Re: [vernalpool] Re: Turtle crossing signs

I am a teacher in Concord MA. My class petitioned to get turtle crossing signs up as part of a Blanding's turtle project we were working on. The town would not allow the signs at a particular hot spot, but did allow for them to be placed in "nesting neighborhoods". We worked with our DPW to order the signs and they will be put up seasonally. The signs are yellow with a turtle picture ( I guess at least in our town caution types of signs need to be yellow), there are words that say slow turtle xing.

I can relate to things being stolen, during our vernal pool study, our PVC gauge, measuring water depth was stolen 4 times. Totally aggravating.

Best,
Susan Erickson
Concord

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 2, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Janet DeLonga <jdelonga@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Have to say that I feel as though someone's reading this over my shoulder (i.e. recent comments), but been here for too many years to flinch TOO much. Anyways, Town of Norfolk has had (and they were stolen) and is again purchasing TURTLES CAUTION CROSSING signs for two locations in town. Each area will have one at either end of the 'hot' spot. Discussion has ensued re stenciling the actual street pavement between the signs for additional visual for drivers. Have any other towns done this that we're aware of? Aside from thoughts that people might not appreciate attention to turtles and not children, there's questions of how far apart, turtle picture or words, along shoulder, type/color of paint, etc.......If Norfolk's the guinea pig, will let you know how it goes.
> Janet DeLonga
> Holbrook
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: matt burne <mattburne@gmail.com>
> To: vernalpool@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, July 2, 2012 2:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [vernalpool] Re: Leeches on dragonfly larvae and beetle
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for identifying yourself, Tim. The Ecology blog is pretty high on
> anonymity, and I hadn't made any progress tracing it to a person, though I
> assumed it was someone on the list who has set up an automated feed to a
> blog. It looks like everything on the blog comes from that type of set up.
>
> I don't have a big problem with these discussions being shared beyond the
> membership of the list; the archive is public, after all. I suppose it's a
> little disconcerting to have every message immediately posted elsewhere,
> but our discussions end up "elsewhere" on a pretty regular basis as it is.
> I know that nothing I share online is anything but public.
>
> We're not so cool with the copyright getting applied to these
> discussions by Ecology Blog, as though they are the Ecology blog's original
> content. The copyright is almost certainly meaningless, but that should
> stop.
>
> As to the rhetorical question of whether or not it's better to share our
> discussions far and wide - I agree that it's a good thing. The control
> that (we) the owners are exerting through the group settings is to ensure
> that no "undesireables" are posting to the group by moderating membership,
> while allowing anyone to read posts that approved members have contributed
> via an open archive.
>
> Thanks to all who contribute on a regular basis, as well as to those who
> lurk and enjoy what gets posted.
>
> Matt
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]