in a society facing economic problems. We do not believe 

 this to be the case. Monsanto was prepared not to oppose the listing had 

 the results of the studies suggested federal protection was warranted. 

 Based upon the results of the studies, however, in combination with the 

 protection the turtle and its habitat were already receiving, they 

 honestly did not believe that federal protection was necessary. They 

 felt, with good cause, that the information that they had gathered was not 

 being seriously considered or given fair treatment, particularly as 

 compared to the Brown and Moll (1979) status report. 



We fail to see the basis for Dodd's (1982) statement that "Almost the 

 entire controversy focused on one particular area. Big Sand Mound, and 

 Indeed, only on 20$ of Big Sand Mound." The major finding of the study 

 that most affected the listing was that the turtle was much more 

 widespread and abundant than formerly believed — it had not largely 

 disappeared from its former range (Bickham et al., 198U). This finding 

 was based upon surveys of selected sites within appropriate habitats over 

 a three-state area, not just the results of ecology studies at Big Sand 

 Mound. 



These critical surveys were supported only by Monsanto, but this fact 

 in no way slights IIGE and state activities involving protection of the 

 turtle, as stated by Dodd (1982). The activities of IIGE and the states 

 (and Monsanto) are, in fact, the keystone to the idea that, although 

 threatened, the mud turtle is already well protected and is without dire 

 need for assistance from the federal government. 



Dodd (1982) next turned to the question of professional ethics in the 

 controversy, noting that "Data misrepresentation, omission, or 

 overstatement has no place in scientific circles", and that the peer 

 review system is designed to insure "accuracy and competence of data and 

 its interpretation." He went on to state that all publications used by 

 USFWS had been submitted to peer review and published by reputable 

 journals prior to the OES decision in 198O to proceed with the listing. 



